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 .
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 is missing a period at the end of the sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “recipe creation engine” and “provisioning engine” in claim 10 and “grow recipe execution engine” in claim 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 9-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the mechanical grow apparatus used during the completed harvest cycle” is referring to the same “mechanical grow apparatus… for the upcoming harvest cycle” of claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by the recitation of “durations of use of the LED lights at corresponding channels of the channels of the light spectra”. Claim 16, with respect to claim 10, is indefinite for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “recipe creation engine” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this case, the instant specification at paragraph [0038] states that the grow recipe creation engine is for example, a machine learning model “trained to ingest the harvest data and inputs and generate the grow recipe” and may “identify parameters from the completed harvest cycle that can be repeated or that can be changed to meet desired outcomes in the inputs.” Paragraph [0054] further states that the grow recipe engine is, for example, a neural network and states that the inputs may be supplied through layers, such as convolution layers, to generate a grow recipe. However, it does not explain how the engine makes these determinations (output parameters), or how those determinations are converted into the grow-recipe settings from harvest data and user inputs. Further, the plain meaning of the word “engine” means a computer processing unit; it does not mean a machine learning model itself. One of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it introduces structural limitations of the mechanical grow apparatus, which is not positively recited as a part of the client device of claim 17. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood. Claims 11-16, dependent on rejected claim 10, and claim 20, dependent on rejected claim 19, are rejected the same.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bongartz et al. (US 20200184153 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bongartz”.
Regarding claim 1, Bongartz discloses a method (abstract), comprising:
at a client device (101; paragraph [2681]):
establishing a connection to a recipe creation service (paragraphs [1600], [1606]-[1608], [2681]-[2688]);
providing, to the recipe creation service, harvest data corresponding to a completed harvest cycle of a plant and comprising results and parameters of the completed harvest cycle (paragraphs [1613]-[1615], [1628]-[1629], [0111]); and
providing, to the recipe creation service, one or more inputs corresponding to an upcoming harvest cycle of the plant (paragraph [1574];
at the recipe creation service:
generating a grow recipe for the upcoming harvest cycle of the plant based on the harvest data and the one or more inputs (paragraphs [1606]-[1608]); and
providing the grow recipe to the client device (paragraphs [1646], [1673]-[1674]); and
at the client device:
providing the grow recipe to a mechanical grow apparatus comprising LED lights and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the LED lights for the upcoming harvest cycle based on the grow recipe (paragraphs [2686]-[2688] and [1673]-[1674]; fig. 99).
Regarding claim 2, Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses that the grow recipe comprises a lighting schedule (paragraphs [1071]-[1073], [1306]-[1308] and [1744]) including time intervals and channels of light spectra of the LED lights (paragraphs [1071]-[1073] and [1744]), wherein, in the lighting schedule, one or more of the channels of the light spectra correspond to one or more time intervals of the time intervals (paragraphs [1306]-[1308]).
Regarding claim 3, Bongartz discloses the method of claim 2, and further discloses that the channels of the light spectra of the LED lights include an ultraviolet-B (UV-B) channel (paragraphs [0636], [1761]), an ultraviolet-A (UV-A) channel (paragraphs [0636], [0705]), a photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) channel (paragraph [2725]), a deep-red channel (paragraph [1783]), and a far-red channel (paragraphs [1306], [2926]).
Regarding claim 4, Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses that the one or more inputs indicate one or more desired outcomes of the upcoming harvest cycle including at least one among a desired potency, a desired size, and a desired flavor of the plant (paragraphs [1571], [1575]-[1576]), [1601]).
Regarding claim 5, Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses that the results of the completed harvest cycle comprise one among a produced potency of the plant, a produced size of the plant, and a produced flavor of the plant (paragraphs [2050]-[2051]).
Regarding claim 6, Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses that the results include lab-certified results of the completed harvest cycle (paragraphs [2050]-[2051]).
Regarding claim 7, Bongartz discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses that the parameters of the completed harvest cycle comprise environmental parameters of the completed harvest cycle (paragraphs [0472], [0503]) and artificial parameters of the completed harvest cycle (paragraphs [0472], [1306], [1125], [1223]).
Regarding claim 8, Bongartz discloses the method of claim 7, and further discloses that the environmental parameters comprise a type of soil used for the completed harvest cycle (paragraph [0342]), an amount of sunlight exposure during the completed harvest cycle (paragraph [2844]), and an amount of carbon dioxide exposure during the completed harvest cycle (paragraph [1293]).
Regarding claim 9, Bongartz discloses the method of claim 7, and further discloses that the artificial parameters comprise light settings of the mechanical grow apparatus used during the completed harvest cycle including channels of light spectra of the LED lights (paragraph [1306]) and durations of use of the LED lights at corresponding channels of the channels of the light spectra (paragraphs [1307], [0992]).
Regarding claim 10, Bongartz discloses a recipe creation service (paragraphs [1606]-[1608]), comprising:
a harvest database comprising harvest data corresponding to a completed harvest cycle of a plant (paragraphs [1628]-[1629]), wherein the harvest data comprises results and parameters of the completed harvest cycle (paragraphs [1613]-[1615], [1628]-[1629], [0111]);
a recipe creation engine (paragraphs [1606]-[1608], [1624]) configured to:
obtain the harvest data from the harvest database (paragraphs [1624], [1606]-[1607]);
obtain one or more inputs corresponding to an upcoming harvest cycle of the plant (paragraphs [1624], [1574]);
generate a grow recipe for the upcoming harvest cycle of the plant based on the harvest data and the one or more inputs (paragraph [1624]); and
a provisioning engine (paragraphs [2686]-[2688]) configured to provide the grow recipe to a client device (101; paragraphs [2686]-[2688]), wherein the client device controls operations of a mechanical grow apparatus having LED lights (paragraphs [1673]-[1675]).
Regarding claim 11, Bongartz discloses the recipe creation service of claim 10, and further discloses that the grow recipe comprises a lighting schedule (paragraphs [1071]-[1073], [1306]-[1308] and [1744]) including time intervals and channels of light spectra of the LED lights of the mechanical grow apparatus (paragraphs [1071]-[1073] and [1744]), wherein, in the lighting schedule, one or more of the channels of the light spectra correspond to one or more time intervals of the time intervals (paragraphs [1306]-[1308]).
Regarding claim 12, Bongartz discloses the recipe creation service of claim 11, and further discloses that the channels of the light spectra of the LED lights include an ultraviolet-B (UV-B) channel (paragraphs [0636], [1761]), an ultraviolet-A (UV-A) channel (paragraphs [0636], [0705]), a photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) channel (paragraph [2725]), a deep-red channel (paragraph [1783]), and a far-red channel (paragraphs [1306], [2926]).
Regarding claim 13, Bongartz discloses the recipe creation service of claim 10, and further discloses that the one or more inputs indicate one or more desired outcomes of the upcoming harvest cycle including at least one among a desired potency, a desired size, and a desired flavor of the plant (paragraphs [1571], [1575]-[1576]), [1601]).
Regarding claim 14, Bongartz discloses the recipe creation service of claim 10, and further discloses that the results of the completed harvest cycle comprise one among a produced potency of the plant, a produced size of the plant, and a produced flavor of the plant (paragraphs [2050]-[2051]).
Regarding claim 15, Bongartz discloses the recipe creation service of claim 10, and further discloses that the parameters of the completed harvest cycle comprise environmental parameters of the completed harvest cycle (paragraphs [0472], [0503]) and artificial parameters of the completed harvest cycle (paragraphs [0472], [1306], [1125], [1223]).
Regarding claim 16, Bongartz discloses the recipe creation service of claim 15, and further discloses that the environmental parameters comprise a type of soil used for the completed harvest cycle (paragraph [0342]), an amount of sunlight exposure during the completed harvest cycle (paragraph [2844]), and an amount of carbon dioxide exposure during the completed harvest cycle (paragraph [1293]), and the artificial parameters comprise light settings of the mechanical grow apparatus used during the completed harvest cycle including channels of light spectra of the LED lights (paragraph [1306]) and durations of use of the LED lights at corresponding channels of the channels of the light spectra (paragraphs [1307], [0992]).
Regarding claim 17, Bongartz discloses a client device (101; paragraphs [2680]-[2688]), comprising:
an interface (paragraph [2680]-[2681]);
a memory (paragraph [2680]-[2681]); and
a grow recipe execution engine (paragraphs [2686]-[2688]);
wherein the interface is configured to:
obtain, from a recipe creation service, a grow recipe for a harvest cycle of a plant (paragraph [1673]), wherein the grow recipe comprises a lighting schedule including time intervals and channels of light spectra of LED lights of a mechanical grow apparatus (paragraphs [1306]-[1307]), and wherein one or more of the channels of the light spectra correspond to one or more time intervals of the time intervals (paragraphs [1306]-[1307]); and
store the grow recipe on the memory (paragraphs [2680]-[2688]); and
wherein the grow recipe execution engine is configured to:
obtain the grow recipe from the memory (paragraphs [2680]-[2688]); and
provide the grow recipe to the mechanical grow apparatus to perform the harvest cycle using the grow recipe (paragraphs [2686]-[2688]).
Regarding claim 18, Bongartz discloses the client device of claim 17, and further discloses that the channels of the light spectra of the LED lights include an ultraviolet-B (UV-B) channel (paragraphs [0636], [1761]), an ultraviolet-A (UV-A) channel (paragraphs [0636], [0705]), a photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) channel (paragraph [2725]), a deep-red channel (paragraph [1783]), and a far-red channel (paragraphs [1306], [2926]).
Regarding claim 19, Bongartz discloses the client device of claim 17, and further discloses that the mechanical grow apparatus comprises a frame (paragraphs [2588]-[2589] and figs. 76-77), a power supply (paragraph [2832]), the LED lights (paragraph [0137]), and a controller (paragraphs [2528]-[2531]).
Regarding claim 20, Bongartz discloses the client device of claim 19, and further discloses that the controller of the mechanical grow apparatus is configured to control operations of the LED lights including intensity of the LED lights and the light spectra of the LED lights (paragraphs [2528]-[2531]) according to the grow recipe (paragraph [2523]).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims. For example, US 20180014486 A1 teaches a similar method that utilizes machine learning algorithms and historic data to inform future growing conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights