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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha (KR 20170093282 A, see the attached machine translated document).
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”).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Ha.
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.
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 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Ha.
Ha further teaches the method, further comprising: determining, by the processor based at least on the set of lighting conditions, an action to adjust operation of a lighting component; and causing the lighting component to implement the action (page 8, para. 3 and 4, “…lighting device 230 to illuminate…”).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Ha.
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.
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.
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 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR 20170093282 A, see attached machine translation) in view of Ashdown (US 2021/0088382 A1).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Ha.
Ha further teaches the method, wherein measuring the set of lighting conditions comprises: measuring, using the at least one light sensor, an illumination level at the location of the facility (page 7, para. 2, “the first controller collects…illuminance detection information”); wherein the set of intended lighting conditions is an illumination level (page. 7, para. 3, the reference level).
However, Ha does not explicitly teach the illumination level is a spectral power distribution (DPD).
Ashdown teaches a method of automating the spectral power distribution (SPD) of luminaires for horticultural lighting systems (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the SPD automation method of Ashdown to the teachings of Ha in order for optimal growth and health of plants (Ashdown, [0004]).
Regarding claim 11, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Conclusion
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