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 Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the the” in line 1 should be rewritten as --wherein the--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein the wherein the” in line 1 should be rewritten as --wherein the--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12, 20-21, 26, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 48, 70, 77, 88 and 90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plant” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps Applicant could rephrase the preamble to indicate that the sensor is for measuring a plant part size and/or other plant part characteristic of a plant?
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a printed circuit board (PCB) supporting a sensing element and an adaptor for the one or more fasteners”. It is unclear whether this is to be construed as a PCB supporting BOTH a sensing element and an adaptor or construed as a PCB supporting a sensing element AND an adaptor for the one or more fasteners, as separate elements. The specification states that the magnetometer 1334 is attached to the PCB 1324. Additionally, the compression limiter 1322 is install and soldered in the PCB to interface with mounting screws 1304. However, there has been no indication that the compression limiter is to be construed as the claimed “adaptor” since there is no mention of an “adaptor” in the specification. Accordingly, the Examiner shall interpret the claims as requiring a PCB that supports both a sensing element and an adaptor for the one or more fasteners.
Based on the rejection of claim 1, claims 2, 5-6, 12, 20-21, 26, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 48, 70, 77, 88 and 90 are rejected based on their dependency upon claim 1.
Considering claim 21, claim 1 already includes a plunger, and thus it is unclear if the claim is requiring an additional plunger OR if the plunger of claim 1 is considered part of a dendrometer. The specification does not provide for a plurality of plungers, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. The Examiner shall interpret this limitation to require only a single plunger, that already mentioned in claim 1, with the additional limitations included from claim 21.
Claim 88 recites the limitation “the two or more components of the sensor” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the limitations are no longer claimed, the Examiner is unable to interpret this claim and apply a prior art rejection at this time.
Considering claim 90, it is unclear if the battery is the only element mounted to the PCB or if the remainder of the elements, radio, power supply, and solar panel are also mounted to the PCB.
Considering claim 90, claim 1 already requires a power supply, thus the limitation of claim 90 appears to be referring to an additional power supply. It is unclear if this is the same power supply or not, based on the specification and claims. Furthermore, the specification makes it clear that the power supply already comprises a battery or a solar panel or both ([0010]), so having a power supply, battery and solar panel in the claim appears to require redundant elements. The Examiner is unable to make an interpretation of the claimed subject matter at this time.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 40 and 90 use the conjunctive phrase one (or more) of X, Y, and Z, which has been found by the courts to require (at least) one of X, (at least) one of Y, AND (at least) one of Z (Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290; SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, these claims shall require at least one of each element.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 12, 20-21, 26, 31, 34, 36, 42, 48, 70, and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez Pique et al. (WO 2009130348 A1) in view of Clonch et al. (NPL – Low-cost, Low-profile Dendrometer Optimized for Grapevines) and Ben Hamozeg (US 2019/0104715 A1).
Considering claim 1, Vazquez Pique disclose a sensor for measuring plant part size and/or other plant part characteristics, comprising:
- one or more fasteners 7 configured to be positioned in or around a plant part 5 (Figure 1; Page 6, line 29 – Page 7, line 8);
- a linear plunger 2 configured to contact the outside of the plant 5 (Figures 1-2; Page 6, lines 16-23; LVDT technology discussed at Page 2, lines 15-19);
- a power supply (battery or batteries, Page 5, lines 1-4).
The invention by Vazquz Pique fails to explicitly disclose a printed circuit board (PCB) supporting a sensing element and a processor.
However, Clonch teaches the use of a PCB supporting a sensing element (AS5311 Magnetic Sensor; Figures 1-2; Page 4, “Motion is tracked by the AS5311 magnetic sensor, which is attached to the main long body (3)” and a processor (Adafruit Feather M0; Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a PCB supporting a sensing element and a processor, as taught by Clonch, in the invention by Vazquez Pique. The motivation for doing so, as understood in the art, is to provide power, data and communication management while minimizing the need for hand soldiering by using a PCB.
The invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch, fails to explicitly disclose that the PCB further supports an adaptor for the one or more fasteners.
However, Ben Hamozeg teaches a PCB 930 that supports sensing elements (at least accelerometer) and further supports an adapter 920 for the one or more fasteners 910 (Figure 9; [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a PCB that supports an adapter for the one or more fasteners, as taught by Ben Hamozeg, in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch. The motivation for doing so is provide a rigid base that separates the PCB from the anchor, thus reducing relative movement of the PCB to the anchor, while still allowing vibration to pass to sensors onboard the PCB, as would have been understood in the art.
Considering claim 2, Vazquez Pique has already discussed LVDT technology and a resistive linear position sensor, but fails to explicitly disclose that the sensing element is a magnetometer and the linear plunger contains a magnet.
However, Clonch teaches the use of a linear magnetic plunger (magnet rests on the underside of the T piece (2)) and a magnetometer sensing element (AS5311 magnetic sensor).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known technique of a linear magnetic plunger coupled with a magnetometer as taught by Clonch for the resistive linear position sensor disclosed by Vazquez Pique, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Both the resistive linear position sensor and the magnetic linear position sensor are functionally equivalent for establishing movement, the magnetic sensor, however, is contactless, which increases its durability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a magnetometer and magnet in the linear plunger as taught by Clonch, in the invention by Vazquez Pique.
Considering claim 6, Vazquez Pique discloses that the power supply comprises a battery and/or a solar panel (battery or batteries, Page 5, lines 1-4).
Considering claim 12, Vazquez Pique discloses a recorder within a housing, but fails to explicitly disclose that the processor and power supply is enclosed within a housing. It is noted that Clonch mentions future work to include weather protection for the electronics.
However, Ben Hamozeg teaches the use of a base 920, O-ring 960 and cap 970 that form a protective enclosure of power supply 950 and PCB 930 containing a processor (Figure 9; [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a protective housing for the power supply and processor in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch, as taught by Ben Hamozeg. The motivation for doing so is to provide sealing from the environment, was would have been understood in the art.
Considering claim 20, Vazquez Pique discloses that the sensor comprises a dendrometer (Abstract).
Considering claim 21, Vazquez Pique discloses that dendrometer comprises:
- a plunger 2 having a cap and a shaft, wherein the cap plunger is configured to be positioned against the plant part, and wherein the plunger is configured to move laterally in proportion to a change in plant size (Figure 1; Abstract).
The invention by Vazquez Pique fails to dsicose that the dendrometer comprises a magnet attached to or within the shaft, wherein the magnet is configured to move laterally in association with the plunger; and a magnetometer configured to detect position of the magnet.
However, Clonch teaches the use of a linear magnetic plunger (magnet rests on the underside of the T piece (2)) and a magnetometer sensing element (AS5311 magnetic sensor).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known technique of a linear magnetic plunger coupled with a magnetometer as taught by Clonch for the resistive linear position sensor disclosed by Vazquez Pique, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Both the resistive linear position sensor and the magnetic linear position sensor are functionally equivalent for establishing movement, the magnetic sensor, however, is contactless, which increases its durability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a magnetometer and magnet in the linear plunger as taught by Clonch, in the invention by Vazquez Pique.
Considering claim 26, Vazquez Pique discloses that the sensor is configured to measure change in diameter or radius of the plant part and/or configured to measure plant part size multiple times per day (Abstract; Page 5, lines 6-9, every 15 minutes).
Considering claim 31, the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch, fails to explicitly disclose an accelerometer supported by the PCB.
However, Ben Hamozeg teaches a PCB 930 that supports an accelerometer (Figure 9; [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a PCB that supports an accelerometer, as taught by Ben Hamozeg, in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch. The motivation for doing so is provide an indication of pest gnawing, worker treatments, as suggested by Ben Hamozeg ([0073]; [0075]), and movement of the physical sensor, such as by theft.
Considering claim 34, the invention by Vazquez Pique suggests coupling a temperature sensor with the dendrometer (Page 5, lines 20-24), but fails to explicitly disclose that the PCB supports a temperature sensor. Similarly, Clonch teaches that the dendrometer utilizes a temperature sensor (SHT-30, Page 5; electrically connected with other components).
However, Ben Hamozeg teaches the PCB supports a temperature sensor (Figure 2c; [0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support a temperature sensor on the PCB as taught by Ben Hamozeg, in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch. The motivation for doing so is to provide ambient temperature indication as compared to on plant temperatures, based on the difference between Ben Hamozeg’s front end and back end sensors (Figure 2c; [0124-127]).
Considering claim 36, the invention by Vazquez Pique suggests coupling additional sensors with the dendrometer (Page 5, lines 20-24), but fails to explicitly disclose that the PCB supports a humidity sensor. Similarly, Clonch teaches that the dendrometer utilizes a humidity sensor (SHT-30, Page 5; electrically connected with other components).
However, Ben Hamozeg teaches the PCB supports a humidity sensor (Figure 2c; [0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support a humidity sensor on the PCB as taught by Ben Hamozeg, in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch. The motivation for doing so is to provide ambient humidity indication as compared to on plant humidity, based on the difference between Ben Hamozeg’s front end and back end sensors (Figure 2c; [0124-127]).
Considering claim 42, Vazquez Pique fails to explicitly disclose the use of a transmitter. The invention by Clonch discusses future considerations to add LoRa communication, but does not appear to have implemented it at the time of publication.
However, Ben Hamozeg teaches the use of a transmitter (Figure 2c, Transceiver; [0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a transmitter, as taught by Ben Hamozeg, in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch. The motivation for doing so is to provide remote interrogation and monitoring of individual plants or trees without sending a person to manually retrieve data.
Considering claim 48, Vazquez Pique discloses that the one or more fasteners comprises a screw, threaded rod, or nail, and wherein the screw, threaded rod, or nail is configured to be positioned within the plant part and mount the sensor to the plant part (Figure 1); or the one or more fasteners comprises one or more curved arm(s), wherein the curved arm(s) are configured to be positioned around the plant part.
Considering claim 70, Vazquez Pique discloses that the plant is: a tree or woody plant (Abstract); or a vine.
Considering claim 77, Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch and Ben Hamozeg already disclose the sensor according to claim 1.
Further the invention by Ben Hamozeg teaches a mobile device and/or server; wherein the sensor is connected to the mobile device and/or server via wireless communication and configured to transmit data to the mobile device and/or server ([0076]; [0092]; [0094]; [0203-204]; [0208]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a mobile device and/or server connectd via wireless communication to transmit data from the sensor to the mobile device and/or server, as taught by Ben Hamozeg, in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch. The motivation for doing so is to provide remote interrogation and monitoring of individual plants or trees without sending a person to manually retrieve data.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez Pique et al. (WO 2009130348 A1) in view of Clonch et al. (NPL – Low-cost, Low-profile Dendrometer Optimized for Grapevines) and Ben Hamozeg (US 2019/0104715 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Puchinger (NPL – IoT Sensor Swarm for Agricultural Microclimate Measurement).
The invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch, appears to show a conventional PCB board supporting the magnetometer AS5311, but the details of the construction of the PCB are not inherent. Therefore, the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch and Ben Hamozeg, fails to explicitly disclose that the PCB comprises an epoxy-fiberglass composite material. The Applicant has challenged the Examiner’s previous assertion of Official Notice. Accordingly, a prior art reference is being used to show the obviousness of the general use of an epoxy-fiberglass composite material as a PCB element.
However, Puchinger explicitly teaches the use of FR-4 PCB elements that support a sensing element (Page 61, FR4 substrate are used; Pages 68-69, FR4 substrate used to make Leaf Wetness Boards; Page 72, full FR4 PCB with/without protective casing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the extremely well-known FR4 PCB material as taught by Puchinger, in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch and Ben Hamozeg. The motivation for doing so to allow the sensors to tackle different environmental conditions (Page 35).
Claims 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez Pique et al. (WO 2009130348 A1) in view of Clonch et al. (NPL – Low-cost, Low-profile Dendrometer Optimized for Grapevines) and Ben Hamozeg (US 2019/0104715 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goes Gasparoto et al. (US 2021/0192911 A1).
Considering claim 38, the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch and Ben Hamozeg, fails to explicitly disclose that the PCB supports a light sensor.
However, Goes Gasparoto teaches a PCB that supports a light sensor 30 (Figures 4-5; [0062; [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a light sensor supported by the PCB, as taught by Goes Gasparoto, in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch and Ben Hamozeg. The motivation for doing so is to provide an indication of daily sunlight, as would be understood in the art.
Considering claim 40, the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch and Ben Hamozeg already discloses a dendrometer with an accelerometer, temperature sensor, and humidity sensor, but fails to disclose a light sensor.
However, Goes Gasparoto teaches a PCB that supports a light sensor 30 (Figures 4-5; [0062; [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a light sensor supported by the PCB, as taught by Goes Gasparoto, in the invention by Vazquez Pique, as modified by Clonch and Ben Hamozeg. The motivation for doing so is to provide an indication of daily sunlight, as would be understood in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-6, 12, 20-21, 26, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 48, 70, 77, 88 and 90 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights