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
2. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2025, 03/25/2025 was/were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US4445788A (hereinafter Twersky).
Regarding claim 1, Twersky teaches an optical probe for determining at least one property of a soil, the optical probe comprising: a probe head having a helicoidal end (fig. 2 elements 28, 20; col 3 lines 31-34, col 2 lines 41-49), the helicoidal end being configured to “penetrate the soil when being pushed towards the soil and rotated about a rotation axis of the probe head” (col 3 lines 31-34; the probe 10 is rotated about a rotation axis in the soil), the probe head comprising a transparent wall (fig. 2 elements 21A-D, col 3 lines 5-8); a light source optically coupled with the probe head (fig. 2 element 36, col 4 lines 44-48), the light source being configured to generate an illumination beam towards the soil (Abstract lines 8-13), the illumination beam passing through the transparent wall to irradiate the soil (Abstract lines 8-13), “thereby producing a resulting light emanating from the soil, a portion of the resulting light returning towards the probe head” (the soil in fig. 2 scatters light and goes back to the probe; Abstract lines 8-22); “an optical element configured for guiding the portion of the resulting light received by the transparent wall” (fig. 4 mirror 53A, col 5 lines 51-59); and “a detector optically coupled with the optical element to receive the portion of the resulting light therefrom, the detector being configured to provide data representative of the at least one property of the soil” (fig. 2 camera 46, col 4 last para lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 2, Twersky teaches the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the optical element comprises a mirror configured to direct the portion of the resulting light from the transparent wall to the detector (fig. 4 mirror 53A, col 5 lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 3, Twersky teaches the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the illumination beam has a spectral profile comprising a waveband ranging from about 350 nm to about 25000 nm (col 10 claim 21; within the frequency spectrum of light, it means that the wavelengths are in the visible light).
Regarding claim 4, Twersky teaches the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the portion of the resulting light guided by the transparent wall comprises light scattered by the soil and/or light reflected by the soil (col 10 claim 19; the images are from the light scattered by the soil and/or light reflected by the soil).
Regarding claim 9, Twersky teaches the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the data representative of the at least one property of the soil is associated with at least one of: a temperature of the soil, a moisture of the soil (col 2 lines 29-33), pH, a level of organic matter of the soil and soil texture.
Regarding claim 10, Twersky teaches the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the helicoidal end of the probe head is tapered (fig. 2 shows element 20 is tapered).
Regarding claim 11, Twersky teaches the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the detector is mechanically mounted to the optical probe (fig. 2 shows camera 46 is mechanically mounted to probe 10).
Regarding claim 13, Twersky teaches a method for determining at least one property of a soil, the method comprising: inserting a probe head of an optical probe in the soil (col 3 lines 31-34; the probe 10 is rotated about a rotation axis in the soil), the probe head having a helicoidal end configured to penetrate the soil when being pushed towards the soil (col 3 lines 31-34; the probe 10 is rotated about a rotation axis in the soil) and rotated about a rotation axis of the probe head (col 3 lines 31-34; the probe 10 is rotated about a rotation axis in the soil), the probe head comprising a transparent wall (fig. 2 elements 21A-D, col 3 lines 5-8); projecting an illuminating beam towards the soil and through the transparent wall to irradiate the soil (col 2 lines 65 to col 3 line 4), thereby producing a resulting light emanating from the soil and returning towards the probe head (col 2 lines 65 to col 3 line 4); “guiding a portion of the resulting light with an optical element of the optical probe towards a detector” (fig. 4 mirror 53A, col 5 lines 51-59); and detecting the portion of the resulting light guided by the optical element to obtain data representative of the at least one property of the soil (fig. 4 mirror 53A, col 5 lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 14, Twersky teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the illumination beam has a spectral profile comprising a waveband ranging from about 350 nm to about 25000 nm (col 10 claim 21; within the frequency spectrum of light, it means that the wavelengths are in the visible light).
Claim(s) 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US5128882A (hereinafter Cooper).
Regarding claim 17, Cooper teaches a method for mapping a soil at different geographical locations, the method comprising: at a first geographical location (fig.1 element 14 is the first location): inserting a probe head of an optical probe in the soil (fig. 1 shows probe head 12 is inserted in the soil), the probe head comprising a transparent wall (fig. 2 transparent window 24, col 4 line 17); projecting an illuminating beam towards the soil (col 2 lines 3-20) and through the transparent wall to irradiate the soil (this is shown in fig. 1), thereby producing a resulting light emanating from the soil and returning towards the probe head (col 2 lines 3-20); guiding a portion of the resulting light with an optical element of the optical probe towards a detector (col 2 lines 3-20); and detecting the portion of the resulting light guided by the optical element to obtain data representative of at least one property of the soil at the first geographical location (col 2 lines 3-20); at a different geographical location (col 2 lines 64 to col 3 lines 3; this indicates the probe 12 is being used at a different location): “inserting the probe head of the optical probe in the soil” (same process as the first location); “projecting a subsequent illuminating beam towards the soil and through the transparent wall to irradiate the soil, thereby producing a subsequent resulting light emanating from the soil and returning towards the probe head” (same process as the first location); “guiding a portion of the subsequent resulting light with the optical element of the optical probe towards the detector” (same process as the first location); and “detecting the portion of the subsequent resulting light guided by the optical element to obtain data representative of at least one property of the soil at the different geographical location” (same process as the first location); and “providing a representation of the soil, based on a collection of data obtained at the different geographical locations” (col 2 lines 64 to col 3 lines 3).
Regarding claim 19, Cooper teaches the method of claim 17, wherein said inserting the probe head of the optical probe comprises inserting the probe head at a plurality of different depths (col 2 lines 21-24) for “at least one of the different geographical locations to determine whether the at least one property of the soil varies as a function of depth at a given geographical location” (col 2 lines 64 to col 3 lines 3; this implies the probe 12 was inserted at different locations and obtained information to each corresponding location).
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 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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twersky as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Cooper.
Regarding claim 5, Twersky does not teach the optical probe of claim 1, further comprising an optical fiber located near the transparent wall, the optical fiber guiding the portion of the resulting light towards the detector. Regarding claim 6, Twersky does not teach the optical probe of claim 5, wherein the optical fiber is in mechanical contact with the transparent wall.
Cooper, from the same field of endeavor as Twersky, teaches the optical probe of claim 1, further comprising an optical fiber located near the transparent wall, the optical fiber guiding the portion of the resulting light towards the detector (col 4 lines 23-39), the optical probe of claim 5, wherein the optical fiber is in mechanical contact with the transparent wall (fig. 1 shows window 24 is in mechanical contact with fiber 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Cooper to Twersky to have the optical probe of claim 1, further comprising an optical fiber located near the transparent wall, the optical fiber guiding the portion of the resulting light towards the detector, the optical probe of claim 5, wherein the optical fiber is in mechanical contact with the transparent wall in order to deliver the collected light to the spectral analysis unit (col 4 lines 23-39).
Regarding claim 12, Twersky does not teach the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the detector is a spectrometer.
Cooper, from the same field of endeavor as Twersky, teaches the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the detector is a spectrometer (col 6 claim 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Cooper to Twersky to have the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the detector is a spectrometer in order to obtain a rapid and a real time on-site detection and an analysis of contaminant in soil through continuous measurement and recordation of specific spectral properties of potentially contaminated soil (col 3 lines 5-9).
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twersky as applied to claim(s) 1, 13 above, and further in view of WO 2017223435 A1 (hereinafter Morgan).
Regarding claim 7, Twersky teaches the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the light source is a visible-near infrared (VIS-NIR) light source (col 10 claim 21; within the frequency spectrum of light, it means that the wavelengths are in the visible light).
Twersky does not teach the detector is a VIS-NIR detector.
Morgan, from the same field of endeavor as Twersky, teaches the detector is a VIS-NIR detector (p. 2 para 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Morgan to Twersky to have the detector is a VIS-NIR detector in order to provide interpretation and quantification of soil constituents and contaminants at higher vertical resolution (e.g., approximately 3 cm or more) than conventional penetrometers (p. 2 para 6).
Regarding claim 16, Twersky does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein said inserting the probe head of the optical probe in the soil comprises inserting the probe head at a plurality of different depths to determine whether the at least one property of the soil varies as a function of depth.
Morgan, from the same field of endeavor as Twersky, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein said inserting the probe head of the optical probe in the soil comprises inserting the probe head at a plurality of different depths to determine whether the at least one property of the soil varies as a function of depth (p. 5 para 7 lines 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Morgan to Twersky to have the method of claim 13, wherein said inserting the probe head of the optical probe in the soil comprises inserting the probe head at a plurality of different depths to determine whether the at least one property of the soil varies as a function of depth in order to provide interpretation and quantification of soil constituents and contaminants at higher vertical resolution (e.g., approximately 3 cm or more) than conventional penetrometers (p. 2 para 6).
Claim(s) 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twersky as applied to claim(s) 1, 13 above, and further in view of US7788970B2 (hereinafter Hitt).
Regarding claim 8, Twersky does not teach the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the data representative of the at least one property of the soil is associated with a concentration of at least one of: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen in the soil.
Hitt, from the same field of endeavor as Twersky, teaches the detector is a VIS-NIR detector (p. 2 para 6). the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the data representative of the at least one property of the soil is associated with a concentration of at least one of: carbon, oxygen (col 8 line 16), hydrogen and nitrogen in the soil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hitt to Twersky to have the optical probe of claim 1, wherein the data representative of the at least one property of the soil is associated with a concentration of at least one of: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen in the soil in order to use to realize more efficient water utilization and improve crop yield (col 6 lines 31-32).
Regarding claim 15, Twersky does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the data representative of the at least one property of the soil is associated with a concentration of at least one of: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen in the soil.
Hitt, from the same field of endeavor as Twersky, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the data representative of the at least one property of the soil is associated with a concentration of at least one of: carbon, oxygen (col 8 line 16), hydrogen and nitrogen in the soil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hitt to Twersky to have the method of claim 13, wherein the data representative of the at least one property of the soil is associated with a concentration of at least one of: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen in the soil in order to use to realize more efficient water utilization and improve crop yield (col 6 lines 31-32).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of Twersky.
Regarding claim 18, Cooper does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the probe head has a helicoidal end, and said inserting the probe head of the optical probe comprises pushing the probe head towards the soil and rotating the same about a rotation axis of the probe head to penetrate the soil.
Twersky, from the same field of endeavor as Cooper, teaches the method of claim 17, “wherein the probe head has a helicoidal end, and said inserting the probe head of the optical probe comprises pushing the probe head towards the soil and rotating the same about a rotation axis of the probe head to penetrate the soil” (fig. 2 element 28, col 3 lines 31-34; the probe 10 is pushed and rotated into the soil).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Twersky to Cooper to have the method of claim 17, wherein the probe head has a helicoidal end, and said inserting the probe head of the optical probe comprises pushing the probe head towards the soil and rotating the same about a rotation axis of the probe head to penetrate the soil in order to facilitate the insertion of the probe in the soil or granular media (col 3 lines 31-34).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of US20110106451A1 (hereinafter Christy).
Regarding claim 20, Cooper does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the at least one property of the soil comprises a carbon content and a soil texture.
Christy, from the same field of endeavor as Cooper, teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the at least one property of the soil comprises a carbon content and a soil texture (para [0040] lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Christy to Cooper to have the method of claim 17, wherein the at least one property of the soil comprises a carbon content and a soil texture in order to collect measurements of soil electrical properties (para [0040] lines 1-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights