DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-11 are amended. Claims 12-20 are new. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application CH001189/2022 filed in the Swiss Confederation on 10/10/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/7/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, in the phrase “such, that” the comma should be removed
In Claim 6, “from global navigation satellite system” should instead read “from the global navigation satellite system”
In Claim 7, “and mapping of soil moisture” should be followed by a comma
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(a) “a sensor mounting device” that mounts the portable microwave sensor to the golf course turfgrass vehicle, in Claims 1, 6, and 10,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) The specification is unclear regarding the corresponding structure of the sensor mounting device, see 112(b).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 Claims 1, 6, and 10, claim limitation (a) “a sensor mounting device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation, above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Particularly, specification p. 4 and 5 state that the sensor mounting device is a “mechanical mounting system” however this description uses the further placeholder term “system” instead of designating any particular structure. It is not clear whether the sensor mounting device is a bracket, an adhesive, a magnetic coupling, or something else. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, the sensor mounting device is interpreted as any coupling.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1, 6, or 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 1, the second potion of the claim starting with “while a global navigation satellite system…” renders the claim indefinite. Particularly, Claim 1 is a system claim comprising the at least one portable microwave sensor. Based on the use of the word “while,” it is not clear whether the global navigation satellite system, wireless transmission system, and central server are actually parts of the claimed system, or alternatively whether the claim is merely reciting some intended use or context of the portable microwave sensor. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as the system further comprising the global navigation satellite system, wireless transmission system, and central server.
Additionally, regarding Claim 1, the phrase “such, that after data collection and analysis spatially resolved maps of soil moisture can be output to the operator of the golf course” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether this phrase is narrowing part of the system (e.g. stating that the central server is configured to perform data collection, analysis, and output of maps), or alternatively whether this phrase is merely reciting some intended use of the sensor data which could be done outside the system (and therefore would receive little patentable weight). The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as reciting functions the server is configured to perform.
Claims 2-5 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 2, the phrases “sufficient fixation of the portable microwave sensor” and “most preferred designed to be easily removable” renders the claim indefinite. The terms “sufficient” and “easily” are relative terms. However, “sufficient” and “easily” are not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of fixation for something to be considered to have sufficient fixation or not, or the requisite degree of ease for something to be considered easily removable or not. Additionally based on the words “most preferred” it is unclear whether the claim actually requires the easily removable aspect, or whether this is being recited in the alternative (i.e. is optional). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, and the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as any fixation of the sensor, with the easily removable aspect being optional and not required under the BRI of the claim.
Claims 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 2 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the phrase “most preferred working in L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR-E, AMSR2) with frequencies in the range from 6-8 GHz” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear how “most preferred” limits the claims and whether the narrower recited ranges are actually required (and whether “can be used” is optional language or not) or whether any frequency of 300 MHz to 8GHz reads on the claims. Additionally, when the “and” of “and/or” is applied, it is not clear how multiple ranges can be the “most” preferred. Additionally, none of the acronyms in the claims are defined, and as best understood, appear to pertain to space missions as opposed to ground-based operations. It is not clear what the acronyms stand for, or how they limit the claims or frequency ranges. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as the “most preferred” arrangement not being required under the BRI, and the acronyms not limiting the specific ranges.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 3 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claims 3, 9, 12, 19, and 20, it is not clear whether the adjective “passive” before the phrase “microwave sensor or microwave radiometer” applies to both the sensor and radiometer, or alternatively whether the microwave radiometer does not have to be passive. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the adjective passive is interpreted as only applying to the sensor and not the radiometer.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 3 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 14, the phrase “wherein the wireless transmission system is operatively connected to the central server with processing means to automatically upload” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear what the phrase “with processing means” is modifying, and whether this is describing the wireless transmission system, or the operative connection (i.e. using some kind of relay with a processor) or is modifying the server, and is not clear whether “to automatically upload” is a function of the processing means, or the wireless transmission system, or something else. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the processing means is interpreted as describing the server, and the uploading is interpreted as a function of the wireless transmission system.
Additionally, regarding Claims 4, 13, and 14, the phrase “known data dispatch protocols” renders the claim indefinite. What is considered a known data dispatch protocol changes over time and is also relative to who knows the protocol. As such the phrase is not a definite set of protocols and the scope of the claims is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as any data transmission technique.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 4 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 6, the phrase “for spatially resolved automatic recording of soil moisture data in areas of a golf course combined with geolocation information from global navigation satellite system and determination of maps of soil moisture on the golf course, controlled by a processing software” renders the claim indefinite. Based on the structure of the claim, it is not clear whether the functions of “spatially resolved automatic recording” and “determination of maps” are intended to be steps of the method, or alternatively whether everything following “for…” is merely intended use of the using of the at least one portable microwave sensor (and therefore given little patentable weight). The scope of the method and claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the functions following “for” are interpreted as intended use of the sensor but not positively recited steps of the method.
Claims 7-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 6 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claims 9, 19, and 20, the phrase “L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR-E, AMSR2)” renders the claim indefinite. None of the acronyms in the claims are defined. It is not clear what the acronyms stand for, or how they limit the claims or frequency ranges. As best understood, the acronyms appear to pertain to space missions as opposed to ground-based operations. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the acronyms are interpreted as not limiting the claim or ranges.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation of “- connected with geolocation information from a global navigation satellite system;” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation appears as a method step, but does not contain any particular step or function. It is not clear whether the limitation is intended to be a step of the method (e.g. a step of connecting) or is describing the portable microwave sensor, or something else. Additionally, it is not clear what “all data” refers to, and whether this encompasses the measurements or location information, or both , or additional information, or some other information. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as a method step of collecting GNSS information followed by the microwave sensor and GNSS data being sent.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 10-11, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 10, the claim recites:
a method for automatic mapping of golf course soil moisture and preparation of area-wide irrigation instructions of a golf course,
wherein
- at least one portable microwave sensor mounted by a sensor mounting device to a golf course turfgrass vehicle is moved across a golf course, while
- measurements with the at least one portable microwave sensor are automatically done,
- connected with geolocation information from a global navigation satellite system; and
- all data are sent via a wireless transmission system to a central server, controlled by processing software installed and running on the central server, resulting in
- determination of maps of soil moisture on the golf course, controlled by the processing software, which can be accessed on the central server.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing a method for mapping of golf course soil moisture (a person receiving moisture and corresponding position points (for example in a printed table) and manually drawing a map of the golf course and ) and preparation of area-wide irrigation instructions of a golf course (for example the person writing or deciding on an irrigation plan for areas of moisture below a threshold), comprising: - determination of maps of soil moisture on the golf course, which can be accessed (the person drawing the maps of soil moisture for a set of golf holds, which can be drawn/output).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are the method being “automatic“ wherein - at least one portable microwave sensor mounted by a sensor mounting device to a golf course turfgrass vehicle is moved across a golf course, while - measurements with the at least one portable microwave sensor are automatically done, - connected with geolocation information from a global navigation satellite system; and - all data are sent via a wireless transmission system to a central server, controlled by processing software installed and running on the central server, resulting in- the determination which is “controlled by the processing software, which can be accessed on the central server.
For the method being “automatic,“ and the step of all data are sent via a wireless transmission system to a central server, controlled by processing software installed and running on the central server, resulting in- the determination which is “controlled by the processing software, which can be accessed on the central server, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. Additionally, the causing (storing or outputting of data) is the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for basic tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the at least one portable microwave sensor mounted by a sensor mounting device to a golf course turfgrass vehicle is moved across a golf course, while - measurements with the at least one portable microwave sensor are automatically done, - connected with geolocation information from a global navigation satellite system, this is determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because it corresponds to mere data gathering which is necessary to perform the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the method being “automatic“ wherein - at least one portable microwave sensor mounted by a sensor mounting device to a golf course turfgrass vehicle is moved across a golf course, while - measurements with the at least one portable microwave sensor are automatically done, - connected with geolocation information from a global navigation satellite system; and - all data are sent via a wireless transmission system to a central server, controlled by processing software installed and running on the central server, resulting in- the determination which is “controlled by the processing software, which can be accessed on the central server.
For the method being “automatic,“ and the step of all data are sent via a wireless transmission system to a central server, controlled by processing software installed and running on the central server, resulting in- the determination which is “controlled by the processing software, which can be accessed on the central server, for the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use for their generic tasks, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
For the at least one portable microwave sensor mounted by a sensor mounting device to a golf course turfgrass vehicle is moved across a golf course, while - measurements with the at least one portable microwave sensor are automatically done, - connected with geolocation information from a global navigation satellite system, which was determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, this is re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US20130332115A1 at [0007]).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as such combination is determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US20130332115A1 at [0007]).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites wherein additionally to the determination and mapping of soil moisture of the golf course, a guidance for later irrigation in form of a watering schedule of the golf course areas is provided after analysis in the central server via the processing software. The guidance for later irrigation in form of a watering schedule of the golf course areas being provided after analysis is a further step of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can think of or manually write guidance for an irrigation schedule. The claim does not add any new additional elements.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Examiner's note: where the claims use the conjunctions "or" or “and/or” or the phrase “at least one,” only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0030763A1 (Morrison et al.) (IDS filed 4/7/2025) in view of Publication US2005/0165521A1 (Gruhn).
Regarding Claim 1, Morrison et al. discloses a system for automatic mapping of golf course soil moisture (see [0030, 0037-0038), wherein such system comprises at least one portable microwave sensor (see [0029] vegetative health device with radar, [0030] radar sensor using 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz) mounted by a sensor mounting device (see Figure 3A, [0041] coupling 152) to a golf course vehicle (see Figure 3A, [0041] to mower 300a) operated by a golf course operator (see [0014]), while a global navigation satellite system (see [0033] GPS as part of health device), a wireless transmission system (see [0008, 0050] communication subsystem 450 for wireless communications, sensor data can be uploaded) and a central server are operatively connected to the at least one portable microwave sensor (see [0041, 0050] sensor data may be uploaded to cloud based server) such, that after data collection and analysis (see [0050] sensor data sent to cloud for generating the vegetative health maps) spatially resolved maps of soil moisture can be output (see [0030] soil moisture content being measured and [0038-0039] moisture levels for various regions of map) to the operator of the golf course (see [0013, 0014] map created for caretaker, [0069] can be output to smart phone).
Morrison et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle being: a golf course turfgrass vehicle (Examiner’s note: the term understood by the office as a vehicle that is particularly adapted to drive on the golf course turf without causing damage).
However, Gruhn teaches a vehicle for use on a golf course being:
a golf course turfgrass vehicle (see [0035] utility tractor that operates on golf course turf should be configured to distribute the tractor weight evenly over tires in a sufficiently large “footprint” or “contact patch”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mower of Morrison et al. to be a turfgrass vehicle as taught by Gruhn, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the effectiveness and marketability of the system by avoiding damage to growing turf (see Gruhn, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 2, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor mounting device is a mechanical mounting system for sufficient fixation of the portable microwave sensor, permitting a clear view onto the golf course surface and most preferred designed to be easily removable (see [0041] and Figure 3A, coupling 152 mechanically mounts device 100’ for view of ground surface, [0034] may be releasably coupled).
Regarding Claim 3, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one portable microwave sensor is a passive microwave sensor or microwave radiometer (see [0025] measurement of radar intensity), using microwave frequencies in a frequency range 300 MHz - 8 GHz (see [0030] 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz), most preferred working in L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR-E, AMSR2) with frequencies in the range from 6-8 GHz.
Regarding Claim 4, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the wireless transmission system is operatively connected to the central server with processing means (see [0050] cloud based computers) to automatically upload measured data from the portable microwave sensor to the central server (see [0050] communication system used to send data from sensors 430 ([0046] including radar) to cloud based computer) with known data dispatch protocols (see [0050] using a wireless protocol such as WiFi).
Regarding Claim 5, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein a processing software for data recording, sending, analysis (see [0050] cloud based computers generating the vegetative health maps i.e. analyzing sensor data in order to create map), map creation (see [0050] cloud based computer for generating vegetative health maps) and/or map display is installed and running on the central server, which can be local or a cloud (see [0038, 0050] cloud based server).
Regarding Claim 6, Morrison et al. discloses a method comprising:
using at least one portable microwave sensor (see [0029] vegetative health device with radar, [0030] radar sensor using 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz) mounted with a sensor mounting device (see Figure 3A, [0041] coupling 152) to a golf course vehicle (see Figure 3A, [0041] to mower 300a), a wireless transmission system (see [0008, 0050] communication subsystem 450 for wireless communications, sensor data can be uploaded), a global navigation satellite system (see [0033] GPS as part of health device) and a central server, which are operatively connected to the at least one portable microwave sensor (see [0041, 0050] sensor data may be uploaded to cloud based server) for spatially resolved automatic recording of soil moisture data in areas of a golf course combined with geolocation information from global navigation satellite system (see [0050] information from sensors 430 [0046-0047] including both radar and GPS, [0046-0050] for mapping in space and Figures 2, 5, particular area) and determination of maps of soil moisture on the golf course, controlled by a processing software (see [0030] soil moisture content being measured and [0038-0039, 0046-0050] moisture levels for various regions of map).
Morrison et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle being: a golf course turfgrass vehicle (Examiner’s note: the term understood by the office as a vehicle that is particularly adapted to drive on the golf course turf without causing damage).
However, Gruhn teaches a vehicle for use on a golf course being:
a golf course turfgrass vehicle (see [0035] utility tractor that operates on golf course turf should be configured to distribute the tractor weight evenly over tires in a sufficiently large “footprint” or “contact patch”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mower of Morrison et al. to be a turfgrass vehicle as taught by Gruhn, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the effectiveness and marketability of the system by avoiding damage to growing turf (see Gruhn, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 8, Morrison et al. discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein at least one portable microwave sensor is mounted with the sensor mounting device to a grass cutting vehicle (see Figure 3A, [0041]) or mower (see Figure 3A, [0041]) or a golf players' golf cart, automatically recording and sending data, while the vehicle starts moving (see [0076] e.g. initiating vegetative health device scanning when taking out of garage (start of mowing movement)).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Morrison et al. discloses a method for automatic mapping of golf course soil moisture (see [0030, 0037-0038) and preparation of area-wide irrigation instructions of a golf course (see [0014] for adjustment of watering levels, treating underwatered areas),
wherein
- at least one portable microwave sensor (see [0029] vegetative health device with radar, [0030] radar sensor using 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz) mounted by a sensor mounting device (see Figure 3A, [0041] coupling 152) to a golf course vehicle (see Figure 3A, [0041] to mower 300a) is moved across a golf course (see [0014, 0015] traverses area), while
- measurements with the at least one portable microwave sensor are automatically done (see [0034-0035] health device moves over area, scanning behind vehicle, [0076] on when taken out of garage),
- connected with geolocation information from a global navigation satellite system (see [0045] store data from sensors 430 [0047] sensors 430 including GPS); and
- all data are sent via a wireless transmission system to a central server (see [0050] sensor data sent to cloud), controlled by processing software installed and running on the central server (see [0050] cloud functions for generating health map), resulting in
- determination of maps of soil moisture on the golf course (see [0050] cloud generate map, and [0030] soil moisture content being measured and [0038-0039] moisture levels for various regions of map), controlled by the processing software, which can be accessed on the central server (see [0069] map can be downloaded from cloud to other devices).
Morrison et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle being: a golf course turfgrass vehicle (Examiner’s note: the term understood by the office as a vehicle that is particularly adapted to drive on the golf course turf without causing damage).
However, Gruhn teaches a vehicle for use on a golf course being:
a golf course turfgrass vehicle (see [0035] utility tractor that operates on golf course turf should be configured to distribute the tractor weight evenly over tires in a sufficiently large “footprint” or “contact patch”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mower of Morrison et al. to be a turfgrass vehicle as taught by Gruhn, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the effectiveness and marketability of the system by avoiding damage to growing turf (see Gruhn, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 12, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one portable microwave sensor is a passive microwave sensor or microwave radiometer (see [0025] measurement of radar intensity), using microwave frequencies in a frequency range 300 MHz - 8 GHz (see [0030] 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz), most preferred working in L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR-E, AMSR2) with frequencies in the range from 6-8 GHz.
Regarding Claim 13, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the wireless transmission system is operatively connected to the central server with processing means (see [0050] cloud based computers) to automatically upload measured data from the portable microwave sensor to the central server (see [0050] communication system used to send data from sensors 430 ([0046] including radar) to cloud based computer) with known data dispatch protocols (see [0050] using a wireless protocol such as WiFi).
Regarding Claim 14, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 3, wherein the wireless transmission system is operatively connected to the central server with processing means (see [0050] cloud based computers) to automatically upload measured data from the portable microwave sensor to the central server (see [0050] communication system used to send data from sensors 430 ([0046] including radar) to cloud based computer) with known data dispatch protocols (see [0050] using a wireless protocol such as WiFi).
Regarding Claim 15, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein a processing software for data recording, sending, analysis (see [0050] cloud based computers generating the vegetative health maps i.e. analyzing sensor data in order to create map), map creation (see [0050] cloud based computer for generating vegetative health maps) and/or map display is installed and running on the central server, which can be local or a cloud (see [0038, 0050] cloud based server).
Regarding Claim 16, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 3, wherein a processing software for data recording, sending, analysis (see [0050] cloud based computers generating the vegetative health maps i.e. analyzing sensor data in order to create map), map creation (see [0050] cloud based computer for generating vegetative health maps) and/or map display is installed and running on the central server, which can be local or a cloud (see [0038, 0050] cloud based server).
Regarding Claim 17, Morrison et al. discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein a processing software for data recording, sending, analysis (see [0050] cloud based computers generating the vegetative health maps i.e. analyzing sensor data in order to create map), map creation (see [0050] cloud based computer for generating vegetative health maps) and/or map display is installed and running on the central server, which can be local or a cloud (see [0038, 0050] cloud based server).
Claims 7, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0030763A1 (Morrison et al.) (IDS filed 4/7/2025) in view of Publication US2005/0165521A1 (Gruhn), further in view of Publication US2011/0049260A1 (Palmer et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Morrison et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 6, wherein additionally to the determination and mapping of soil moisture a guidance for later irrigation in form of a watering schedule of the golf course areas is provided after analysis in the central server via the processing software.
However, Palmer et al. teaches an application for a soil moisture location data (see [0076] soil moisture in particular areas), including:
a guidance for later irrigation in form of a watering schedule of the golf course areas is provided after analysis (see [0040] golf course, [0076-0081] creation of irrigation schedule based on soil moisture areas of need) in the central server via the processing software (see [0031] in central computer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the server function of moisture mapping of Morrison et al. to further be used for irrigation control as taught by Palmer et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving user experience and flexibility (see Palmer et al., [0014-0015]).
Regarding Claim 11, Morrison et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 11, wherein additionally to the determination and mapping of soil moisture of the golf course, a guidance for later irrigation in form of a watering schedule of the golf course areas is provided after analysis in the central server via the processing software.
However, Palmer et al. teaches an application for a soil moisture location data (see [0076] soil moisture in particular areas), including:
a guidance for later irrigation in form of a watering schedule of the golf course areas is provided after analysis (see [0040] golf course, [0076-0081] creation of irrigation schedule based on soil moisture areas of need) in the central server via the processing software (see [0031] in central computer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the server function of moisture mapping of Morrison et al. to further be used for irrigation control as taught by Palmer et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving user experience and flexibility (see Palmer et al., [0014-0015]).
Regarding Claim 18, Morrison et al. discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein at least one portable microwave sensor is mounted with the sensor mounting device to a grass cutting vehicle (see Figure 3A, [0041]) or mower (see Figure 3A, [0041]) or a golf players' golf cart, automatically recording and sending data, while the vehicle starts moving (see [0076] e.g. initiating vegetative health device scanning when taking out of garage (start of mowing movement))..
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0030763A1 (Morrison et al.) (IDS filed 4/7/2025) in view of Publication US2005/0165521A1 (Gruhn), further in view of Publication US2011/0049260A1 (Palmer et al.). further in view of NPL Publication “Inter-Comparison of Proximal Near-Surface Soil Moisture Measurement Techniques” (Wu et al.).
Regarding Claim 19, Morrison et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 7, wherein the at least one portable microwave sensor is a passive microwave sensor or microwave radiometer, working in L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR- E, AMSR2) with frequencies in the range from 6-8 GHz.
However, Wu et al. teaches a technique to capture soil moisture data (see e.g. Abstract and Figure 1, p. 2371, vehicle-mounted sensing arrangement),
wherein the at least one portable microwave sensor is a passive microwave sensor or microwave radiometer, working in L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz (see p. 2371 Figure 1 and Section II. ELBARA III L-band microwave radiometer, measuring in 1400-1427 MHz and Section III. on p. 2372) and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR- E, AMSR2) with frequencies in the range from 6-8 GHz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the use of microwave radar in Morrison et al. to additionally or alternatively use a passive L-band radiometer as taught by Wu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy by using known algorithms which account for vegetation, soil roughness, and temperature (see Wu et al., p. 2372, 2377).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0030763A1 (Morrison et al.) (IDS filed 4/7/2025) in view of Publication US2005/0165521A1 (Gruhn), further in view of NPL Publication “Inter-Comparison of Proximal Near-Surface Soil Moisture Measurement Techniques” (Wu et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Morrison et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 6, wherein the at least one portable microwave sensor is a passive microwave sensor or microwave radiometer, working in L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR-E, AMSR2) with frequencies in the range from 6-8 GHz.
However, Wu et al. teaches a technique to capture soil moisture data (see e.g. Abstract and Figure 1, p. 2371, vehicle-mounted sensing arrangement),
wherein the at least one portable microwave sensor is a passive microwave sensor or microwave radiometer, working in L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz (see p. 2371 Figure 1 and Section II. ELBARA III L-band microwave radiometer, measuring in 1400-1427 MHz and Section III. on p. 2372) and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR- E, AMSR2) with frequencies in the range from 6-8 GHz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the use of microwave radar in Morrison et al. to additionally or alternatively use a passive L-band radiometer as taught by Wu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy by using known algorithms which account for vegetation, soil roughness, and temperature (see Wu et al., p. 2372, 2377).
Regarding Claim 20, Morrison et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 8, wherein the at least one portable microwave sensor is a passive microwave sensor or microwave radiometer, working in L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR- E, AMSR2) with frequencies in the range from 6-8 GHz.
However, Wu et al. teaches a technique to capture soil moisture data (see e.g. Abstract and Figure 1, p. 2371, vehicle-mounted sensing arrangement),
wherein the at least one portable microwave sensor is a passive microwave sensor or microwave radiometer, working in L-band (SMOS and SMAP) in the passive-protected frequency range from 1400-1427 MHz (see p. 2371 Figure 1 and Section II. ELBARA III L-band microwave radiometer, measuring in 1400-1427 MHz and Section III. on p. 2372) and/or in the C-band can be used (AMSR, AMSR- E, AMSR2) with frequencies in the range from 6-8 GHz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the use of microwave radar in Morrison et al. to additionally or alternatively use a passive L-band radiometer as taught by Wu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy by using known algorithms which account for vegetation, soil roughness, and temperature (see Wu et al., p. 2372, 2377).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
