DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/26 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13-19, and 22-25 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.
Claim 1, and similarly claim 11, state “the secondary wake-up time is a time at which stomata of the plant re-open, and the control system is configured to provide a further light pulse comprising blue light at the secondary wake-up time to stimulate stomatal opening.” These two limitations appear to be in contrast with one another, thus rendering the claim indefinite. The first limitation is saying the wake-up time occurs when the stomata re-opens, however the second limitation says the wake-up causes the stomata to re-open. Therefore it is unclear what the relationship between the timing of the wake-up light and the stomata opening is. For example, does the stomata open and then the wake-up occurs? Do they happen at the exact same time? Does the wake-up time precede the stomata opening and thus cause it to open?
Claim 13 states “wherein the second horticulture light is received as solar light and/or provided by a lighting device.” However, claim 11, from which claim 13 depends, states “the lighting device is configured to provide the second horticulture light.” Therefore it is unclear where the second light is coming from, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, 14-19, and 22-25 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-2, 7-9, 11, 14-17, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn et al. (US 2018/0116127) in view of Suntych (WO 2016/033350) and Yamada et al. (US 2015/0128489) (cited by applicant on IDS dated 1/31/20).
Regarding Claim 1, Krijn discloses a horticulture lighting system, comprising:
a lighting device configured to provide horticulture light (blue light source Paragraph [0028], red light source Paragraph [0030], far-ref light source Paragraph [0029]) and
a control system configured to control the lighting device to provide according to a predetermined time scheme (“The supplemental lighting for each colour channel offered to the plants during this typical day is as shown in FIG. 2. The supplemental lighting is switched on at 4 AM and switched off again at 10 PM” Paragraph [0080]) and as a function of a sensor signal (“the amount of the photosynthetically active radiation offered to the plant, and the blue light and far-red light fraction thereof, may be determined. This determination may be carried out by measuring the radiation. Measurement may be carried out by any means known in the art, for instance, with a light sensor, such a spectroradiometer.” Paragraph [0046]) a light pulse of horticulture light in a spectral wavelength region (blue supplemental light shown in Figure 2), the control system being configured to provide the light pulse at least at dawn (blue supplement light Figure 2),
wherein the spectral wavelength region at least comprises blue light during a first light pulse period (blue light beginning at hour 4; Figure 2), a second period in which a second horticulture light is provided (red supplemental light Figure 2), the second period is longer than the first light pulse period (Figure 2), the lighting device is configured to provide the second horticulture light (red light source Paragraph [0030]), the control system is configured to provide the light pulse of horticulture light and the second horticulture light according to a predefined scheme (Figure 2; Paragraph [0080]), and the predefined scheme is based on a day-night rhythm created by the second horticulture light (Figure 2), and
wherein the control system chooses a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period (blue light starting around hour 17 in Figure 2), the secondary wake-up time is a time at which stomata of the plant re-open (blue light at 15 or more μmol/m.sup.2/s as shown in Figure 2, blue light triggers stomata opening), and the control system is configured to provide a further light pulse comprising blue light at the secondary wake-up time to stimulate stomatal opening (blue light starting around hour 17 in Figure 2).
Krijn fails to disclose the control system receiving the sensor signal from a thermal sensor configured to detect plant temperature, the blue light during a first light pulse period selected from a range of 10-40 min, the first light pulse period at least partially precedes a second period in which a second horticulture light is provided, wherein the control system is configured to analyze the plant temperature to choose a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period, and when the plant temperature is indicative of a stomatal opening and closing cycle of the plant.
However, Suntych teaches a plant lighting system the control system receiving the sensor signal from a thermal sensor configured to detect plant temperature (“one or more sensors 602, 604, 606 and 608 are associated with each plant… The conditions associated with the plant or organism which may be monitored include but are not limited to, soil moisture, air temperature, leaf temperature” Paragraph [0078]; “The data from the one or more sensors 602, 604, 606 and 608 is analyzed by the MLC 102. Based on the information from the sensors, the MLC 102, through the photon emission modulation controller 104, the MLC 102 is able to adjust the intensity, duty cycle and frequency of each specific color spectrum photon pulse 608 and 610” Paragraph [0080]), a blue light during a first light pulse period selected from a range of 1-40 min (“Examples of the photon pulse duration may include but is not limited to, 0.01 microseconds to 5 minutes” Paragraph [0086]), wherein the control system is configured to analyze the plant temperature to choose a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period (Paragraphs [0078] and [0080]; “The system of the present disclosure also allows for other durations between photon pulses including but not limited one microsecond to 24 hours” Paragraph [0086], therefore a second light pulse can occur within 24 hours) and when the plant temperature is indicative of a stomatal opening and closing cycle of the plant (plant temperature and plant leaf temperature are indicators of stomatal opening and closing, Suntych teaches measuring leaf temperature Paragraph [0078]),
the secondary wake-up time is a time at which stomata of the plant re-open (blue light causes stomata to open; “An example may include adjusting a pulse to comprise both blue and near red 608 at various durations or adjusting duration of a pulse of far-red, near red and blue 610.” Paragraph [0080]),
and the control system is configured to provide a further light pulse comprising blue light at the secondary wake-up time to stimulate stomatal opening (Paragraphs [0078] and [0080]; “The system of the present disclosure also allows for other durations between photon pulses including but not limited one microsecond to 24 hours” Paragraph [0086]; Paragraphs [0078-0080] describes using the leaf temperature sensor to choose the frequency of the blue light pulse).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photo sensor of Krijn, with the thermal sensor of Suntych, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent the plants from overheating, while maintaining a healthy growth environment, and to have modified the light pulse period of Krijn to have a period selected from a range of 10-40 minutes as taught by Suntych, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to promote growth of the plant, accelerate bloom time, and increase water retention in a quick and efficient manner, and to have modified the second pulse of Krijn, to be based on plant temperature as taught by Suntych, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to help customize the lighting conditions to the needs of the plant to help ensure healthy growth (Suntych Paragraph [0080]).
Additionally, Yamada teaches a plant lighting apparatus wherein first light pulse period (white light “the first light source 1 emits, e.g., warm white light (indicated by a single-dot chain line) which includes blue light” Paragraph [0023]) at least partially precedes a second period in which a second horticulture light is provided (second light source; Figure 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pulse period of Krijn, to at least partially precede the second horticultural light as taught by Yamada, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant has sufficient time to prepare for photosynthesis.
Regarding Claim 2, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1.
Krijn fails to discloses the horticulture lighting system according to claim 1, wherein the light pulse of blue light includes light having a wavelength selected from a range of 425-475 nm.
However, Yamada teaches the horticulture lighting system, wherein the light pulse of blue light includes light having a wavelength selected from a range of 425-475 nm (“includes blue light having a peak wavelength at about 455 nm” Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pulse of Krijn, to be in a range of 425-475 nm as taught by Yamada, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the efficiency of the stomatal opening triggering, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 7, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Krijn further discloses the horticulture lighting system, wherein the lighting device comprises a first lighting device (“The term ‘blue light source’ means a light source that produces blue light.” Paragraph [0028]) and a second lighting device (“The term ‘red light source’ means a light source that produces red light.” Paragraph [0030]), wherein the first lighting device is configured to provide at least blue horticulture light (Paragraph [0028]), wherein the horticulture lighting system is configured to provide the light pulse with at least the first lighting device (Figure 2), and wherein the second lighting device is configured to provide at least the second horticulture light having one or more wavelengths selected from one or more wavelength ranges of 600-700 nm (“red’ light means light falling within the range from 600 nm-700 nm,” Paragraph [0026]), the horticulture lighting system further comprising a sensor, wherein the sensor is configured to monitor a parameter of a plant and to provide a corresponding sensor signal (“the amount of the photosynthetically active radiation offered to the plant, and the blue light and far-red light fraction thereof, may be determined. This determination may be carried out by measuring the radiation. Measurement may be carried out by any means known in the art, for instance, with a light sensor, such a spectroradiometer.” Paragraph [0046]), and wherein the control system is configured to provide the light pulse according to a predetermined relation between sensor signal and horticulture lighting properties of one or more of the light pulse of horticulture light and the second horticulture light (Paragraph [0048-0049]).
Krijn fails to disclose wherein the second lighting device is configured to provide at least the second horticulture light having one or more wavelengths selected from one or more wavelength ranges selected of the group consisting of (i) 625-675 nm and (ii) 700-850 nm.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pulse of Krijn, to be in a range of 625-675 nm and 700-850 nm, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the photosynthesis efficiency in the plants, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 8, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Krijn further discloses a horticulture arrangement for plants (Abstract), the horticulture arrangement comprising a horticulture lighting system according to claim 1 (see rejection above).
Kijn fails to explicitly disclose a support for support of the plants.
However, Yamada teaches a support for support of the plants (Plant is planted in ridge F Paragraph [0022] Fig. 4- see Applicant’s definition of support).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the greenhouse of Krijn, with the plant support of Yamada, in order to help ensure the plants remain in the correct location to receive the proper amount of light.
Regarding Claim 9, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 8. Krijn further discloses the horticulture arrangement, wherein the lighting device comprises a first lighting device (“The term ‘blue light source’ means a light source that produces blue light.” Paragraph [0028]) and a second lighting device (“The term ‘red light source’ means a light source that produces red light.” Paragraph [0030]).
Krijn fails to disclose the first lighting device is configured as one or more of uplighter and side lighter, and wherein the second lighting device is configured as one or more of side lighter and down lighter.
However, Yamada teaches the first lighting device is configured as one or more of uplighter (lower light sources 1c; Figure 4) and side lighter (lateral light source 1b), and wherein the second lighting device is configured as one or more of side lighter (lateral light source 2b) and down lighter (upper light source 2a).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light sources of Krijn, with the uplighters, side lighters, and down lighters of Yamada, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to help ensure all sides of the plant are sufficiently lit to promote healthy growing conditions.
Regarding Claim 15, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Krijn further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage device with computer-executable instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations configured to actuate the horticulture lighting system of claim 1 (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding Claim 16, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Krijn further discloses the horticulture lighting system, wherein the control system is configured to provide during the first light pulse period the light pulse with an irradiance of 10-70 umol/m2/s photons (“the supplemental lighting installation is capable of providing a maximum level of 15 μmol/m.sup.2/s of blue light,” Paragraph [0079; Figure 2 shows between 10-70 umol/m2/s).
Krijn fails to disclose wherein the control system is configured to provide during the first light pulse period a radiant fluence of 20,000-100,000 umol/m2 photons.
However, Yamada teaches wherein the control system is configured to provide during the first light pulse period a radiant fluence of 20,000-100,000 umol/m2 photons (“the first light source 1 irradiates light around the plant P at an irradiance of 0.01 W/m2 or more” Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pulse of Krijn, with the radiant fluence of Yamada, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the intensity of the pulse, thereby increasing the efficiency and the effectiveness of the pulse.
Regarding Claim 25, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1.
Krijn fails to disclose the horticulture lighting system, wherein the lighting device is configured to provide the light pulse having blue light for stimulating stomatal opening to leaves of the plant from a different side than the second horticulture light for photosynthesis.
However, Yamada teaches the horticulture lighting system, wherein the lighting device is configured to provide the light pulse having blue light for stimulating stomatal opening to leaves of the plant (first light source 1; “the first light source 1 emits, e.g., daylight white light which includes blue light having a peak wavelength at about 455 nm” Paragraph [0023]) from a different side than the second horticulture light for photosynthesis (second light source 2 “The light emitted from the second light source 2 is the far-red light having a peak wavelength in a range from 685 nm to 780 nm.” Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light sources of Krijn, with the different side light devices as taught by Yamada, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to help ensure different sides of the plant are sufficiently lit to promote healthy growing conditions.
Regarding Claim 11, Krijn discloses a method of providing horticulture light to plants in a horticulture arrangement (Abstract), the method comprising:
providing, by a control system and according to a predetermined time scheme (“The supplemental lighting for each colour channel offered to the plants during this typical day is as shown in FIG. 2. The supplemental lighting is switched on at 4 AM and switched off again at 10 PM” Paragraph [0080]) and as a function of a sensor signal (“the amount of the photosynthetically active radiation offered to the plant, and the blue light and far-red light fraction thereof, may be determined. This determination may be carried out by measuring the radiation. Measurement may be carried out by any means known in the art, for instance, with a light sensor, such a spectroradiometer.” Paragraph [0046]), a light pulse of horticulture light from a lighting device in a spectral wavelength region (blue supplemental light shown in Figure 2), the control system being configured to provide the light pulse at least at dawn (blue supplement light Figure 2),
analyzing by the control system the sensor data to choose a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period (blue light starting around hour 17 in Figure 2; Paragraph [0048-0049]); the secondary wake-up time is a time at which stomata of the plant re-open (blue light at 15 or more μmol/m.sup.2/s as shown in Figure 2), and the control system is configured to provide a further light pulse comprising blue light at the secondary wake-up time to stimulate stomatal opening (blue light starting around hour 17 in Figure 2), and
after analyzing the sensor data, providing a further light pulse comprising blue light at the secondary wake-up time to stimulate stomatal opening (blue light starting around hour 17 in Figure 2; Paragraph [0048-0049]),
wherein the spectral wavelength region at least comprising blue light (Figure 2) with an irradiance of 10-70 pmol/m2/s photons (“the supplemental lighting installation is capable of providing a maximum level of 15 μmol/m.sup.2/s of blue light,” Paragraph [0079; Figure 2 shows between 10-70 umol/m2/s), a second period in which a second horticulture light is provided (red supplemental light Figure 2), the second period is longer than the first light pulse period (Figure 2), the lighting device is configured to provide the second horticulture light (red light source Paragraph [0030]), the control system is configured to provide the light pulse of horticulture light and the second horticulture light according to a predefined scheme (Figure 2; Paragraph [0080]), and the predefined scheme is based on a day-night rhythm created by the second horticulture light (Figure 2), and
Krijn fails to disclose the control system receiving the sensor signal from a thermal sensor configured to detect plant temperature of the plants in the horticulture arrangement, analyzing by the control system the plant temperature to choose a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period, the plant temperature being indicative of a stomatal opening and closing cycle of the plant, and after analyzing the plant temperature, providing a further light pulse comprising blue light at the secondary wake-up time to stimulate stomatal opening, the blue light during a first light pulse period selected from a range of 1-40 min, the first light pulse period at least partially precedes a second period of second horticulture light.
However, Suntych teaches a similar method comprising the control system receiving the sensor signal from a thermal sensor configured to detect plant temperature (“one or more sensors 602, 604, 606 and 608 are associated with each plant… The conditions associated with the plant or organism which may be monitored include but are not limited to, soil moisture, air temperature, leaf temperature” Paragraph [0078]; “The data from the one or more sensors 602, 604, 606 and 608 is analyzed by the MLC 102. Based on the information from the sensors, the MLC 102, through the photon emission modulation controller 104, the MLC 102 is able to adjust the intensity, duty cycle and frequency of each specific color spectrum photon pulse 608 and 610” Paragraph [0080]), analyzing by the control system the plant temperature to choose a secondary wake-up time during a single 24 hour period (Paragraphs [0078] and [0080]; “The system of the present disclosure also allows for other durations between photon pulses including but not limited one microsecond to 24 hours” Paragraph [0086], therefore a second light pulse can occur within 24 hours), the plant temperature being indicative of a stomatal opening and closing cycle of the plant (plant temperature and plant leaf temperature are indicators of stomatal opening and closing, Suntych teaches measuring leaf temperature Paragraph [0078]), the secondary wake-up time being a time at which stomata of the plant re-open (blue light causes stomata to open; “An example may include adjusting a pulse to comprise both blue and near red 608 at various durations or adjusting duration of a pulse of far-red, near red and blue 610.” Paragraph [0080]), and after analyzing the plant temperature, providing a further light pulse comprising blue light at the secondary wake-up time to stimulate stomatal opening (Paragraphs [0078] and [0080]; “The system of the present disclosure also allows for other durations between photon pulses including but not limited one microsecond to 24 hours” Paragraph [0086]; Paragraphs [0078-0080] describes using the leaf temperature sensor to choose the frequency of the blue light pulse), the blue light occurring during a first light pulse period selected from a range of 1-40 min (“Examples of the photon pulse duration may include but is not limited to, 0.01 microseconds to 5 minutes” Paragraph [0086]),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photo sensor of Krijn, with the thermal sensor of Suntych, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent the plants from overheating, while maintaining a healthy growth environment, and to have modified the light pulse period of Krijn to have a period selected from a range of 10-40 minutes as taught by Suntych, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to promote growth of the plant, accelerate bloom time, and increase water retention in a quick and efficient manner, and to have modified the second pulse of Krijn, to be based on plant temperature as taught by Suntych, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to help customize the lighting conditions to the needs of the plant to help ensure healthy growth (Suntych Paragraph [0080]).
Additionally, Yamada teaches a plant lighting apparatus wherein first light pulse period (white light “the first light source 1 emits, e.g., warm white light (indicated by a single-dot chain line) which includes blue light” Paragraph [0023]) at least partially precedes a second period in which a second horticulture light is provided (second light source; Figure 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pulse period of Krijn, to at least partially precede the second horticultural light as taught by Yamada, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant has sufficient time to prepare for photosynthesis.
Regarding Claim 14, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 11. Krijn further discloses the method when the light pulse of horticulture light is provided as function of a sensor signal (blue light starting around hour 17 in Figure 2; Paragraph [0048-0049]), and wherein the method further comprises monitoring a parameter of a plant and providing the light pulse according to a predetermined relation between a parameter value and horticulture lighting properties of the light pulse of the horticulture light (Paragraph [0048-0049]).
Krijn fails to disclose wherein the light pulse is directed to an abaxial part of leaves of the plant.
However, Yamada teaches wherein the light pulse is directed to an abaxial part of leaves of the plant (light source 1c; Figure 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light of Krijn, to be directed at the abaxial part of the leaves as taught by Yamada, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure every part of the plant, including the lower leaves, receives sufficient light (Yamada Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 17, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 11.
Krijn fails to disclose the method, wherein the light pulse of blue light includes light having a wavelength selected from a range of 425-475 nm, wherein the method further comprises providing during the first light pulse period a radiant fluence of 20,000- 100,000 pmol/m2 photons.
However, Yamada discloses the method, wherein the light pulse of blue light includes light having a wavelength selected from a range of 425-475 nm (“the first light source 1 emits, e.g., daylight white light which includes blue light having a peak wavelength at about 455 nm” Paragraph [0023]), wherein the method further comprises providing during the first light pulse period a radiant fluence of 20,000- 100,000 pmol/m2 photons (“the first light source 1 irradiates light around the plant P at an irradiance of 0.01 W/m2 or more” Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pulse of Krijn, to be in a range of 425-475 nm as taught by Yamada, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the efficiency of the stomatal opening triggering, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, and to have modified the pulse of Krijn, with the radiant fluence of Yamada, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the intensity of the pulse, thereby increasing the efficiency and the effectiveness of the pulse.
Claims 3, 5, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn in view of Suntych and Yamada as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Reynoso et al. (US8847514).
Regarding Claim 3, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1.
Krijn fails to disclose the horticulture lighting system, wherein the light pulse has an average irradiance of n pmol/m2/s photons over the light pulse period and wherein at least 0.5 h preceding and at least 0.5 h following to the light pulse, the average irradiance of the second horticulture light in the same spectral region as of the horticulture light of the light pulse are each at maximum 0.75*n umol/m2/s photons.
However, Reynoso teaches the horticulture lighting system, wherein the light pulse has an average irradiance of n umol/m2/s photons over the light pulse period (“photosynthetic photon flux or PPF, measured in micro-moles of photons per meter squared, per second.” Col 15 lines 47-48) and wherein at least 0.5 h preceding and at least 0.5 h following to the light pulse (blue λ1 peak around 11am); Figure 6), the average irradiance of the second horticulture light (red λ2) in the same spectral region as of the horticulture light of the light pulse are each at maximum 0.75*n umol/m2/s photons (Figure 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second light source of Krijn, with the second light source having a maximum of 75% of the irradiance of the light pulse within plus or minus half an hour as taught by Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to create a short day treatment to the plant which promotes the growth of the plant, accelerates bloom time, and increases water retention in a quick and efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 5, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 1. Krijn further discloses the horticulture lighting system, wherein a high intensity period with second horticulture light intensity (4 AM to 10 PM; Figure 2; Paragraph [0080]) alternates with a low intensity period with no second horticulture light intensity (10 PM to 4 AM; Figure 2) or less second horticulture light intensity than in the high intensity period, wherein the high intensity period and low intensity period are each at least an hour (Figure 2).
Krijn fails to disclose the horticulture arrangement wherein the control system is configured to provide the light pulse within a time period of 0.5 h preceding and 0.5 h following a start of the high intensity period, and wherein a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the low intensity period is at maximum 50% of a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the high intensity period.
However, Reynoso teaches the horticulture arrangement wherein the control system is configured to provide the light pulse (blue λ1 peak around 11am) within a time period of 0.5 h preceding and 0.5 h following a start of the high intensity period (red λ2 starting around 10:30am; Figure 6), wherein the high intensity period and low intensity period are each at least an hour (Figure 6), and wherein a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the low intensity period (red λ2 before 10:30am) is at maximum 50% of a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the high intensity period (red λ2 around 11am; Figure 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pulse and second light of Krijn, with the time scheme and intensity of Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to create a shorter day treatment to the plant which promotes the growth of the plant, accelerates bloom time, and increases water retention in a quick and efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 18, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture lighting arrangement of Claim 1. Krijn further discloses wherein the first light pulse period at least partially overlaps the second period (Figure 2).
Krijn fails to disclose wherein the first light pulse period precedes and at least partially overlaps the second period.
However, Reynoso teaches a similar lighting system wherein the first light pulse period (blue λ1 peak around 11am; Figure 6) precedes and at least partially overlaps the second period (red λ2 Figures 7 and 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pulse of Krijn, to partially overlap the second horticultural light period as taught by Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain enough light throughout the day to provide healthy conditions for the plant.
Regarding Claim 13, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 11. Krijn further discloses the method, wherein a high intensity period with second horticulture light intensity alternates with a low intensity period with no second horticulture light intensity or less second horticulture light intensity than in the high intensity period (Figure 2),wherein the second horticulture light is received as solar light and/or provided by a lighting device (red light source Paragraph [0030]), and wherein a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the low intensity period is at maximum 50% of a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the high intensity period (Figure 2, when the red light is off vs when it is on).
Krijn fails to disclose wherein the method further comprises providing the light pulse within a time period of 0.5 h preceding and 0.5 h following a start of the high intensity period, wherein the high intensity period and low intensity period are each at least an hour.
However, Reynoso teaches the method wherein the method further comprises providing the light pulse (blue λ1 peak around 11am Figure 6) within a time period of 0.5 h preceding and 0.5 h following a start of the high intensity period (red λ2 starting around 10:30am; Figure 6), wherein the high intensity period and low intensity period are each at least an hour (Figure 6), and wherein a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the low intensity period (red λ2 before 10:30am) is at maximum 50% of a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the high intensity period (red λ2 around 11am; Figure 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pulse and second light of Krijn, with the time scheme and intensity of Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to create a short day treatment to the plant which promotes the growth of the plant, accelerates bloom time, and increases water retention in a quick and efficient manner.
Regarding Claim 19, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 11. Krijn further discloses wherein the first light pulse period at least partially overlaps the second period (Figure 2, the blue light and red light overlap).
Krijn fails to disclose the method, wherein the first light pulse period precedes the second period.
However, Reynoso teaches a similar lighting system wherein the first light pulse period (blue λ1 peak around 11am; Figure 6) precedes and at least partially overlaps the second period (red λ2 Figures 7 and 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pulse of Krijn, to partially overlap the second horticultural light period as taught by Reynoso, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain enough light throughout the day to provide healthy conditions for the plant.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn, in view of Suntych and Yamada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daniels (US 2017/0188531).
Regarding Claim 10, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture arrangement of Claim 8.
Krijn fails to disclose the horticulture arrangement, wherein the control system is further configured to provide an elevated CO2 concentration by means of a device for providing CO2 at least during the light pulse period.
However, Daniels teaches a similar horticulture arrangement, wherein the control system is further configured to provide an elevated CO2 concentration by means of a device for providing CO2 at least during the light pulse period (“Gasses, such as CO2 can be injected into the ambient air” Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control system of Krijn, with the means of providing CO2 as taught by Daniels, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase photosynthesis, spurring accelerated plant growth.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn, in view of Suntych and Yamada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kramer et al. (US 2018/0313760).
Regarding Claim 22, Krijn as modified teaches the horticulture lighting arrangement of Claim 1.
Krijn fails to disclose the horticulture lighting system, wherein the thermal sensor comprises a thermal camera, and wherein the control system is configured to detect, from the plant temperature, a decrease in the plant temperature caused by transpiration of water via the stomata as an indication that the stomata are open.
However, Kramer teaches a plant lighting system (Figure 1; lights 112) wherein the thermal sensor comprises a thermal camera, and wherein the control system is configured to detect, from the plant temperature, a decrease in the plant temperature caused by transpiration of water via the stomata as an indication that the stomata are open (“Stomatal dynamics can be monitored non-invasively and in high throughput using thermal imaging (thermography), which reflects evaporative cooling of leaves resulting from transpiration. Referring again to FIG. 1B, the chamber 102 therefore further includes in some embodiments cameras 114 that are operable to observe thermal and/or infrared characteristics of the plant canopy.” Paragraph [0106]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Krijn, to be the thermal camera of Kramer, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plants have a healthy growing environment through temperature and transpiration monitoring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 23, the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicant's claimed invention. The closest prior art of record fails to specifically teach wherein the control system is configured to determine, from the plant temperature, that the stomata are closed when the plant temperature increases, and to choose the secondary wake-up time after a delay that allows the plant to fulfil a physiological requirement while the stomata are closed. While Kramer et a. (US 2018/0313760) discusses the use of thermal imaging to determine transpiration times and stomatal dynamics, there is no connection between the sensing and the controlling of a lighting device.
Regarding Claim 24, the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicant's claimed invention. The prior art of record fails to specifically teach wherein the control system is configured to determine, from the plant temperature, that the stomata are closed when the plant temperature increases, and to choose the secondary wake-up time after a delay that allows the plant to fulfil a physiological requirement while the stomata are closed. This limitation was not found in the prior art, nor made obvious when combined with other references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/6/26 with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly added reference Krijn et al. (US 2018/0116127), in combination with previously used references, teach the amended claims, as discussed in the currently presented rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights