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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-15,18,20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordova et al. (US 20220287245 A1) in view of Coufal et al. (DE 19815916 A1), Von Mehesz (GB 2159390 A), and Dissing et al. (US 6561968 B1).
For claim 10, Cordova et al. teach a device comprising a power supply (150,152) and a casing (316), the casing housing a module (110,116) for radio wave transmission, the module comprising: a means for frequency input (para. 0114, 0115,0125 user input with wireless communication or the like), an integrated antenna (para. 0119, antenna where wire 320 is connected to and connected to ref. 316 as shown in fig. 3A) for emitting radio waves with a frequency in the range of 1 MHz to 15 MHz (para. 0139), and a transmitter (para. 0119,0127,0129) for applying the frequency in the range of 1 MHz to 15 MHz (para. 0139) to the integrated antenna (para. 0119).
Cordova et al. mentioned in para. 0119 that structure such as a chip antenna can be used, which chip antenna would imply that it is inside the casing. However, this is an assumption; thus, Cordova et al. appear to be silent about wherein the entirety of the integrated antenna is located inside the casing.
Coufal et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor of a device for plant development comprising an integrated antenna (3) is located inside the casing (6) in its entirety. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the entirety of the integrated antenna of Cordova et al. be located inside the casing as taught by Coufal et al. in order to prevent the antenna from being damage from the surrounding environment by placing the antenna inside the casing.
Cordova et al. teach the waveform from the transmitter can be continuously during application since it can be sine waveform, which is considered continuous waves (para. 0137).
However, in the event that applicant disagrees with the examiner’s interpretation of Cordova et al. teaching the radio waves being continuously during application, Von Mehesz teaches in the same field of endeavor of a device for generating radio waves for plant growing, the device of Von Mehesz produces radio waves continuously during application and not in pulses (page 2, lines 55-60, page 4, lines 35-52, page 6, lines 1-2 on left and right columns). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transmitter of Cordova et al. be configured to apply the radio waves continuously during application and not in pulses as taught by Von Mehesz, depending on the type of plants being grown and the amount of electrical stimulation or field necessary to stimulate growth of the plants.
Cordova et al. teach the device with the same features as claimed by applicant, thus, can be configured to generate an electric field in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 V/m, measured within 10 cm from the device as functionally claimed by applicant. However, in the event that applicant disagrees with the examiner’s interpretation of Cordova et al. teaching the device configured to generate an electric field in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 V/m, measured within 10 cm from the device, Dissing et al. teach in the same field of endeavor of a device for generating radio waves for plant growing, wherein the device can be configured to generate an electric field in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 V/m, measured within 10 cm from the device (col. 14, lines 30-31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device of Cordova et al. to generate an electric field in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 V/m, measured within 10 cm from the device as taught by Dissing et al., depending on the type of plants being grown and the amount of electrical stimulation or field necessary to stimulate growth of the plants.
For claim 11, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 10, and further disclose wherein the device comprises two or more modules (para. 0131-0134 of Cordova teach that there can be multiple modules).
For claim 12, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 10, and further disclose wherein the device comprises at least one module for emitting one specific frequency in the range of 1 MHz to 15 MHz (para. 0131-0134 of Cordova teach that there can be multiple modules that can be individually controlled to have its specific frequency as desired; and para. 0139 teaches the frequency).
For claim 13, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 12, and further disclose wherein each module emits one specific frequency in the range of 1 MHz to 15 MHz when switched on (para. 0131-0134 of Cordova teach that there can be multiple modules that can be individually controlled to have its specific frequency as desired; and para. 0139 teaches the frequency).
For claim 14, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the device according to claim 10, wherein the device comprises a module for emitting is configured to emit more than one specific frequency in the range of 1 MHz to 15 MHz (para. 0138,0139 of Cordova; or para. 0131-0134 of Cordova teach that there can be multiple modules that can be individually controlled to have its specific frequency as desired; noting that the limitation is also functional recitation to which the module in Cordova can and does perform the intended function).
For claim 15, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 10, and further disclose a connecting means for a solar cell or solar panel (fig. 1I, the connecting means to connect the solar power to the whole system).
For claim 18, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach a method for directing plant development, the method comprising applying radio wave energy with a frequency in the range from 1 MHz to 15 MHz to a plant from a device of claim 10 (as explained in the above).
For claim 20, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 18, wherein the frequency is in the range from 3 MHz to 8 MHz or 10 MHz to 14 MHz (para. 0139 of Cordova).
For claim 21, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 18, wherein the plant is a member of the Alliaceae, Araceae,Asparagaceae, Aspiaceae, Asphodelaceae, Asteraceae, Araucariaceae, Brassicaceae, Bromeliaceae,Bromelioideae, Buxaceae, Cichorioideae, Coniferae, Cucurbitaceae, Fabaceae, Gentianaceae, Iridaceae, Leguminosae, Liliaceae, Marantaceae, Marasmiaceae, Orchidaceae, Pleurotaceae, Pinaceae, Poaceae, Bambusoideae, Panicoideae, Rosaceae, Rutaceae, Solanaceae, Taxaceae, Tuberacea, Vandeae , Vitacea or Xanthorrhoeaceae family, or a member of the Rhodophyta,Chlorophyta, Ochrophyta, Phaeophyceae or Cyanophyta group (para. 0152 of Cordova).
For claim 22, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 18, wherein the method is a method for increasing dry weight yield, stimulating leaf formation (para. 0007,0140 of Cordova), stimulating seeds ripening, stimulating root development (para. 0007,0140 of Cordova), stimulating colour in the leaves, stimulating flower formation, or stimulating compact growth of a plant.
For claim 23, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 18, wherein the radio wave energy is applied for a period in the range from 5 days to 24 weeks (para. 0122,0165, Table 2, claim 34 of Cordova), resulting in increased dry weight yield, more leaf formation, more seeds ripening, more root development, more colour in the leaves, or more flower buds, compared to a similar plant to which radio wave energy has not been applied (implied since the radio wave energy is applied for a period in the range from 5 days to 24 weeks in Cordova et al., which would result in the same as claimed).
For claim 24, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 18, wherein one or more frequencies in the range of 3.500 MHz to 3.750 MHz, from 3.750 MHz to 4.500 MHz, from 4.500 MHz to 5.000 MHz, from 5.500 MHz to 7.000 MHz or 7.500 MHz to 14.000 MHz are applied (para. 0139 of Cordova).
For claim 25, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 18, wherein one or more frequencies in the range of 6.000 MHz to 7.500 MHz are applied, resulting to stimulation of root formation (para. 0138 of Cordova; implied since the radio wave energy is applied in the same range, thus, would result in stimulation of root formation).
For claim 26, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 18, wherein one or more frequencies in the range of 3.750 MHz to 5.000 MHz are applied, resulting to stimulation of leave formation (para. 0138 of Cordova; implied since the radio wave energy is applied in the same range, thus, would result in stimulation of leave formation).
For claim 27, Cordova et al. as modified by Coufal et al., Von Mehesz, and Dissing et al. teach the method according to claim 18, for accelerating leaf formation of plants, for stimulating seed germination, for stimulating root formation of plants, for accelerating colour formation of plants, for stimulating shoot formation of plants, for increasing dry matter content of plants, or for stimulating compact growth of plants (implied since Cordova et al. disclose the radio wave energy range as claimed in claim 1, thus, would result in the same as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-15, 18,20-27 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. However, certain pertinent arguments will be address herein.
Furthermore, Cordova teaches a pulsed field, while the presently amended claims require that radio waves are applied continuously, and not in pulses.
As stated in the above rejection, para. 0137 of Cordova stated that the waveform can be sine, which is known to be a continuous wave. Per an internet search on Bing, Continuous radio waves (CW) are electromagnetic waves of constant amplitude and frequency, typically a sine wave, which can be considered of infinite duration. In contrast, pulsed signals alternates between "on" and "off" states, often used in radar systems. (continuous radio waves versus pulses - Search). Thus, it is clear that Cordova teaches the radio waves are applied continuously during application and not in pulses.
However, as stated in the above, Von Mehesz teaches in the same field of endeavor of a device for generating radio waves for plant growing, the device of Von Mehesz produces radio waves continuously during application and not in pulses (page 2, lines 55-60, page 4, lines 35-52, page 6, lines 1-2 on left and right columns). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transmitter of Cordova et al. be configured to apply the radio waves continuously during application and not in pulses as taught by Von Mehesz, depending on the type of plants being grown and the amount of electrical stimulation or field necessary to stimulate growth of the plants.
Applicant submits that the claimed devices and methods clearly do provide unexpected improvements relative to cited art. As explained in the present application the present invention allows for specifically directing certain aspects of plant development, such as root development or flower formation.
As stated in the above, Cordova uses a sine waveform, which is continuous; hence, Cordova does teach the claimed invention. Thus, there is nothing unexpected improvements by claiming a continuous radio waves applied to a plant for stimulating growth because it is clear that this is old and well-known concept as taught at least by Von Mehesz, if not Cordova.
As for the other added limitation of “wherein the device is configured to generate an electric field in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 V/m, measured within 10 cm from the device”, first, the limitation is merely a functional recitation of the device, which Cordova’s device can be adjusted to perform the intended function. For example, Cordova teaches the module for radio wave transmission that can be adjusted for various electric field range and intensity and such. Thus, the device can be adjusted to generate an electric field in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 V/m, measured within 10 cm from the device.
Second, applicant has no support in the specification of any unexpected results from these ranges because page 13 of applicant’s specification, applicant not only stated the range as claimed but also numerous other broader ranges depending on the type of plants being treated and the amount of electric field needed from the plant for stimulation. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. In re Dreyfus, 22 CCPA (Patents) 830, 73 F.2d 931, 24 USPQ 52; In re Waite et al., 35 CCPA (Patents) 1117, 168 F.2d 104, 77 USPQ 586. Such ranges are termed "critical" ranges, and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. In re Swenson et al., 30 CCPA (Patents) 809, 132 F.2d 1020, 56 USPQ 372; In re Scherl, 33 CCPA (Patents) 1193, 156 F.2d 72, 70 USPQ 204. However, even though applicant's modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. In re Sola, 22 CCPA (Patents) 1313, 77 F.2d 627, 25 USPQ 433; In re Normann et al., 32 CCPA (Patents) 1248, 150 F.2d 627, 66 USPQ 308; In re Irmscher, 32 CCPA (Patents) 1259, 150 F.2d 705, 66 USPQ 314. More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Swain et al., 33 CCPA (Patents) 1250, 156 F.2d 239, 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 69 App. D.C. 217, 99 F.2d 986, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 77 App. D.C. 324, 135 F.2d 11, 57 USPQ 136.
There is also nothing in Coufal et al that points the skilled person in the direction of the transmitter applying the radio waves continuously during application, and not in pulses; and the device generating an electric field in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 V/m, measured within 10 cm from the device. Coufal is et al is silent about such features.
Coufal was not relied on for these argued limitation, thus, applicant’s argument is mooted. Coufal was relied on for an integrated antenna (3) is located inside the casing (6) in its entirety. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the entirety of the integrated antenna of Cordova et al. be located inside the casing as taught by Coufal et al. in order to prevent the antenna from being damage from the surrounding environment by placing the antenna inside the casing.
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 SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643