DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 USC 102, Applicant's arguments filed 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth herein as necessitated by Applicant's amendments.
With respect to the rejection of claims 4, 11 and 18 under 35 USC 103, Applicant's arguments filed 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth herein as necessitated by Applicant's amendments.
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR 20170093282 A) in view of Poirier (US 2022/0256775 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ha teaches a computer-implemented method of assessing lighting conditions within a facility in which plants are grown, the computer-implemented method comprising:
measuring, using at least one light sensor (Fig. 1, 130, page 3, para. 4, an illuminance sensor 130), a set of lighting conditions (Fig. 6, page 6, para. 2, reference illuminance) at a location of the facility (page 7, para. 2, “the first controller 310 collects…illuminance…from each sensor”);
comparing, by a computer processor, the set of lighting conditions to a set of intended lighting conditions to determine that the set of lighting conditions differs from the set of intended lighting conditions by a threshold amount (Fig. 6, page 7, para. 3, “The first controller 310 compares .. current illumination level to correspond to the reference illuminance… it determines whether or not .. illuminance differs by more than a certain level from the reference environment level”, para. 4, “a predetermined level”);
generating, by the processor, a communication indicating that the set of lighting conditions differs from the set of intended lighting conditions by the threshold amount (page 7, para. 4, “If the current environment level differs from the reference environment level… provides the indoor state information..”); and
availing, by the processor, the communication for access by an electronic device (page 7, para. 6, “… converts … into a wireless signal and provides .. to the user terminal 400”).
Ha does not explicitly teach the method, comprising:
the set of lighting conditions comprises an emitted power at a wavelength of light;
the set of intended lighting conditions comprises an intended emitted power at the wavelength of light; and
determining, by the processor, an action to adjust operation of a lighting component to cause the lighting component to emit more light at the wavelength when the emitted power at the wavelength is less than the intended emitted power at the wavelength, and to emit less light at the wavelength when the emitted power at the wavelength is greater than the intended emitted power at the wavelength.
Poirier teaches a method comprising:
a set of lighting conditions comprises an emitted power at a wavelength of light ([0056] spectral power distribution of an illumination);
a set of intended lighting conditions comprises an intended emitted power at the wavelength of light (0056] spectral power distribution of an illumination, Fig. 8, the first step, [0106] receiving lighting scenario; [0119]); and
determining, by the processor, an action to adjust operation of a lighting component to cause the lighting component to emit more light at the wavelength when the emitted power at the wavelength is less than the intended emitted power at the wavelength, and to emit less light at the wavelength when the emitted power at the wavelength is greater than the intended emitted power at the wavelength (Fig. 8, the last step, Adjusting the lighting scenario; [0099] Adjusting the lighting scenario may allow reaching or approaching the integral indicators…. This approach may ensure that the plants or crops receive light that matches their lighting requirements.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the method of Poirier to the teachings of Ha in order to provide appropriate illumination to the plant or crop over a relatively short period of time and evolve during their growth and thus to promote the growth of the plants or crops (Poirier, [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Ha in view of Poirier.
Ha further teaches the method, wherein the processor is part of the electronic device (Fig. 3, 300, 400, page 4, para. 5, para. 6), and wherein availing the communication for access by the electronic device comprises: displaying the communication in a user interface of the electronic device (Fig. 5, page 5. para. 9, the user terminal 400, a tablet PC or a smart phone).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Ha in view of Poirier.
Ha further teaches the method, wherein generating the communication comprises: generating, by the processor, a visualization illustrating a set of differences between the set of lighting conditions and the set of intended lighting conditions (page 7. para. 6).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Ha in view of Poirier.
Ha further teaches the method, wherein measuring the set of lighting conditions comprises:
measuring using the at least one light sensor (), a spectral power distribution (SPD) at the location of the facility ([0073]);
wherein the set of intended lighting conditions comprises an intended SPD (Fig. 8, [0056]).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Ha in view of Poirier.
Ha in view of Poirier further teaches the method, further comprising: causing the lighting component to implement the action (Ha, page 8, para. 3 and 4, “…lighting device 230 to illuminate…”; Poirier, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Ha in view of Poirier.
Ha further teaches the method, wherein causing the lighting component to implement the action comprises: transmitting, by the processor, a command associated with the action to the lighting component, wherein the lighting component executes the command to cause the lighting component to implement the action (page 8, para. 3 and 4, “…lighting device 230 to illuminate…”).
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Ha in view of Poirier.
Ha further teaches the method, wherein determining the action to adjust the operation of the lighting component comprises: receiving, via the electronic device, a selection to adjust the operation of the lighting component; and generating, by the processor based on the selection, the action to adjust the operation of the lighting component (page 8, para. 3 and 4, “…lighting device 230 to illuminate…”).
Regarding claim 8, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 12, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 1is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 19, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
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 SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights