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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 13-15 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reusch (CA 3048320) as modified by Ashdown et al. (US 20210259158) and Song et al. (US 20200063931) further in view of Goldring et al. (US 20180085003).
Regarding claim 1, Reusch teaches an apparatus comprising:
a light source 4 positioned relative to the plant; and
a detector 2 positioned relative to the plant, the detector configured to receive evaluation light, the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a status of the plant (figure 1A, page 2 and 19).
However, Reusch fails to teach the light source configured to emit an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm.
Ashdown teaches a light source configured to emit an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm (para 5 and 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the light source of Reusch with the ultraviolet light as taught by Ashdown, since it would better plant health and growth.
Further, Ashdown fails to teach a maximum dose of ultraviolet exposure to the plant is less than 10KJ/m2 per observation time.
Song teaches a maximum dose of ultraviolet exposure to the plant is less than 10KJ/m2 per observation time (para 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the dose of Ashdown with the dose as taught by Song, since it would prevent damaging plants
Further, Reusch fails to teach the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a disease status of the plant.
Goldring teaches a detector 190 positioned relative to the plant, the detector configured to receive evaluation light, the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a disease status of the plant (para 51, 230-240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the apparatus of Reusch with the detector as taught by Goldring, since it would provide better plant health status.
Regarding claim 5, Reusch teaches the light source is selected from the group comprising a flashlight and a light emitting diode (LED) (para 19).
However Reusch fails to teach the light source comprises a maximum output optical power of 1.2W.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the power, 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. Accordingly, the power would provide better measurement resolution.
Regarding claim 6, Reusch teaches the detector is a camera included in a handheld computing device (pages 2 and 19).
Regarding claim 8, Reusch teaches a system for detecting a plant health status, the system comprising: a light source positioned relative to the plant, the light source; a detector positioned relative to the plant, the detector configured to receive evaluation light, the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a health status of the plant; and a plant status module configured to determine the plant health status based, at least in part, on the received evaluation light (figure 1A, page 2 and 19).
However, Reusch fails to teach the light source configured to emit an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm.
Ashdown teaches a light source configured to emit an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm (para 5 and 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the light source of Reusch with the ultraviolet light as taught by Ashdown, since it would better plant health and growth.
Further, Ashdown fails to teach a maximum dose of ultraviolet exposure to the plant is less than 10KJ/m2 per observation time.
Song teaches a maximum dose of ultraviolet exposure to the plant is less than 10KJ/m2 per observation time (para 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the dose of Ashdown with the dose as taught by Song, since it would prevent damaging plants.
Further, Reusch fails to teach the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a disease status of the plant; and a plant status module configured to determine the plant disease status based, at least in part, on a presence of characteristics of the received evaluation light indicative of plant disease.
Goldring teaches a detector 190 positioned relative to the plant, the detector configured to receive evaluation light, evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a disease status of the plant; and a plant status module configured to determine the plant disease status based, at least in part, on a presence of characteristics of the received evaluation light indicative of plant disease (para 51, 230-240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the apparatus of Reusch with the detector as taught by Goldring, since it would provide better plant health status.
Regarding claim 13, Reusch teaches the light source is selected from the group comprising a flashlight and a light emitting diode (LED) (page 19)
However Reusch fails to teach the light source comprises a maximum output optical power of 1.2W.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the power, 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. Accordingly, the power would provide better measurement resolution.
Regarding claim 14, Reusch teaches the detector is a camera included in a handheld computing device (pages 2 and 19).
Regarding claim 15, Reusch teaches a method for detecting a plant health status, the method comprising: emitting, by a light source positioned relative to the plant, receiving, by a detector positioned relative to the plant, evaluation light, the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a health status of the plant; and determining, by a plant status module, the plant health status based, at least in part, on the received evaluation light (figure 1A, page 2 and 19).
However, Reusch fails to teach the light source configured to emit an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm.
Ashdown teaches a light source configured to emit an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm (para 5 and 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the light source of Reusch with the ultraviolet light as taught by Ashdown, since it would better plant health and growth.
Further, Ashdown fails to teach a maximum dose of ultraviolet exposure to the plant is less than 10KJ/m2 per observation time.
Song teaches a maximum dose of ultraviolet exposure to the plant is less than 10KJ/m2 per observation time (para 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the dose of Ashdown with the dose as taught by Song, since it would prevent damaging plants.
Further Reusch fails to teach evaluation light, the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a disease status of the plant; a presence of characteristics of the received evaluation light indicative of plant disease.
Goldring teaches evaluation light, the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a disease status of the plant; a presence of characteristics of the received evaluation light indicative of plant disease (para 51, 230-240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the apparatus of Reusch with the detector as taught by Goldring, since it would provide better plant health status.
Regarding claim 20, Reusch teaches computer readable storage device having stored thereon instructions that when executed by one or more processors result in the following operations comprising the method according to claim 15 (page 19).
Regarding claim 21, Song fails to teach to expose the plant to the ultraviolet light for a few seconds and operate in a range between 9-2.5 kW/m2 integrated over an entire UV-A range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adapt the operating range, 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. Thus, one would be motivated to adapt the operating range to provide better/optimum plant health
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reusch as modified by Ashdown further in view of Emadi et al. (US 20150338273).
Reusch as modified fails to teach a light source filter comprising a band-pass blocking filter configured to block emission having greater than 400 nm wavelength.
Emadi teaches a light source filter comprising a band-pass blocking filter configured to block emission having greater than 400 nm wavelength (para 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch as modified with the filter as taught by Emadi, since it would provide better signal.
Claim(s) 4, 9-10, 12, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reusch in view of Peeters et al. (US 20180324407).
Regarding claim 4, Reusch teaches a location sensor configured to sense a location of the plant, the location sensor coupled to at least one of the light source or the detector.
Peeters teaches a location sensor 160 couple to a detector (para 127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch with the sensor as taught by Peeters, since it would provide better inspection.
Regarding claim 9, fails to teach a plant status data store configured to store a plurality of plant status records, each record comprising a location identifier, a plant status indicator for at least one plant at or near the location and a timestamp.
Peeters teaches a plant status data store configured to store a plurality of plant status records, each record comprising a location identifier, a plant status indicator for at least one plant at or near the location and a timestamp (para 127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch with the sensor as taught by Peeters, since it would provide better inspection.
Regarding claim 10, Reusch fails to teach the plant status module is further configured to monitor a trend in plant status associated with a selected location and based, at least in part, on a time duration between a pair of plant statuses, sequential in time.
Peeters teaches the plant status module is further configured to monitor a trend in plant status associated with a selected location and based, at least in part, on a time duration between a pair of plant statuses, sequential in time (para 127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch with the sensor as taught by Peeters, since it would provide better inspection.
Regarding claim 12, Reusch fails to teach a location sensor configured to sense a location of the plant, the location sensor coupled to at least one of the light source or the detector.
Peeters teaches a location sensor 160 couple to a detector (para 127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch with the sensor as taught by Peeters, since it would provide better inspection.
Regarding claim 16, Reusch teaches storing, by a plant status data store, a plurality of plant status records, each record comprising a location identifier, a plant status indicator for at least one plant at or near the location and a timestamp.
Peeters teaches storing, by a plant status data store, a plurality of plant status records, each record comprising a location identifier, a plant status indicator for at least one plant at or near the location and a timestamp (para 127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch with the sensor as taught by Peeters, since it would provide better inspection.
Regarding claim 17, Reusch fails to teach monitoring, by the plant status module, a trend in plant status associated with a selected location and based, at least in part, on a time duration between a pair of plant statuses taken for a same group of plants, sequential in time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch with the sensor as taught by Peeters, since it would provide better inspection (para 127).
Peeters teaches monitoring, by the plant status module, a trend in plant status associated with a selected location and based, at least in part, on a time duration between a pair of plant statuses, sequential in time (para 127)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch with the sensor as taught by Peeters, since it would provide better inspection.
Regarding claim 19, Reusch teaches fails to teach sensing, by a location sensor, a location of the plant, the location sensor coupled to at least one of the light source or the detector.
Peeters teaches sensing, by a location sensor, a location of the plant, the location sensor coupled to at least one of the light source or the detector (para 127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch with the sensor as taught by Peeters, since it would provide better inspection.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reusch in view of Feng (CN 107087519) further in view of Goldring et al. (US 20180085003).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Reusch teaches an apparatus or method for detecting a plant health status, the apparatus comprising:
a light source 4 positioned relative to the plant; and
a detector 2 positioned relative to the plant, the detector configured to receive evaluation light, the evaluation light related to the emitted light (figure 1A, page 2 and 19).
However, Reusch fails to teach the light source configured to emit a white light or an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm.
Feng teaches a light source configured to emit an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Reusch with the light as taught by Feng, since it would provide better inspection.
Further, Reusch fails to teach the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a disease status of the plant.
Goldring teaches a detector 190 positioned relative to the plant, the detector configured to receive evaluation light, the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a disease status of the plant (para 51, 230-240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the apparatus of Reusch with the detector as taught by Goldring, since it would provide better plant health status.
Regarding claim 7, Reusch teach the evaluation light corresponds to fluorescence emitted by the plant.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldring et al. (US 20180085003) in view of by Ashdown et al. (US 20210259158) and Song et al. (US 20200063931).
Regarding claims 1 8 and 15, Goldring teaches an apparatus or method comprising:
a light source (para 237) positioned relative to the plant; and
a detector 190 positioned relative to the plant, the detector configured to receive evaluation light, the evaluation light related to the emitted light and corresponding to a disease status of the plant (para 240, 383).
However, Goldring fails to teach the light source configured to emit an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm.
Ashdown teaches a light source configured to emit an ultraviolet light, the ultraviolet (UV) light corresponding to UV-A and having a wavelength in the range of 340 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm (para 5 and 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the light source of Goldring with the ultraviolet light as taught by Ashdown, since it would better plant health and growth.
Further, Goldring fails to teach a maximum dose of ultraviolet exposure to the plant is less than 10KJ/m2 per observation time.
Song teaches a maximum dose of ultraviolet exposure to the plant is less than 10KJ/m2 per observation time (para 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the dose of Goldring with the dose as taught by Song, since it would prevent damaging plants
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 571-272-2273. 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884