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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/13/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “having the computer determine a prediction of a capacity of consumption of said plants at the future point in time relative to the given time using a function of capacity of consumption for said plants that varies over time and based on the prediction of the change in the water uptake and/or the change in the water transpiration of the plants at the future point in time.” While the specification does explain how the prediction of capacity of consumption is measured using water transpiration and water uptake when the consumable is water (Pages 3-4), there is no description for how the capacity of consumption of the CO2 or light is measured or predicted through water uptake or water transpiration when CO2 or light is the consumable.
Claims 3-7, 9-11, 13-14 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8 that “The invention is based on the insight that the consumption of consumables, such as CO₂ and light, is correlated to the uptake and transpiration of water… The invention uses the measured water uptake or transpiration to infer the CO2 and light consumption of the plant… A future consumption capacity of the consumables CO2 and light can be determined by predicting a change in the water uptake or transpiration.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant points to Figures 5A and 5B for support. However, Figures 5A and 5B are showing a first line 502 that is the solar energy incident on the plants over time. The solar energy (or in the case of the claim, the amount of light) is how much light the applicant is feeding the plant. This is different from how much light a plant is consuming. It is well known in the art that changing different factors such as lighting, CO2, and water will affect the amount the plant transpires. While the figures do clearly show the correlation between the amount of light measured in an area near a plant, and the effect on a water flow parameter, this is not necessarily a measurement of light “consumed” by a plant. It is unclear how one would measure the light consumed by a plant, therefore in turn, unclear how one would predict “a capacity of consumption” of light by the plant in the future. Figure 5B shows the ability to predict a change in the water transpiration/uptake through the dashed lines and points such as 503g,h,j, but does not appear to show a prediction in the capacity of consumption of CO2 or light of the plant.
As best understood, the claim is currently being interpreted to say that: a first measurement of water uptake/transpiration is taken over a period of time, and this indicates that CO2 or light was consumed. The computer then predicts how the water uptake/transpiration will change in the future. The computer will predict how much CO2 or light the plant will consume in the future using a time-varying function of how much CO2 or light the plants have consumed over time and based on the predicted change of water uptake/transpiration. Determining how much CO2 or light to feed the plants, based on the prediction of how much CO2 or light the plant will consume. Compensating for a difference in the first measurement of water uptake/transpiration of the plant, and a theoretical amount of CO2 or light the plant could consume created by the prediction.
As it currently stands, there are multiple points throughout the claim in which one would need to know/measure/predict the amount of light or CO2 that the plant is consuming, which does not appear to have sufficient support in the specification. While claim 3 states that the “function of capacity of consumption” includes a cyclic component, this is being interpretated to say that the amount the plant is consuming will vary in a cyclic manner.
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 at 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
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights