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 12/4/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species of Figures 1-4 and Sub-Species of Figure 9 in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged. In the traversal the applicant states:
“This election is made with traverse. Regarding the Sub-Species, FIGS. 9-14 relate to the fifth embodiment. In the fifth embodiment, the shapes of the detectors 201-701 are polyhedron shapes that are specific examples. Specifically, in the first embodiment, as shown in FIG. 2, the shape of the detector 1 does not have the polyhedron shape. Therefore, Sub-Species of FIGS. 9- 14 are not secondary species of Species of FIGS. 1-6, 8 and 15-18.”
The traversal appears to be on the ground(s) that the sub-species of Figure 9-14 are not secondary species of the Species of Figures 1-4, 5-6, 8, 15, 16, 17 and 18. This is not found persuasive. The invention as best understood, describes a sensor which shape can be that of a polyhedron. That is, although not shown in the Figures, the cross-sectional shape of the block shown in Figure 3 may be that of a polyhedron. Thus, the examiner required the selection of one of the Species (directed to the sensor), and one of the sub-species (directed to the shape of the block within the sensor. The applicant’s election of claims 1-6 and 16-18 are indeed consistent with Species of Figures 1-4 and sub-species of Figure 9. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5, 7-8, 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species/Sub-Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/5/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SOIL WATER CONTENT SENSOR.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 ends in a period (.). The period should be replaced with a semicolon. 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 1-4, 6, 9 and 16-18 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 claim 1, the claim recites in part:
“a ground line arranged on an inside of the first signal line, wherein the second line is arranged on an inside of the first signal line and the ground line”
The phrase “on an inside” doesn’t appear consistent with that depicted in the Drawings and the Specification. For example, for the ground line to be arranged “on an inside” of the first signal line, the ground line must be contained within the body of the first signal line. Likewise, for the second line to be “on an inside” of the first signal line and the ground line, the second signal line must be contained within the body of both the first signal line and the ground line. However, as shown for example, in Figure 3, the first signal line, the second signal line and the ground line are separate. Neither line is contained within the body of another. It appears the applicant intended to describe the lines as being adjacent to each other, which is consistent with that depicted in the Figures.
For the purpose of examining the claims, the examiner will consider claim 1 as reciting: “a ground line arranged adjacent to the first signal line, wherein the second line is arranged adjacent to the first signal line and the ground line”
Furthermore, claim 2 recites in part:
“the frequency of the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the first signal line is set to a frequency band that is 100 times or more higher than the frequency of the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the second line”
The recitation appears to contradict claim 1, which recites in part:
“a first line as a conductive wire facing soil to transmit an electromagnetic wave; a second line as a conductive wire facing the soil through the porous body to the electromagnetic wave”
While claim 1 describes the first and second line as transmitting the same electromagnetic wave, claim 2 describes the lines as transmitting waves of different frequency. Thus, it’s not possible to ascertain whether the signal lines are connected or unconnected. It’s not possible for the first signal line to carry the same wave as the second signal line, and different waves at the same time. The same issue is present in claims 17 and 18, which describe first and second signal lines, each transmitting a different signal, in contrast with that which is recited in claim 1.
A review of previously presented claim 1 (filed 12/04/2024) describe the signal lines carrying separate waves. Thus, the examiner believes claim 1 as amended in the response (filed 08/05/2026) contains a typographical error. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims, claim 1 will be interpreted as reciting:
“A soil sensor comprising:
a first signal line as a conductive wire facing soil to transmit an electromagnetic wave;
a porous body having a water permeability and a water retention property;
a second signal line as a conductive wire facing the soil through the porous body to transmit a second electromagnetic wave; and
a ground line arranged adjacent to the first signal line, wherein the second line is arranged adjacent to the first signal line and the ground line.”
Correction is required.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9 and 16-18 are also rejected as they inherit the deficiencies in claim 1 noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Japanese publication JP 2008-32550 by Akio et al. (Akio hereafter). Please refer to the copy of the foreign document and partial translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Akio teaches a soil sensor (10 in Fig. 2, see paragraph 0001) comprising:
a first signal line as a conductive wire (13) facing soil (the entire sensor 10 is inserted into soil; see paragraph 0017, line 2) to transmit an electromagnetic wave (wave generated by unit 21 and depicted as Sn1 in Fig. 4);
a porous body (water absorbing layer 19) having a water permeability and a water retention property;
a second signal line as a conductive wire (12) facing the soil through the porous body (as illustrated in Figure 2c) to transmit a second electromagnetic wave (Sn2); and
a ground line (11) arranged adjacent to the first signal line (as illustrated in Figure 2a), wherein
the second signal line is arranged adjacent to the first signal line and the ground line (as illustrated in Figure 2a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akio.
As to claim 6, Akio teaches in Figure 2, the soil sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a base (PCB 15) in which the first signal line and the ground line are provided. However, Akio is silent about the base having projections and recesses having a depth of 0.1 to 500 μm.
However, the examiner notes that all printed circuit boards have a surface microscopical unevenness created by projections and recesses at the microscopic level (measured at the micron level, including the recited 0.1 micrometers), known in the art as “surface roughness”. Thus, because no printed circuit board is perfectly smooth, and although not explicitly mention, Akio’s printed circuit board inherently includes microscopical unevenness created during its manufacture or during the process of making the sensor (for example, when attaching the first and second signal line to the printed circuit board).
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to use a regular printed circuit board as the base in Akio’s sensor. A regular printed circuit board would include the degree “roughness” explained above. Doing so, would reduce the manufacturing costs compared to using a printed circuit board which surface is smooth to a degree below .1 microns.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent US 5,442,293 by Lange et al., (Lange hereafter) in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2002/0167412 by Cuming et al., (Cuming hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Lange teaches a soil sensor (Fig 6) comprising:
a first signal line as a conductive wire (helical conducting coil 13 within probe sensor 1 shown in Figures 2 and 6) facing soil (the entire sensor 1 is inserted into soil; see col. 1 lines 15-16 and col. 7, lines 5-10) to transmit an electromagnetic wave (electromagnetic fields emanating from the sensing probe; col. 6, lines 44-47. Also, see col. 8, lines 1-13 explaining the presence of multiple coils 13 within the apparatus);
a second signal line as a conductive wire (helical conducting coil 13 within probe sensor 2 shown in Figures 2 and 6) to transmit a second electromagnetic wave (electromagnetic fields emanating from the sensing probe; col. 6, lines 44-47); and
a ground line (outer conductor 21 in either probe sensor 2 or 1) arranged adjacent to the first signal line, wherein
the second signal line is arranged adjacent to the first signal line and the ground line (as shown in Figures 2 and 6).
Lange substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning a porous body having a water permeability and a water retention property, wherein the second line faces the soil through the porous body.
Cuming teaches a soil measurement apparatus (see Fig. 2a), wherein probe conductors (12, 17, 16) are enclosed within a body of porous material (11; see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of porous materials as taught by Cuming, and surround the probe with a porous material (allowing the second line to face the soil through said porous body) in the device/system/method of Lange, in order to retain water content within the soil surrounding the probe while in use, thereby allowing for the probe to be placed in intimate hydraulic conduction with soil in a surveillance area (see Lange, claim 1).
As to claim 2, Lange teaches the frequency of the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the first signal line is set to a frequency band that is 100 times or more higher than the frequency of the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the second signal line (the probe, including the multiple coils 13 within it is subjected to a frequency sweep. Thus, at different times, the first and second coil transmit frequencies that vary from .1Mhz to 200Mhz; see col. 9, lines 9-20).
As to claim 3, Lange teaches the soil sensor according to claim 1, further comprising:
a processing unit (unit 41 in Fig. 6) configured to measure a volumetric water content of the soil using a transmission signal transmitted through the first signal line as the electromagnetic wave, and to measure a water potential of the soil using the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the second signal line (water content and conductivity of the fluid; see col. 8, lines 54-60. The examiner interprets “water potential” as the potential of the soil to conduct an electrical current based on water content, or “conductivity”).
As to claim 4, Lange teaches the soil sensor according to claim 3, wherein
the processing unit is configured to further measure an electrical conductivity of the soil based on a waveform of the transmission signal transmitted through the first signal line as the electromagnetic wave (sweep of frequencies through the different coils in the probe; see col. 9, lines 1-19).
As to claim 9, Lange teaches the soil sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a base in which the first signal line and the ground line are provided (shaft 3 + hardened tip 9).
Lange in view of Cuming, substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the base and the porous body are integrally formed in a regular polyhedron shape.
However, the difference between the prior art in combination and the apparatus as recited in claim 9 appears to be directed to its shape. There doesn’t appear to be a critical function associated with the preferred shape, but rather the preferred shape appears to constitute a choice of design, with the prior art in combination performing the same functions as the device as claimed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shape the soil sensor as a regular polyhedron, since it has been held that matters of design and ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (In re Seid; see below).
In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court 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.).
As to claim(s) 16, although Lange in view of Cuming teaches the first signal line transmits electromagnetic waves through a sweep of frequencies between .1 MHZ and 200 MHz (see for example, col. 9, lines 14-16), Lange is silent about the first signal line transmitting the wave as a microwave.
However, the choice of frequency used in the first signal line (microwaves range between 300 MHz to 300 GHz) would have amounted to routine experimentation in a manner as to optimize the conditions of the apparatus disclosed by the prior art. As MPEP 2144.05, section II explains:
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”)
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to experiment, increasing or decreasing the frequency of the signal transmitted by the first signal line, in order to achieve an optimal result needed for the application.
As to claim 17, Lange teaches the second signal line transmits the electromagnetic wave having a frequency lower than the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the first signal line (the probe, including the multiple coils 13 within it is subjected to a frequency sweep. Thus, at different times, the first and second coil transmit frequencies that vary from .1Mhz to 200Mhz; see col. 9, lines 9-20).
As to claim 18, Lange teaches the first signal line transmits microwave as the electromagnetic wave; the second signal line transmits the electromagnetic wave having a frequency lower than the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the first signal line (the probe, including the multiple coils 13 within it is subjected to a frequency sweep. Thus, at different times, the first and second coil transmit frequencies that vary from .1Mhz to 200Mhz; see col. 9, lines 9-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US [patent number] by [name] et al., directed to [brief description]. See figure below:
- The US Patent US [patent number] by [name] et al., directed to [brief description]. See figure below:
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub [PGPUB number] by [name] et al., directed to [brief description]. See figure below:
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub [PGPUB number] by [name] et al., directed to [brief description]. See figure below:
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 August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights