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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10564122).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a soil water extraction device comprising at least one matrix body (Fig.5a, 81) into which at least one channel (Fig.5a, tubes between 81 and 82) for receiving a soil water sample is incorporated and a porous, hydrophilic ceramic which is likewise incorporated into the matrix body and closes off the channel towards the soil side (Column 11, lines 32-65), flush with the matrix body and a hose which leads from the opposite side of the channel to a pump (Fig.5a, 83) which is driven by a motor driver (Column 11, lines 32-65), wherein the motor driver is controlled by means of a microcontroller and the microcontroller is connected to at least one interface and through the interface information about the moisture is given to the microcontroller during operation and are compared with stored target values (Column 11, line 65 to column 12, line 4, “ When the soil water potential was high, which means wet soil, the extraction rate was also high (e.g., 26.3±1.73 μL/hr at −13 kPa). The extraction rate dropped significantly with decreasing soil water potential (FIG. 5(e))”).
Regarding claim 4, Xu teaches wherein the matrix body is attached to a substrate body (As shown in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches wherein the microcontroller is also connected to a further interface (As shown in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches wherein the material for the matrix body is selected from the group consisting of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyimide (PI), polystyrene (PS), polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC), cycloolefin copolymer (COC) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Xu teaches wherein the average pore size of the porous hydrophilic ceramic is from 500 nm to 5 μm (Column 11, lines 32-65).
Regarding claim 10, Xu teaches a method for extracting of soil water comprising the following steps: i. transmitting information of the moisture via an interface to the microcontroller (Column 11, line 66 to column 12, line 4 and Fig.5e); ii. processing the information of the moisture and comparison with stored target values in the microcontroller (Column 11, line 66 to column 12, line 4 and Fig.5e); iii. actuating the motor driver of the pump by the microcontroller on the basis of the basis of the result from step ii (Column 11, line 66 to column 12, line 4 and Fig.5e); iv. filling the channel and the hose with soil water by means of the ceramic and the pump driven by the motor driver (Column 11, lines 57-59).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10564122) in view of Skaling (U.S. Publication No. 20210231548).
Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Xu is silent about wherein the porous, hydrophilic ceramic (3) is made of aluminum oxide (Al2O3).
Skaling teaches wherein the porous, hydrophilic ceramic (3) is made of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use aluminum oxide for Xu’s hydrophilic ceramic because it has high chemical stability, exceptional wear resistance, and surface controllability.
Claims 3, 7, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10564122).
Regarding claim 3, Xu teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Xu is silent about wherein the power consumption is less than 1 W due to the dimensioning of the drive of the pump.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use pump with power consumption less than 1 W, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Xu teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Xu is silent about wherein the channel has a width from 10 μm to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use channel with a width from 10 μm to 3 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Xu is silent about wherein the volume of the pores in the total volume of the porous hydrophilic ceramic is in the range from 20 to 60 percent of the volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use hydrophilic ceramic with volume of the pores in the total volume of the porous hydrophilic ceramic in the range from 20 to 60 percent of the volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Xu teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Xu is silent about wherein the power consumption is less than 500 mW due to the dimensioning of the drive of the pump.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use pump with power consumption less than 500 mW, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Xu teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Xu is silent about wherein the power consumption is less than 400 mW due to the dimensioning of the drive of the pump.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use pump with power consumption less than 400 mW, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Xu teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Xu is silent about wherein the volume of the pores in the total volume of the porous hydrophilic ceramic is in the range from 30 to 50 percent of the volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use hydrophilic ceramic with volume of the pores in the total volume of the porous hydrophilic ceramic in the range from 30 to 50 percent of the volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Xu teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Xu is silent about wherein the volume of the pores in the total volume of the porous hydrophilic ceramic is in the range from 35 to 40 percent of the volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use hydrophilic ceramic with volume of the pores in the total volume of the porous hydrophilic ceramic in the range from 35 to 40 percent of the volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights