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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered [see paragraph [004] for details].
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a processor and data storage device [claim 12] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a) in paragraph [001], last line after “in its entirely.” input the following: --This application is a continuation of application No. 17/599,085, filed on Sept 28, 2021, now Patent No. 12,135,319.-- b)In paragraph [031], line 4, after “16/095,011” input the following: --now Patent No. 11,002,758--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the tip” should be change to --a tip-- since there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4, 10 and 16-17 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.
a)Regarding claims 3 and 16, the claims state: “the information that is delivered to the user is membrane integrity.” The specification does not provide a full, clear and concise description on how the "membrane integrity" is correlated with impedance measurements given by a device in order to be "delivered to the user."
For examination purposes, the examiner at this time is not given patentable to the limitation above until further explanation is given by the applicant.
b) Regarding claims 4 and 17, the claims state: " the information that is delivered to the user is ion leakage." The specification does provide a full, clear and concise description on how the "ion leakage" is correlated with impedance measurements given by a device in order to be "delivered to the user."
For examination purposes, the examiner at this time is not given patentable to the limitation above until further explanation is given by the applicant.
c) Regarding claim 10, the claim states: "...tip " can only penetrate the plant to a predetermined depth." It is not clear from the specification what is the "predetermine depth" of the penetration of the tip.
For examination purposes, the examiner at this time is not given patentable to the limitation "predetermine depth" until further explanation is given by the applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eunyong Jeon et al (Development of electrical conductivity measurement technology for key plant physiological information using microneedle sensor) [article was supplied in the parent application 17/599,085].
PNG
media_image1.png
277
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
262
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Jeon et al disclose [see Figs. 1(a) and 4(b) above] a system (Item E assembly) for real-time monitoring of plant status [see Abstract for details] comprising: a probe comprising: a body (electrode pad) that attaches to the plant [see Figs. 1(b) and 11 for drawing details of the probe connected to the plant]; and a microprobe (Item A microneedle) that measure impedance of the plant; and a device (Item D impedance analyzer) that receives the impedance measurements from the microprobe (Item A) and provides information to a user based on the impedance measurements [see page 4 starting at section 3.2 - page 7].
Regarding claim 2, Jeon et al disclose wherein the information that is delivered to the user is relative water content [see Abstract, page 6 section 4.1.2 and page 8 regarding Figure 12].
Regarding claim 5, Jeon et al disclose wherein the microprobe (Item A) comprises a microneedle [see Figs above].
Regarding claim 6, Jeon et al disclose the microprobe (Item A) inherently comprises a nanowire. Although the prior art does not specifically disclose the claimed nanowire, this feature is seen to be an inherent teaching of that microprobe device (microneedle) since a wire is presented in Fig. 1(a) connected to the electrode pad is disclosed and it is apparent that some type of nanowire must be presented for the microprobe (microneedle) to function as intended.
Regarding claim 8, Jeon et al disclose wherein the nanowire [part of the microneedle] is a semiconductor [see page 2 section 2.1 for details].
Regarding claim 9, Jeon et al disclose wherein the nanowire [part of the microneedle] is only conductive at the tip [see pages 3-4 section 3.1 for details where such items as titanium, gold and aluminum are used].
Regarding claim 10, Jeon et al as best understood disclose wherein the nanowire tip can only penetrate the plant to a predetermined depth [see page 2 section 2.1 for details].
Regarding claim 11, Jeon et al disclose wherein the microprobe (Item A) forms at least a part of the body (electrode pad) that is attached to the plant [see Figs 3(b) and 11].
Regarding claim 12, Jeon et al disclose wherein the device comprises a processor [shown in the prior art as microcontroller see page 4 section 3.2] and data storage device [not shown but see page 8 regarding Figure 12] in order to retain historical information.
Regarding claim 13, Jeon et al disclose an array of microprobes (Item A see Fig. 3(b)) that measure impedance of the plant.
Regarding claim 14, Jeon et al disclose [see also Figs. 1(a) and 3(b) above] a method for measuring real-time plant status comprising: attaching, to a plant [see Fig. 11 as well], a microprobe (Item A microneedle) that measure impedance of the plant; transmitting the impedance measurement [via Item D impedance analyzer] to a user interface [known in the prior art as microcontroller]; and converting the impedance measurement into user-friendly data that provides plant status information to the user [via microcontroller see page 4 starting at section 3.2 - page 7 for details].
Regarding claim 15, Jeon et al disclose wherein the information that is provided to the user is relative water content [see Abstract, page 6 section 4.1.2 and page 8 regarding Figure 12].
Regarding claim 18, Jeon et al disclose wherein the plant status information includes historical information [see page 6 section 4.1 - page 7 for details].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eunyong Jeon et al (Development of electrical conductivity measurement technology for key plant physiological information using microneedle sensor) [article was supplied in the parent application 17/599,085].
Regarding claim 7, Jeon et al disclose the nanowire (part of Item A microneedle). However, the prior art does not disclose the nanowire is a gallium nitride nanowire. It is known in the art to have different materials for the nanowire where needed by the user [see MPEP 2144.04; In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have different materials for the nanowire as claimed since it was found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Lee E Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights