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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 07/31/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 17 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 8-9 have been cancelled.
Claims 26-28 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/31/2026 regarding Double Patenting Rejection have been fully considered and the rejection has been reinterpreted based on amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 103 rejection for independent claims 1, 14 and 17 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection sent on Office Action mailed on 05/04/2026 is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1+12+15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,252 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Claim 1 of Instant application
Claim (1+12+15) of US Patent
A water quality sensor system, comprising:
A soil moisture and fertility sensor system, comprising:
a probe;
a probe;
the probe extending a length from an upper end to a lower end;
the probe extending a length from an upper end to a lower end;
the probe having one or more sensor modules;
the probe having a plurality of sensor modules;
wherein the one or more sensor modules include at least one nutrient sensor;
wherein the plurality of sensor modules include a co-located moisture sensor assembly, a temperature sensor assembly and a fertility sensor assembly;
wherein the fertility sensor assembly of the plurality of sensor modules include at least one nutrient sensor, (claim 12)
wherein the at least one nutrient sensor includes a graphene layer.
wherein the at least one nutrient sensor includes a graphene layer. (claim 12)
wherein the at least one nutrient sensor includes a barrier having a chemically selectively permeable membrane configured to allow select materials, ions, nutrients, chemistries, molecules, or constituents to pass through the chemically selectively permeable membrane while preventing other materials, ions, nutrients, chemistries, molecules, or constituents from passing through the chemically selectively permeable membrane.
wherein the fertility sensor assembly of the plurality of sensor modules include at least one nutrient sensor, wherein the at least one nutrient sensor includes a layer of ion selective membrane. (claim 15)
Similarly Claim 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1+12+15) of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,252 B2.
Similarly Claims 1 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1+2), and (1+2) of U.S. Patent No. 12,385,869 B2 respectively.
Reason for Allowance/ Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are allowed. Examiner’s reasons for allowance are following:
a) Applicant amended independent claim 14 and overcome rejection. Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/31/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection sent on Office Action mailed on 05/04/2026 is withdrawn.
b) Any reference does not disclose nor fairly suggest each and every claimed limitation of independent claim 14:
As to claims 14-16 the present invention is direct to a water quality sensor system, comprising: Independent claim 14 identifies the uniquely distinct features of “wherein each of the plurality of probes includes one or more sensor modules; wherein the one or more sensor modules include at least one nutrient sensor; and wherein the at least one nutrient sensor includes a graphene layer and a barrier having a chemically selectively permeable membrane”.
The closest prior art, Burkey et al. (Pub NO. US 2019/0187086 A1), Cheng et al (Pub No. US 2016/0250712 A1), teaches Method and system for a Soil Sensor, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious, in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 14.
As to claims 15-16 the claims are allowed for depending on claim 14.
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
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights