DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/2024 and 12/3/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement submissions are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of a minor informality in Figure 3A. Specifically, the dotted box labeled 110b includes illegible text. It appears to indicate a file folder address (D:\... 3A.jpg). For clarity, the text should be deleted. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- The claim limitation: “an impedance measurement unit”, in the recitation “an impedance measuring unit configured to obtain electrical signals by using the plurality of flexible electrodes and to measure impedance values associated with the plate-shaped tissue and the tubular tissue based on the electrical signals” as recited in claim 1.
- The claim limitation: “a spectrum monitor” in the recitation “a spectrum monitor configured to generate an impedance spectrum based on the impedance values and to monitor the impedance spectrum to sense an ion stress of the plant” as recited in claim 1.
- The claim limitation: “impedance measurement unit” in the recitation “measuring, at the impedance measurement unit, impedance values associated with the plate-shaped tissue and the tubular tissue based on the voltage” as recited in claim 10.
- The claim limitation: “spectrum monitor” in the recitation “generating, at a spectrum monitor, an impedance spectrum based on the impedance values; and monitoring, at the spectrum monitor, the impedance spectrum to sense an ion stress of the plant” as recited in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
- In regards to the limitation “impedance measurement unit”, the limitation is interpreted to cover: a voltage supply unit that supplies a voltage, a signal reception unit that receives an electrical signal based on said voltage, and a measurement unit that measures the first impedance based on the electrical signal, as described in paragraph 0009 of the Specification or equivalents thereof.
- In regards to the limitation “spectrum monitor”, the Specification does not appear to describe the corresponding structure performing the claimed function and or equivalents thereof. The examiner notes that, although several paragraphs describe a procedure for sensing an ion stress of the plant (see for example paragraph 0011: “As an example, the voltage supply unit adjusts the voltage such that a frequency of the voltage changes. As a result of monitoring the impedance spectrum, the spectrum monitor senses the ion stress by analyzing a change in the first impedance value and a change in the second impedance value corresponding to the change in the frequency”), the Specification fails to describe what a corresponding structure of the spectrum monitor and/or its equivalents.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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 limitation: “spectrum monitor” as recited in claims 1 and 10, is 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Although several paragraphs describe a procedure for sensing an ion stress of the plant (see for example paragraph 0011: “As an example, the voltage supply unit adjusts the voltage such that a frequency of the voltage changes. As a result of monitoring the impedance spectrum, the spectrum monitor senses the ion stress by analyzing a change in the first impedance value and a change in the second impedance value corresponding to the change in the frequency”), the Specification fails to describe what the spectrum monitor is and/or what components/elements it uses to performs the described analysis of change in impedance values and/or ion stress. Because of the lack of description regarding the recited spectrum monitor, it’s not possible to ascertain if the applicant had possession of the claimed “spectrum monitor” capable of performing the functions associated with it.
Claims 2-9 and 11-19 are also rejected as they inherit the deficiencies in claims 1 or 10 as explained above.
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.
Claim 1-19 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.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 10, 18 and 19, as explained in paragraph 7 above, the claim limitation “spectrum monitor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although several paragraphs describe a procedure for sensing an ion stress of the plant (see for example paragraph 0011: “As an example, the voltage supply unit adjusts the voltage such that a frequency of the voltage changes. As a result of monitoring the impedance spectrum, the spectrum monitor senses the ion stress by analyzing a change in the first impedance value and a change in the second impedance value corresponding to the change in the frequency”), the Specification fails to describe what a corresponding structure of the spectrum monitor and/or its equivalents. Therefore, the claims are indefinite as they fail to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. The examiner is unable to ascertain the scope of the claim insofar as it’s not clear what the recited “spectrum monitor” is or what it comprises. Thus, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5, 7-9 and 11-17 are also rejected as they inherit the deficiencies in claims 1 or 10 noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 11,039,576 by Shimokawa et al., directed to a vascular sap measurement sensor including a trapping probe inserted into the body of a plant so as to be in contact with tissues and provide measurements related to its constitution. See below:
PNG
media_image1.png
889
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent US 9,857,391 by Shimokawa et al., directed to a plant water dynamics sensor usable for measuring the dynamics of water flowing in a fine point of a plant comprising a heater-equipped temperature probe, a temperature sensor; an electrical resistance probe and a support. See figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
632
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
729
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent US 11,913,933 by Dong et al., directed to systems for transducing measurements for monitoring of plants. A microcircuit on or in the probe body transduces relevant measurements from the microsensor(s). See figure below:
PNG
media_image4.png
531
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
215
529
media_image5.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2025/0290884 A1 by BOSCH ROS et al., directed to a system and method for the evaluation of the hydric state of a plan comprising two electrodes separated a certain distance, and adapted for insertion, in the trunk of a plant to establish galvanic contact and to calculate an electrical conductance value from an applied electrical voltage and the resulting measured voltage.
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2021/0318261 by OKAMOTO et al., directed to a voltage applying part for applying a voltage between electrodes of a biosensor, a detection part for measuring a current value flowing between the electrodes and a computing part for providing information resulting from the microorganisms by comparing the current value with a reference value. See figure below:
PNG
media_image6.png
549
494
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
480
502
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 February 6, 2026