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 .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 9/25/2024, in which claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The Application Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63585485 , filed 09/26/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- 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 application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 9/25/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-20 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 6, 13, 19) wherein each sensor unit further has a soil moisture and temperature probe (¶ 196, 315 for ex.)
(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).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K 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