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 .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, where claims 6, 13 and 19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
3- Here is a brief response to the Arguments presented by the Applicants to explain further the rationale behind the new rejections and the Examiner’s interpretations.
4- Applicants argue in their response (pp. 7-11)
I. Sibley does not teach or suggest "predicting a need" of the monitored area or
variation of that need across the monitored area….Sibley describes a system that detects agricultural objects and determines treatment actions for those objects - it does not predict a need.
II. Sibley does not teach or suggest a "distributed sensor network."… Sibley does not disclose this claimed sensor network. Sibley describes sensors associated with an agricultural observation and treatment system, including sensors on a vehicle, treatment system, onsite platform, or treatment module.
III. The rejection relies on hindsight reconstruction rather than an articulated
reason to combine… The Office concedes that Sibley "does not teach expressly all the components and functionalities in one single clear embodiment." (Office Action at 5-6.) The rejection then stitches together vehicle-mounted sensors, distributed sensing elements, mapping modules, and treatment systems drawn from separate embodiments of Sibley to reconstruct the claimed architecture.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants and submits the following rationales with respect to previous arguments:
Sibley teaches, in ¶ 211 for ex., “ Because not all plants need the same amount, for example by type, volume, frequency, or a combination thereof, of treatment based on the stage of growth of the particular plant, the agricultural treatment system can be configured to scan a row of crops to identify the stage of growth of each individual crop or agricultural object that is a plant or portion of a plant and determine whether the identified crop or agricultural object needs a treatment on the particular trial run, or day, or at the particular moment in time the vehicle with agricultural treatment system is on the field and has detected the individual agricultural object.”, which clearly points to the specific needs to be
determined for each type of plant among the different plants.
Sibley undoubtedly suggests, Figs. 1, 4, 8 and ¶ 124, 183 for ex., the detection system comprising a network of modules 804 each with one or more sensors, one or more image capture sensors and illumination units, distributed across the plant area in addition to the sensing modules present on the moving vehicle.
The Examiner submits that one PHOSITA would find it obvious to combine the different teachings from the different embodiments of Sibley under an obviousness rationale based on 35 USC 103, since the different embodiments are all of the related art of inspecting/measuring vital and physical signals from the plants, and since Sibley suggests the possibility of using the different sensors, communication means and illumination sources to achieve the ultimate goals of determining the conditions of the plants and specifically determine and select the needs of the plants for a proper growth (¶ 5, 183, 211 for ex. ). Moreover, the Applicant states that the combination of the references that is presented in the rejection is one of the hindsight reasoning, and not the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive as Sibley teaches a motivation of determining the needs of the plants to achieve a proper growth.
Hindsight reasoning: In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5- 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
6- Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sibley et al. (PGPUB No. 2022/0183208)
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
As to claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15-16, 18, Sibley teaches, in different embodiments, an environmental monitoring system, and its method of use (Abstract, Figs. 1-45), comprising: a plurality of sensor units configured to be distributed over a monitored area (sensors 804 in a navigation mobile which collects a distribution of agricultural and environmental data in Figs. 1, 4, 8 and ¶ 183; or sensors in Figs. 32D; global and local sensors 24100/24300, and the observation and treatment system sensors, or parts thereof, can be distributed over a monitored area according to ¶ 124, 183, 307 for ex.), wherein each of the plurality of sensor units is configured to collect spatiotemporal data, each of the plurality of sensor units has a temperature sensor, an air pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, a clock, and a Wi-Fi transceiver, and the plurality of sensor units are configured to communicatively couple together to form a sensor network (¶ 129, 196, Figs. 32D for ex.; “Some of this information may include geo-spatial location data (e.g., GPS coordinates), temperature data, time of day, humidity data” need respective sensors) and a lightweight imaging system configured for handheld use and for mounted use, the imaging system having at least one camera and at least one spectrometer, wherein the imaging system is configured to generate a real-time semantic map and position the plurality of sensor units on the semantic map (¶ 101, 125, 156, 163, 177, 374 and ¶ 107, 109, 230, 364, 382 for ex.; using multispectral sensors, i.e. spectrometry, for the semantic mapping); wherein the environmental monitoring system is configured to use the semantic map and the spatiotemporal data to predict a need of the monitored area and variation of the need across the monitored area (¶ 194, 210-211; the system identifies possible needs of target objects/plants for treatment). (claims 5, 12, 16) Sibley teaches using batteries for its system components (¶ 137 for ex.).
Sibley does not teach expressly all the components and functionalities in one single clear embodiment; (claims 5, 12, 16) wherein each sensor unit further has a solar charging interface and the battery is a rechargeable battery.
However, Sibley teaches the sensors and cameras are disclosed to be interchangeably located on the moving vehicle (310); Figs. 3-6, or fixed on particular treatment modules (804); Fig. 8 for ex; One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use all the teachings from Sibley’s embodiments, in one single system with the claimed functionalities, as suggested in ¶ 304 by integrating all the different parts into one system, with the advantage of thoroughly monitoring, and eventually treating the target plants that need a treatment. Moreover, using a solar charging interface with a rechargeable batteries appears obvious for autonomy advantages (see MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Sibley in view the suggestions of its different embodiments so that the components and their functionalities are all gathered in one system; wherein each sensor unit further has a solar charging interface and the battery is a rechargeable battery, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the monitoring, and eventually addressing the need monitoring, and eventually treating the targeted plants, with a power autonomy.
Moreover, Sibley discloses:
(claims 2, 9) wherein the at least one camera is a multi-spectral camera (¶101 for ex.)
(claim 3) wherein the imaging system further has a unibody frame configured to efficiently distribute and dissipate heat generated by the imaging system (¶ 177, 188, 349; camera enclosure is disclosed with obvious intended result for heat sensitive multispectral or hyperspectral ccd cameras).
(claims 4, 11, 20) wherein the monitored area is an agricultural field, the need of the agricultural field is water, and the environmental monitoring system is configured to predict an amount of watering needed at a plurality of points across the agricultural field (¶ 145).
(claims 7, 14, 17) wherein the plurality of sensor units is configured to wirelessly couple together to form a wireless sensor network, wherein the wireless sensor network is configured to communicatively couple to the internet (Fig. 1, ¶ 84, 87, 125, 129, wireless sensors communicating via 5G networks).
Allowable Subject Matter
7- Claims 6, 13 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the possibly allowable matter:
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious:
The system, and its corresponding method, wherein each sensor unit further has a soil moisture and temperature probe, wherein the soil moisture and temperature probe is configured to measure soil moisture using interdigital capacitance, the probe having a plurality of digits having a predetermined thickness and a predetermined amount of space between the digits, the digits alternating between ground and signal planes forming two plates of an interdigital capacitor, the soil and its moisture content acting as a dielectric constant between the two plates, and wherein a fixed resistor and the interdigital capacitor form an RC network, and wherein a known voltage is applied to the RC network and a time for the interdigital capacitor to charge to 63% of the applied voltage is measured to determine soil capacitance.
in combination with the other limitations.
The closest prior art found that pertains to the invention, with emphasis added, is Sibley, Uljanovs, and Webb. However, the prior art fail to teach, suggest or render obvious the entire invention as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights