DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
“the components” has no antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimokawa et al. (US 2017/0010296 A1, Pub Jan 12, 2017, herein Shimokawa).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimokawa teaches:
A system for monitoring nutrient levels in the body of a tree (The measurement of the electrical resistance of a substance such as phloem or xylem sap in a plant/tree gives a direct indication of nutrient levels [0083]. Plant water dynamics sensor 1 measures the sap resistance using electrodes 33 [0083].; see Fig 1-16), the system comprising:
a sensing component comprising a sensor (Plant water dynamics "sensor" 1 in Fig 6 [0108]) implanted into the tissue of the tree (electrical resistance probes 30 of sensor 1 are stuck into a fine point of the plant/"tree" in Fig 6 [0108]) to generate a dataset that corresponds to information about the tree (Electrical resistance probe 30 measures electrical resistance - "generate a dataset that corresponds to information about the tree" [0114]);
a communication component to transmit data, the data comprising at least the generated dataset; and a base station to receive the data (In Fig 5, data logger DR - "communication component" - collects the resistance data from electrical resistance probe 30 [0089]. In Fig 16, data logger DR has a built-in wireless communication unit that wirelessly communicates the data - "transmit data" - to server SV - "base station to receive the data" [0188-0191].).
Regarding Claim 3, Shimokawa teaches:
the sensor (1) comprises one or more biocompatible fiber electrodes (probe 30A is an "electrode" made of silicon and silicon dioxide, which are "biocompatible" materials and have a thickness in the nanometer to micrometer range [0065-0066]).
Regarding Claim 4, Shimokawa teaches:
the sensing component generates one or more frequency signals (An AC source with a frequency is connected to electrodes 33 [0099] Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Shimokawa teaches:
the sensor is implanted in the xylem of the tree (In Fig 7, probes 30 are implanted in the xylem layer XY of the plant/tree [0109]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimokawa in view of Van Bavel et al. (US 5,269,183, Pub Dec 14, 1993, herein Van Bavel).
Regarding Claim 2, Shimokawa does not teach the limitations.
However, Van Bavel teaches:
an energy harvesting component to obtain energy from one or more natural resources and transfer power to at least a portion of the system (In Fig 1, Dynagage sensors 2 - "portion of the system" - are powered using solar panel 186 - "an energy harvesting component to obtain energy from one or more natural resources and transfer power" [5:16-28].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa in view of Van Bavel by having an energy harvesting component to obtain energy from one or more natural resources and transfer power to at least a portion of the system because it allows for power supply for field applications where there is no power available as taught by Van Bavel [11:48-65].
Regarding Claim 9, Shimokawa does not teach the limitations.
However, Van Bavel teaches:
a natural resource indicator component to optimize the obtained energy (The number of solar panels - "natural resource indicator component" - used must be optimized such that the sensor can be powered in low sunlight conditions [11:48-65]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa in view of Van Bavel by having a natural resource indicator component to optimize the obtained energy because it allows for continuous 24-hour operation of the sensor as taught by Van Bavel [11:48-65].
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimokawa in view of Birschwein et al. (WO 2021/078453 A1, Pub Apr 29, 2021, herein Birschwein).
Regarding Claim 5, Shimokawa does not teach the limitations.
However, Birschwein teaches:
the sensing component generates at least one of an impedance or impedance profile for the tree based on the generated dataset (In Fig 5, daily fluctuations of the electrical impedance measured by impedance sensor 7 in Fig 1 are shown [p.20:20-25].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa in view of Birschwein by having the sensing component generates at least one of an impedance or impedance profile for the tree based on the generated dataset because it allows for the determination of the water density in the measurement volume as taught by Birschwein [p.19:28-29].
Regarding Claim 6, Shimokawa does not teach the limitations.
However, Birschwein teaches:
a water and/or nutrient level corresponding to the tree is determined from the impedance or impedance profile (The electrical impedance Z is inversely proportional to the water density in the measurement volume [p.19:28-29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa in view of Birschwein by having a water and/or nutrient level corresponding to the tree is determined from the impedance or impedance profile because it allows for the determination of the water density in the measurement volume as taught by Birschwein [p.19:28-29].
Regarding Claim 8, Shimokawa does not teach the limitations.
However, Birschwein teaches:
the impact of environmental noise is reduced or minimized (The small dimensions of the electrode tip relative to the diameter of the stem of the tree/plant leads to an improved signal to noise ratio and higher accuracy in the impedance measurement [p.14:8-12]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa in view of Birschwein by having the impact of environmental noise is reduced or minimized because it allows for a greater accuracy in the impedance measurement as taught by Birschwein [p.14:8-12].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimokawa in view of Stanley (US 8,856,576, Pub Oct 7, 2014).
Regarding Claim 10, Shimokawa does not teach the limitations.
However, Stanley teaches:
at least a portion of the components operate in response to a block-based intermittent computing model (According to a time-varying property of the power supplied by the energy source, the computational workload at the computerized system is adapted, such as a system that uses a solar source [2:23-29],[5:36-44]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa in view of Stanley by having at least a portion of the components operate in response to a block-based intermittent computing model because it allows for better management of a power load in a system where power is provided by renewable energy sources that provide a variable amount of power with respect to time as taught by Stanley [1:60-2:7].
Claims 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimokawa in view of Birschwein.
Regarding Claim 11, Shimokawa teaches:
A computer-implemented method for monitoring nutrient levels in the body of a tree (The measurement of the electrical resistance of a substance such as phloem or xylem sap in a plant/tree gives a direct indication of nutrient levels [0083]. Plant water dynamics sensor 1 measures the sap resistance using electrodes 33 [0083]. In Fig 16, DR logger collects data and wirelessly transmits it, which means that it is "computer-implemented" [0189].; see Fig 1-16), the method comprising:
implanting one or more sensors into a tree body (electrical resistance probes 30 of sensor 1 are stuck into a fine point of the plant/"tree" in Fig 6 [0108]);
capturing one or more signals from the tree to generate a dataset corresponding to the tree (In Fig 16, DR logger collects data and wirelessly transmits it, which means that it is "computer-implemented" [0189].);
transmitting the at least one of the dataset, the impedance and/or impedance profile to a base station (In Fig 5, data logger DR - "communication component" - collects the resistance data from electrical resistance probe 30 [0089]. In Fig 16, data logger DR has a built-in wireless communication unit that wirelessly communicates the data - "transmit data" - to server SV - "base station to receive the data" [0188-0191].).
Shimokawa does not teach:
determining an impedance and/or impedance profile for the tree;
However, Birschwein teaches:
determining an impedance and/or impedance profile for the tree (In Fig 5, daily fluctuations of the electrical impedance measured by impedance sensor 7 in Fig 1 are shown [p.20:20-25].).;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa in view of Birschwein by having determining an impedance and/or impedance profile for the tree because it allows for the determination of the water density in the measurement volume as taught by Birschwein [p.19:28-29].
Regarding Claim 13, Shimokawa teaches:
generating one or more frequency signals (An AC source with a frequency is connected to electrodes 33 [0099] Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Shimokawa teaches:
processing the signals (Server SV processes the data received from data loggers DR [0191]).
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 11.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 13.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 15.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimokawa in view of Birschwein and further in view of Bhattacharya (US 2020/0285983 A1, Pub Sep 10, 2020).
Shimokawa and Birschwein do not teach the limitations.
However, Bhattacharya teaches:
The Examiner is combining Shimokawa and Birschwein in view of Bhattacharya by having the impedance data of Birschwein provide the stream of sensor data to transmitter 102 of Bhattacharya.
compressing the at least one of the dataset, the impedance and/or impedance profile prior to the transmitting (In Fig 1, Processor 104 implements the statistical model 106 to encode/compress the data stream 108 from a sensor before using the antenna of transmitter 102 to transmit the encoded/compressed data to receiver 112 [0004],[0266]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa and Birschwein in view of Bhattacharya by having compressing the at least one of the dataset, the impedance and/or impedance profile prior to the transmitting because it reduces information redundancy to reduce the amount of information to represent the uncompressed data which reduces the amount of power consumption required to transmit the data as taught by Bhattacharya [0011].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimokawa in view of Birschwein and further in view of Knudson et al. (US 2010/0051692, Pub Mar 4, 2010, herein Knudson).
Shimokawa and Birschwein do not teach the limitations.
However, Knudson teaches:
the transmitting is carried out continuously (carrier 12 has a sensor and continuously wirelessly transmits sensor data to router 16 [0036-0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa and Birschwein in view of Knudson by having the transmitting is carried out continuously because it is a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of allowing to know immediately whether a particular threshold is crossed.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimokawa in view of Birschwein and further in view of Van Bavel.
Regarding Claim 16, Shimokawa and Birschwein do not teach the limitations.
However, Van Bavel teaches:
harvesting energy from one or more natural resources (In Fig 1, Dynagage sensors 2 - "portion of the system" - are powered using solar panel 186 - "an energy harvesting component to obtain energy from one or more natural resources and transfer power" [5:16-28].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shimokawa and Birschwein in view of Van Bavel by having harvesting energy from one or more natural resources because it allows for power supply for field applications where there is no power available as taught by Van Bavel [11:48-65].
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHUL MAINI whose telephone number is (571)270-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9am-4pm, EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 09/02/2026
/A.A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
