DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites “multi-state encoding” which was not mentioned in the specification. The paragraph cited in support of the limitation more closely supports the elements of claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7 12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20210286961 to Salehi-Abari.
Regarding Claim 1, Salehi-Abari discloses a soil moisture sensor (Figs. 1-7, RFID soil moisture measuring system 101; ¶¶ [0022]-[0027]) comprising: a radio transceiver for transmitting a first radio signal and receiving a second signal, the radio transceiver adapted to be moved above a surface of soil among locations (Figs. 1-7, RFID reader 107 attached to robotic arm configured to move above rows and columns of pots; ¶¶ [0022]-[0027], [0035]); a transponder circuit adapted for burying in the soil at a predetermined depth and operating to receive and store energy from the first radio signal and to use the stored energy to transmit the second radio signal and to encode the second radio signal with an encoding indicating a strength of the first radio signal (Figs. 1-7, active reader 107 transmits interrogator signals to and receives authentication replies from passive tags 111 that harvest energy from the reader's signal to power up to reply to reader 107 by reflecting high power signal using ON-OFF keying modulation; ¶¶ [0022]-[0027], [0035]); and an output circuit communicating with the radio transceiver providing an output indicating soil moisture as a function of the strength of the encoding of the second radio signal (Figs. 1-7, moisture level determining module 303 of RFID soil moisture measuring manager 105 monitoring signal features (e.g., MRT, RSS, DMRT) from RFID reader 107; ¶¶ [0022]-[0029], [0035]).
Regarding Claim 5, Salehi-Abari discloses the transponder harvests energy from the first radio signal by rectification of the first radio signal and storage in a capacitance (Figs. 1-7, active reader 107 transmits interrogator signals to and receives authentication replies from passive tags 111 that harvest energy from the reader's signal to power up; ¶¶ [0022]-[0027], [0035]);.
Regarding Claim 7, Salehi-Abari discloses a second transponder circuit adapted for positioning at a surface of the soil and operating to receive and store energy from the first radio signal and to use the stored energy to transmit a third radio signal with an encoding indicating a strength of the first radio signal (Figs. 1 and 5, active reader 107 transmits interrogator signals to and receives authentication replies from first tag 111.sub.FIRST deployed toward the bottom of the container 109 close to the soil, and a second tag 111.sub.SECOND deployed towards the top of the container 109 above the level of the soil that harvest energy from the reader's signal to power up to reply to reader 107 by reflecting high power signal using ON-OFF keying modulation; ¶¶ [0022]-[0027], [0035], [0055]-[0061]); and wherein an output circuit combines the second radio signal and third radio signal to extract a net attenuation of the first radio signal by the soil (Figs. 1-7, moisture level determining module 303 of RFID soil moisture measuring manager 105 monitoring signal features (e.g., MRT, RSS, DMRT) from RFID reader 107; ¶¶ [0022]-[0029], [0035], [0055]-[0061]).
Regarding Claim 12, Salehi-Abari discloses the transponder and second transponder operate independently after receiving the first transmission (Figs. 1 and 5, active reader 107 transmits interrogator signals to and receives authentication replies from first tag 111.sub.FIRST deployed toward the bottom of the container 109 close to the soil, and a second tag 111.sub.SECOND deployed towards the top of the container 109 above the level of the soil that harvest energy from the reader's signal to power up to reply to reader 107 by reflecting high power signal using ON-OFF keying modulation; ¶¶ [0022]-[0027], [0035], [0055]-[0061]).
Regarding Claim 15, Salehi-Abari discloses the transponder is free from galvanic connection with the soil (Figs. 1-7, passive tags 111 in or near soil; ¶¶ [0022]-[0027], [0035]).
Regarding Claim 16, Salehi-Abari discloses the transponder is free from batteries (Figs. 1-7, passive tags 111 with no battery; ¶¶ [0022]-[0027], [0035]).
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salehi-Abari.as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of US 20130255783 to Runge.
Regarding Claim 6, Salehi-Abari discloses the soil moisture sensor of claim 1, and further discloses the sensor is a transponder. However, Salehi-Abari does not disclose an electrically insulating stake having the sensor attached thereto and adapted to bury the sensor at the predetermined depth by insertion of the stake into the soil and to provide a surface visible portion. Runge discloses an electrically insulating stake having the sensor attached thereto and adapted to bury the sensor at the predetermined depth by insertion of the stake into the soil and to provide a surface visible portion (Figs. 1, 3-4 and 6-9, moisture sensor 100 with exposed top housing portion 102 and stakes 104 and upper support portion 108 securing buried conductive sensor electrodes 106; ¶¶ [0024]-[0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Salehi-Abari by providing an electrically insulating stake having the sensor attached thereto and adapted to bury the sensor at the predetermined depth by insertion of the stake into the soil and to provide a surface visible portion as in Runge in order to provide for more secure installation.
Regarding Claim 10, Salehi-Abari discloses the soil moisture sensor of claim 7, and further discloses the sensor is a buried transponder and a second transponder at the surface of the soil. However, Salehi-Abari does not disclose an electrically insulating stake having sensor attached thereto and adapted to bury the sensor at the predetermined depth by insertion of the stake into the soil. Runge discloses an electrically insulating stake having sensor attached thereto and adapted to bury the sensor at the predetermined depth by insertion of the stake into the soil (Figs. 1, 3-4 and 6-9, moisture sensor 100 with top housing portion 102 and stakes 104 and upper support portion 108 securing buried conductive sensor electrodes 106; ¶¶ [0024]-[0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Salehi-Abari by providing an electrically insulating stake having sensor attached thereto and adapted to bury the sensor at the predetermined depth by insertion of the stake into the soil as in Runge in order to provide for more secure installation.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salehi-Abari.as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8354852 to Campbell.
Regarding Claim 14, Salehi-Abari discloses the soil moisture sensor of claim 1, but does not disclose the predetermined depth is greater than 5 cm. Campbell discloses the predetermined depth is greater than 5 cm (Fig. 9, wireless soil sensor 21 is preferably installed as close as 3-12 inches from soil surface for monitoring soil moisture in shallow rooting turf; Col. 11, lines 41-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Salehi-Abari by providing predetermined depth is greater than 5 cm as in Campbell in order to provide for a greater range for wireless telemetry.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding multi-state encoding are not persuasive since such encoding is new matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights