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 .
Claims 1-6 have been presented for examination.
Specification
The use of the terms GREENBUG SYSTEM FOR HOMEOWNERS; BLACK + DECKER BUG ZAPPER; AUTOMATED INSECT MONITORING (AIM); and SEMIOS MACHINE TO MACHINE (M2M) pest control systems appear to be referring to trademarks. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The examiner would also like to highlight for example, GREENBUG SYSTEM FOR HOMEOWNERS does not appear to be a registered trademark. While GREENBUG was at one point a registered trademark, GREENBUG SYSTEM FOR HOMEOWNERS does not appear to be. Same with BLACK + DECKER BUG ZAPPER and SEMIOS MACHINE TO MACHINE (M2M). BLACK + DECKER and SEMIOS are registered trademarks but not BLACK + DECKER BUG ZAPPER nor SEMIOS MACHINE TO MACHINE (M2M). Regarding AUTOMATED INSECT MONITORING (AIM), the examiner is unclear what applicant is referring to with this.
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 1-6 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. Specifically, applicants have amended claim 1 to include smart sensors that include both an embedded processor and either a digital motion or media processor. The specification is silent with respect to a smart sensors including multiple processors including both an embedded processor and either a digital motion or media processor. At best, applicant states that smart sensors include embedded Digital Motion Processors (DMP) for performing onboard processing of sensor data [058]. With regards to a media processor, applicant does not recite a “media processor” in the specification.
For examination purposes, “each smart sensor including an embedded microprocessor and a digital motion or media processor” is interpreted as “each smart sensor including an embedded digital motion processor”.
Claims 1-6 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Per MPEP 2164.01(a), there are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
With respect to the factors stated above, the claims are directed to pest control in a system for plant growth (A, B). The pest control system is claimed to include pest-mitigation devices selected from “bug zappers, automated insect monitoring, and machine-to-machine pest control systems” (A). It is the examiners understanding that bug zappers would include devices which operate substantially similar to the old fashion lanterns that attract bugs via blue light and subsequently electrocutes (i.e., zaps) them upon contact (C, D, G). The examiner is also aware of other pest control mechanisms such as spraying pesticides (C, D, G).
What is unclear is what applicant is referring to with respect to automated insect monitoring and machine-to-machine pest-control systems. Applicant provides further direction in their specification [047] with regards to what is considered as their pest control system but it appears that applicant is referring to trademarked devices and systems as their examples (F). In other words, it appears that applicant is attempting to indirectly incorporate trademarked material into their claim (also refer to paragraphs 3-4 above). It should be noted that where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. While applicant does not specifically claim the trademarks presented in the specification, those trademarks are the only support for what applicant considers as the claimed pest-mitigation devices and therefore indefinite (F).
Since support for applicants automated insect monitoring, and machine-to-machine pest control systems is indefinite, it is difficult at best for the examiner to guess what applicant truly intended as their pest-mitigation devices (E). While a bug zapper is reasonable to predict, automated insect monitoring, and machine-to-machine pest control systems are not. The examiner would like to note that it is not even clear how automated insect monitoring mitigates pests. By definition, insect monitoring would only monitor insects, not mitigate them (E). Furthermore, machine-to-machine is extremely vague and provides no hint at what mechanisms would be used to provide the actual mitigation of pests (E).
Aside from bug zappers, the other two options (i.e., automated insect monitoring, and machine-to-machine pest control systems) would require significant experimentation since the first possibility (automated insect monitoring) appears directed to monitoring instead of mitigation and the second possibility (machine-to-machine pest control) is go generic that it would be virtually impossible to know what applicant was intending (H).
Overall, the examiner asserts that the totality of evidence suggests that applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill to make/use an invention that identifies how automated insect monitoring, and machine-to-machine pest control systems mitigate pests in a pest control system.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1.
For examination purposes, claim 1 is interpreted as not including the automated insect monitoring, or machine-to-machine pest control system.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each smart sensor" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, “plant growth sensors” recited in line 3 is interpreted as “plant growth smart sensors”
Claim 1 further recites “A controller” in line 7. It is unclear if the controller in line 7 refers to the “controller” in line 5 or if the “controller” in line 7 refers to a different controller.
For examination purposes, “A controller” recited in line 7 is interpreted as “The controller”.
Claim 1 further recites “the system” in line 29. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the “system for plant growth”, “plant watering system”, climate control system”, “lighting system”, “plant nutrient delivery system” in lines 1, 19, 21, 23 and 25 respectively.
For examination purposes, “the system” in line 29 is interpreted as “the system for plant growth”.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millar1 in view of Senthil US Pat No 11,551,099, in view of Rathod PGPUB 2011/026396, in view of Bowman et al [Bowman] PGPUB 2019/0063786.
Referring to claim 1, Millar teaches the system for plant growth, comprising:
A plant growing area [Fig. 1].
Multiple plant growth sensors positioned within said plant growing area [0017].
A computer grade server having memory [0031-0032, 0037]. Remote computing device can be a server.
A controller operably connected to said computer grade server, comprising:
At least one central processing unit [330 Fig. 3, 0032].
Non-transitory memory coupled to said at least one processor [240/336 Fig. 3, 0032].
Operating software by which to operate said computer grade server [342 Fig. 3, 0036].
A machine learning engine algorithm [Fig. 4, 0028, 0039-0041].
A plant watering system positioned about said plant growing area [0015].
A climate control system positioned about said plant growing area [0015]
A lighting system positioned about said plant growing area [0015].
A plant nutrient delivery system positioned about said plant growing area [0015].
A personal wireless device having a graphical interface for use by a user wherein said personal wireless device is in operative communication with said system to grow plants through said graphical interface [0030].
A plant watering system positioned about said plant growing area [0015].
A climate control system positioned about said plant growing area [0015].
A lighting system positioned about said plant growing area [0015].
A plant nutrient delivery system positioned about said plant growing area [0015].
A personal wireless device having a graphical interface for use by a user wherein said personal wireless device is in operative communication with said system to grow plants through said graphical interface [0030].
While Millar teaches the system substantially as claimed above, Millar does not teach the machine learning algorithm performing each and every claimed step. Rather, the steps are implied. The examiner is taking official notice that machine learning is known to perform each of the claimed steps specifically during the training process. It would have been obvious if not inherent to include the claimed steps into Millar because it includes the necessary functionality for the machine learning algorithm to learn and operate.
Lastly, while Millar teaches the system substantially as claimed above, it is further not explicitly taught to include a relay board for connecting to the watering, climate control, lighting, or plant nutrient systems. Millar does teach that the watering, lighting, nutrient delivery and climate control is based on the grow recipe which is local to the computing device (130). Therefore, there must obviously be some interconnection between the computing device (130) and those respective systems. The computing device (130) is taught to include both I/O hardware (332) and networking hardware (334). Since these are known communication hardware, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include controlling the watering, lighting, nutrient delivery and climate control systems via I/O hardware or network interface hardware because an interface between the computing device and the above listed systems are necessary for implementing the plant grow strategy based on the learning algorithm and performing the communication via the I/O or networking hardware has a reasonable expectation of success.
While Millar teaches using sensors for monitoring plant growth, it is not explicitly taught that the sensors are embedded smart sensors which monitor motion. Senthil teaches that sensors can include smart sensors which include embedded processing and can detect and preprocess motion activity [Figs. 3 and 14, col. 7 lines 7-23]. Because growth is a function of motion, it would have been obvious to try including the teaching of Senthil into Millar to preprocess the sensor motion data to determine growth because including preprocessing in the sensor increases power efficiency as taught by Senthil [Fig. 11, col. 13 lines 7-13].
While the Millar-Senthil combination teaches the invention as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to include real-time synchronized log of system events with the personal wireless device. Rathod teaches real time logging of events related to greenhouse monitoring [0045, 0421]. Because Millar is similar in nature to greenhouses (i.e., an environment to facilitate plant growth) and because Millar manages operation via personal wireless device [0030, 0037], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try incorporating real time synchronous logging of events on the users personal wireless device into the Millar-Senthil combination because it would provide a way to view activity or status of the events occurring within as taught by Rathod.
While the Millar-Senthil-Rathod combination teaches the invention as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to further include a pest control system coupled to the relay board that includes bug zappers. Bowman teaches the use of pest control systems connected to the environmental control system in plant grow environments which can further include bug zappers [0036, 0059-0060]. It would have been obvious to include the pest control system including the bug zappers taught in Bowman into the Millar-Senthil-Rathod combination because it would help minimize/eliminate the risk of insects laying eggs and producing larvae which are detrimental to the plants as taught by Bowman [0059-0060]. Because Bowman teaches its pest control system connected to the environmental control system, and because it was argued above to have Millar connect each system for controlling the environment being connected to the controller via relay board, it is interpreted that the pest control system taught in Bowman would also be connected via relay board.
Referring to claims 2-3, Millar teaches iteratively performing the learning process to continue improving grow conditions [Fig. 6, 0044]. Ultimately this would lead to ideal plant growth.
Referring to claim 4, while Millar teaches using a personal wireless device (i.e., tablet or mobile device) to interface with the grow pod and allowing the user to alter the recipe used by the grow pod via personal wireless device, it is not explicitly taught that the user can view sensor data via the personal wireless device. The examiner is taking official notice that providing sensor information to a personal wireless device is a well-known concept in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide sensor data to the user via the personal wireless device because a person altering the recipe would clearly want to know the parameters for which the plants are being influenced. In other words, if a user wishes to adjust the recipe because they notice the plants struggling, being able to see how the plant is struggling would allow the user to identify if any of the input parameters is out of range or deficient and thus allow the user to make an educated adjustment. For example, if a user could see that “chlorophyll production” is low [0017], that user would be inclined to increase the amount of lighting the plant receives. Without the sensor information, any changes to the recipe would be made blindly which is not optimal.
Referring to claims 5 and 6, Millar teaches that training can occur autonomously [Fig. 6, 0043-0044] or allow the recipe be altered by a user thus allowing either autonomous or semi-autonomous learning [0030].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Caleb as applied in the prior rejection.
With respect to applicants’ argument regarding a pest-control subsystem in the same closed-loop ML control path, the examiner would like to point out that there were enablement issues with the claim limitation and that provided in applicants specification. Applicant appears to list off a number of off the shelf pest control mechanisms to incorporate into their plant growth system but a number of them were unclear as to what they were referring. The examiner did not reject the bug zapper embodiment via enablement since bug zappers are known in the art and one of skill could predict what applicant intended and thus would fail the test under Wands analysis. But what is unclear is how a bug zapper is controlled via ML control path.
It is the examiners understanding that bug zappers are “dumb” devices that are simply powered and provide a blue glow to attract insects and electrocute those that come into contact with an electrified surface. Such a device is not believed to require any type of control and applicant does not provide any detail how bug zapper control would be modified via learning algorithm. This is unlike Caleb that was previously cited who teaches controlling the application of insecticide/fungicide (via controlling the pump). Therefore, applicants’ argument that the claim recites pest control via zapper using an ML control path is believed to be unsupported.
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 MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 1/15/26
1 Cited into the prior office action