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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informality: line 2 recites the limitation “90 to 95 precent of its maximum.” Examiner recommends correction to “90 to 95 percent of its maximum.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1, 6, 8, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20180007845 A1) in view of Hunter et al. (US 20210084831 A1), hereinafter Hunter, and Millar et al. (US 20180359975 A1), hereinafter Millar.
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a method comprising:
receiving first sensor data from a first sensor within the enclosure, the first sensor data representing a first plant associated with the enclosure, the enclosure configured to provide a controlled physical environment (¶ 0051, lines 11-19, “The canopy chamber may further comprise one or more sensors connected to a control system to help control the plant growth system. For example, the sensors may comprise temperature, humidity, CO2, oxygen, radio spectrometer for measuring light spectrum and intensity, digital camera, infrared camera, brix sensors, sensors that detect a specific property of the plant being grown, and/or the like”);
and comprising a planting column within the enclosure, the planting column including two or more planting receptacles and configured to rotate about a vertical axis, each of the two or more planting receptacles configured to receive and house a seed cartridge including seeds and grow material (Fig. 1D shows a planting column with root chambers 104 as receptacles that are configured to house a seed cartridge including seeds and grow material; ¶ 0068, lines 13-16, “the grow pod 141 comprises a turntable assembly 142 that is configured to enable the root chambers 104 to be rotated about a central axis of the grow pod”),
determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, a first area of interest associated with the first plant (¶ 0134, lines 1-6, “In some embodiments, the light modules [e.g., light modules 602] are individually controllable. For example, the system may be configured to detect that there are plant leaves clustered around the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions [for example, using a camera and image processing, using ultrasonic sensors, and/or the like]”),
determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, a health associated with the first plant, a life stage associated with the first plant, and a size associated with the first plant (¶ 0151, lines 37-41, “a control system 802 can be configured to comprise automated crop health diagnostics, closed-loop feedback via business management and tie in with testing lab APIs, command-and-control capabilities, big data analytics, real-time weather replication, and/or the like;” ¶ 0152, lines 12-26, “For example, sensors may be used that enable the system to determine what stage of the growth cycle the plant is in, how healthy the plant currently is, the current root zone and/or canopy zone environmental conditions, and/or the like”);
determining at least one first illumination setting based at least in part on the health, life stage, and size associated with the first plant and at least one user preference (¶ 0134, lines 1-9; ¶ 0134, lines 28-32, “In some embodiments, these bottom-facing lights would desirably be on during the ‘vegetative’ stage of plant growth, and would be turned off [for example, to save electricity] once the plant has grown outwards far enough that the light from the outer light bars can reach the plant”); and
causing an illuminator to provide first illumination to the first plant based at least in part on the first illumination setting (¶ 0134, lines 1-9).
Martin, however, fails to specifically disclose a first planting receptacle of the two or more planting receptacles configured vertically below a second planting receptacle of the two or more planting receptacles, and the first sensor data represents at least a portion of the two or more planting receptacles; determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an assigned location of the first plant within the planting column; determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a classification or type of the first plant; determining, based at least in part on the assigned location and the classification or type of the first plant, that the first plant has been placed outside of a defined recommended planting region; responsive to determining that the first plant has been placed outside of a defined recommended planting region, causing a notification to notify a user via a mobile application receiving second sensor data from the first sensor, the second sensor data representing the first plant.
Hunter is in the field of cultivation systems and teaches a first planting receptacle of the two or more planting receptacles configured vertically below a second planting receptacle of the two or more planting receptacles (Figs. 2 and 3 show receptacles 242 arrayed vertically in apertures 240), and the first sensor data represents at least a portion of the two or more planting receptacles (¶ 0060, lines 1-8, “Referring now specifically to FIGS. 9 and 10, gardening appliance 100 may further include a pod detection system 300 which is generally configured for detecting and identifying a type of plant pod 242 positioned within grow module 200, a particular location within grow module 200 where a particular plant pod 242 is positioned, and/or other data indicative of a particular plant pod 242 and its plant care or maintenance needs”); and determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an assigned location of the first plant within the planting column (¶ 0060, lines 1-8); determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a classification or type of the first plant (¶ 0060, lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Martin to include a first planting receptacle of the two or more planting receptacles configured vertically below a second planting receptacle of the two or more planting receptacles, and determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an assigned location of the first plant within the planting column; determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a classification or type of the first plant, as taught by the receptacle and sensor structure of Hunter. This would result in improved monitoring and more efficient spatial configuration of the receptacles, which would improve monitoring characteristics and overall performance of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Millar is in the field of cultivation systems and teaches determining, based at least in part on the assigned location and the classification or type of the first plant, that the first plant has been placed outside of a defined recommended planting region; responsive to determining that the first plant has been placed outside of a defined recommended planting region, causing a notification to notify a user via a mobile application receiving second sensor data from the first sensor, the second sensor data representing the first plant (¶ 0036, lines 20-47, “The position sensors 315 are communicatively coupled to the cart computing devices 312, and may send signals indicative of the position of the cart 104 within the assembly line grow pod 100 and/or the speed at which the cart 104 is moving within the assembly line grow pod 100. The position and the speed of travel of the cart 104 within the assembly line grow pod 100 may be indicative of the elapsed time in which the cart 104 has been growing plant matter within the assembly line grow pod 100, and accordingly, may be used to monitor the progress of the growth of plant matter within the cart 104. Additionally, in some embodiments, the position sensors 315 may detect when the cart is at different positions on the track 102, and the weight sensors 310 may detect the weight of plant matter in the cart 104 at the different positions on the track 102. For example, a position sensor 315 may detect When the cart 104 is at a first position on the track 102, such as at the ascending portion 102a [FIG. 1], and the weight sensor and/or weight sensors 310 may detect the weight of the plant matter in the cart at the first position. The position sensor 315 may detect when the cart is at a second position on the track that is downstream of the first position, such as at the descending portion 102b [FIG. 1], and the weight sensor and/or weight sensors 310 may detect the weight of the plant matter in the cart at the second position. By comparing the detected weight of the plant matter at the first position and the second position, growth of plant matter in a particular cart 104 may be monitored;” ¶ 0048, “The master controller 106 is coupled to a network 850. The network 850 may include the internet or other wide area network, a local network, such as a local area network, a near field network, such as Bluetooth or a near field communication [NFC] network. The network 850 is also coupled to a user computing device 852 and/or a remote computing device 854. The user computing device 852 may include a personal computer, laptop, mobile device, tablet, phablet, mobile device, or the like and may be utilized as an interface with a user. As an example, a detected weight of plant matter within each of the carts 104 may be transmitted to the user computing device 852, and a display of the user computing device 852 may display the weight for each of the carts. The user computing device 852 may also receive input from a user, for example, the user computing device 852 may receive an input indicative of a type of seeds to be placed in the carts 104 by the seeder system 108”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Martin in view of Hunter to include determining, based at least in part on the assigned location and the classification or type of the first plant, that the first plant has been placed outside of a defined recommended planting region; responsive to determining that the first plant has been placed outside of a defined recommended planting region, causing a notification to notify a user via a mobile application receiving second sensor data from the first sensor, the second sensor data representing the first plant, as taught by the location sensor structure of Millar. This would result in improved growth monitoring and more efficient spatial configuration of the receptacles, which would improve overall monitoring and performance of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Martin in view of Hunter and Millar discloses the method of claim 1.
Martin discloses further comprising:
determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, a second area of interest associated with a second plant (¶ 0262, lines 1-8, “In some embodiments, a plant growth system may simultaneously perform more than one of these processes, or at least a portion of more than one of these processes, such as if more than one plant is being grown in the same system, and the plants are not all growing at the same rate. Simultaneous performance of more than one of the stages may be easier with some stages and more difficult with others. For example, if two plants are being grown in the same system”);
determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, at least one second feature associated with the second plant (¶ 0134, lines 1-9);
determining at least one second illumination setting based at least in part on the at least one second feature (¶ 0134, lines 1-9; ¶ 0135, lines 20-31, “one or more of the lighting modules 602, or one or more portions of one or more of the lighting modules 602 may comprise lighting elements configured to emit a different type of light than the others. For example, such lighting elements may be configured to emit ultraviolet light for integrated pest management and increased oil production, and/or far red light for photochromic manipulation. Even if such special-purpose lighting elements are positioned at only a portion of the light source or luminary, enabling the light source to rotate would allow that special-purpose emission to cover the entire plant canopy as needed”); and
causing the illuminator to provide second illumination to the second plant based at least in part on the second illumination setting, the second illumination different than the first illumination and having a field of illumination different than the first illumination (¶ 0134, lines 1-9; ¶ 0135, lines 20-31).
Regarding claim 8, Martin in view of Hunter and Millar discloses the method of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches further comprises: receiving third sensor data from a second sensor of the enclosure; and wherein determining the first area of interest is based at least in part on the third sensor data (Martin; ¶ 0134, lines 1-9; ¶ 0090, lines 14-20, “Those sensors may be distributed throughout the grow pod 200 in various locations and do not need to be grouped together in a single module or subsystem. For example, sensors for sensing things occurring in the canopy zone may be positioned in the canopy zone and even at different locations in the canopy zone such as at the top at the bottom in the middle, and/or the like”), a first distance between the first sensor and the illuminator, and a second distance between the third sensor and the illuminator (Hunter; ¶ 0068, “According to the illustrated embodiment, gardening appliance 100 includes a single microphone 314. However, it should be appreciated that according to alternative embodiments, multiple detection devices 310 may be used to facilitate pod type/location determination. For example, according to alternative exemplary embodiments, detection device 310 may include a plurality of microphones 314 that are spaced apart from each other, each detecting the sound waves 312 generated by resonators 302 when triggered. According to an exemplary embodiment, the plurality of microphones 314 may implement a triangulation technique to determine the location of plant pod 242 that is inserted through aperture 240”).
Regarding claim 24, Martin in view of Hunter and Millar discloses the method of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the two or more planting columns includes a first row of planting columns and a second row of planting columns, the first row of planting columns configured vertically below the second row of planting columns, the first row of planting columns including two or more planting receptacles and the second row of planting columns including two or more planting receptacles and wherein the first planting column is within the first row of planting columns and the second planting column is within the second row of planting columns (Hunter; Figs. 2 and 3; ¶ 0060, lines 1-8; ¶ 0070).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20180007845 A1) in view of Hunter (US 20210084831 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Song et al. (US 20200344965 A1), hereinafter Song.
Regarding claim 21, Martin in view of Hunter and Millar discloses the method of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the user preference includes one or more of a desired taste; or target nutritional benefits.
Song teaches wherein the user preference includes one or more of: a desired taste; or target nutritional benefits (¶ 0115, lines 1-1, “one or both of the lighting spectrum and pump cycle can be modulated based on other user parameters, for example a preferred growth rate, a preferred coloration of the plant (or of leaves, flowers or fruit of the plant), a desired phytochemical content, or for taste preference, for example by modulating for more or less water or more or less light to provide sweeter, hotter, milder, sharper or more bitter flavors in the leaves, flowers or fruit of the plants”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of illumination grow systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Martin in view of Hunter such that the user preference includes one or more of a desired taste or target nutritional benefits, as taught by the modulation of Song. This would result in improved adjustability for the method based on a more specific user preference, which would allow the system to customize the taste of the plants according to the user's taste profile. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 15-17, 20, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20180007845 A1) in view of Hunter (US 20210084831 A1) and Schulte (NL 8401090 A).
Regarding claim 15, Martin discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising (¶ 0240, lines 1-20):
receiving first sensor data associated with a planting column of an enclosure having a plurality of rows, each row including two or more receptacles for cultivating a plant (Fig. 1D shows four root chambers 104 arranged in two rows of two receptacles 104; ¶ 0051, lines 11-19);
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a first area of interest associated with a first plant within the enclosure, the first area of interest associated with one of the plurality of rows and one of the two or more receptacles (¶ 0134, lines 1-9);
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a first feature associated with the first plant (¶ 0134, lines 1-9); and
determining a first illumination setting based at least in part on the first feature (¶ 0134, lines 1-9); and
causing an illuminator to provide first illumination to the first area and the first plant based at least in part on the first illumination setting (¶ 0134, lines 1-9);
determining, based at least in part on the first feature associated with the plant, that the first plant is within a harvest threshold (¶ 0160, lines 6-11, “Accordingly, it can be desirable to automate the harvesting process, for example, by utilizing sensors of the device to detect when the prime time to harvest is, and/or by mechanically harvesting the fruit or other product without the need for a human to manually perform such harvesting”);
causing an alert on a mobile device associated with a user to notify a user that the first plant is ready to harvest (¶ 0225, lines 24-30, “Once the system determines that the drying cycle is over, the system may be configured to automatically alert an operator or user, automatically activate a harvesting system, such as the harvesting systems illustrated in FIGS. 10A through 11B, automatically drop harvested crops into a curing and storage system as described below, and/or the like”);
Martin, however, fails to specifically disclose each subsequent row of the plurality of rows being vertically above a proceeding row of the plurality of rows; and causing the planting column to position the first plant towards a door of the enclosure.
Hunter teaches each subsequent row of the plurality of rows being vertically above a proceeding row of the plurality of rows (Figs. 2 and 3 show receptacles 242 arrayed vertically in apertures 240).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Martin such that each subsequent row of the plurality of rows being vertically above a proceeding row of the plurality of rows, as taught by the receptacle and sensor structure of Hunter. This would result in improved monitoring and more efficient spatial configuration of the receptacles, which would improve monitoring characteristics and overall performance of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Schulte is in the field of cultivation systems and teaches causing the planting column to position the first plant towards a door of the enclosure (page 3, lines 37 and 38, “When the door 5 is opened and the chains connecting the trolleys or runners 8 are moving. the plants will be brought successively at the level of the door 5, for example to harvest fruits hanging from the plants, to take the plants out of 5 or to perform other activities”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Martin in view of Hunter in order to cause the planting column to position the first plant towards a door of the enclosure, as taught by positioning system of Schulte. This would result in improved arrangement of plants, which would improve the overall use of space within the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte discloses the device of claim 15.
Martin discloses wherein the system is physically remote from the enclosure (¶ 0248, “In some embodiments, the system 2350 may comprise a physical or logical connection established between a remote microprocessor and a mainframe host computer for the express purpose of uploading, downloading, or viewing interactive data and databases on-line in real time. The remote microprocessor may be operated by an entity operating the computer system 2350, including the client server systems or the main server system, an/or may be operated by one or more of the data sources 2369 and/or one or more of the computing systems 2367. In some embodiments, terminal emulation software may be used on the microprocessor for participating in the micro-mainframe link”).
Regarding claim 17, Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte discloses the device of claim 15.
Martin discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving second sensor data associated with the enclosure, the second sensor data received prior to the first sensor data (¶ 0262, lines 1-8);
determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, an insertion event associated with a seed cartridge (¶ 0261, lines 18-26);
determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, a seed receptacle of a planting column associated with the enclosure to associate with the seed cartridge (¶ 0261, lines 5-13); and
wherein determining the first area of interest is based at least in part on the seed receptacle (¶ 0134, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 20, Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte discloses the device of claim 15.
Martin discloses further comprising: one or more communication interfaces; and wherein the operations further comprise sending a message associated with the plant to a user device associated with the enclosure (¶ 0248).
Regarding claim 26, Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte discloses the device of claim 15, including determining when a growth stage is completed (Martin; ¶ 0267, “During each of the stages between and including box 2701 to 2711, the system is configured to promote growth of the plant or plants. Accordingly, the system may be performing actions such as, for example, introducing moisture, oxygen, nutrients, and/or the like into a root zone, introducing light, carbon dioxide, and/or the like into a canopy zone, controlling various parameters such as temperature and humidity of the canopy zone and root zone, and/or the like. Once the process flow reaches block 2713, the primary growth of the plant is completed, and the rest of the processes are tailored to harvesting the crops that have been grown [including any related process, such as drying and curing]”), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein determining that the first plant is within a harvest threshold includes determining that a plant has reached between 90 and 95 percent of its maximum growth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte such that determining that the first plant is within a harvest threshold includes determining that a plant has reached between 90 and 95 percent of its maximum growth, in order to ensure harvesting is not delayed past the time of maximum growth. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 28, Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte discloses the device of claim 15.
Martin discloses wherein the harvest threshold is determined based at least in part on a user input representing a type of preparation associated with the first plant (¶ 0271, “In each of the various stages, the system may receive user input that initiates that stage and/or the system may automatically detect, for example by a sensor, detector, camera, or other equipment internal or external to the pod system, that such stage should be initiated. Further, the system may receive user input related to parameters that will be controlled during that stage, and/or the system may automatically detect parameters that should be used with that stage. Such user input and/or automatic detection is illustrated in FIG. 27B in blocks 2723, 2731, 2739, 2747, and 2755”).
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20180007845 A1) in view of Hunter (US 20210084831 A1) and Schulte (NL 8401090 A), as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Xu (EP 3330905 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte discloses the device of claim 15, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein determining that the first plant is within a harvest threshold includes determining that a plant has met or exceeded one or more taste thresholds.
Xu is in the field of cultivation systems and teaches wherein determining that the first plant is within a harvest threshold includes determining that a plant has met or exceeded one or more taste thresholds (¶ 0038, “Harvested plant features at least include: harvesting situation per unit planting area; yield situation per unit planting area; florescence time of the plant; and the planter's subjective evaluation which includes self-evaluation of the growing process, self-evaluation of the harvesting situation, taste evaluation of fruits/leafy vegetables/rhizomes, and evaluation of ornamentation of the plant. Those harvested plant features are acquired by user input and/or the measuring devices, for example, pictures are captured and then analyzed and processed to acquire the features;” ¶ 0044, “As known by those skilled in the art, suitable planting conditions [e.g., temperature, humidity, soil conditions] can result in harvesting plants with better plant features [e.g., plant height, fruit yield, taste of fruits/ leaves/ rhizomes, etc.]. Thus, if the harvested plants have excellent plant features, it can be shown that the planting conditions during the planting are suitable”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte such that determining that the first plant is within a harvest threshold includes determining that a plant has met or exceeded one or more taste thresholds, as taught by the taste threshold system of Xu. This would result in analysis of taste and resultant modification of plant conditions, which would result in production of a more commercially desirable product. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29, Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte discloses the device of claim 15, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the harvest threshold is received as an output of one or more machine learning models.
Xu teaches wherein the harvest threshold is received as an output of one or more machine learning models (¶ 0115, “Environmental data, planting process and harvest situation serve as the input of the automatic optimization process of the closed-loop optimization platform, and a machine learning algorithm is used to perform classification and optimization to obtain a better planting data model’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Martin in view of Hunter and Schulte such that the harvest threshold is received as an output of one or more machine learning models, as taught by the optimization system of Xu. This would allow the system to make improvements based on collected data, which would result in obtaining a better planting data model. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13, 22, 23, and 25 are allowed.
The prior art of reference fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicant’s claimed invention. Regarding one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, which when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving first sensor data associated with a planting column of an enclosure; determining an insertion event associated with a seed cartridge has occurred, a seed receptacle of the planting column to associate with the seed cartridge, a first area of interest associated with a first plant and the planting column, and determining a first illumination setting associated with a first illuminator and a second illumination setting associated with a second illuminator, as well as causing a first illuminator to provide illumination to the first plant based on sensor data and illumination settings, the most relevant art is Martin (US 20180007845 A1), as the art contains what could be considered insertion event, seed receptacle, and illumination determinations, as well as providing illumination based on illumination settings.
Regarding the planting column including a marker and the first sensor data including data associated with the marker associated with the planting column; determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a position of the marker; and determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data and the marker, a first area of interest associated with a first plant and the planting column, the most relevant art is Hunter (US 20210084831 A1), as the art contains what could be considered marker positioning within the planting column and a first area of interest. The prior art, however, fails to specifically disclose causing a viewing window of the enclosure to become obstructed; receiving second sensor data associated with the planting column of the enclosure while the viewing window is obstructed; determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, baseline reflectance data associated with the first plant, as well as determining a first illumination setting associated with a first illuminator based at least in part on the first plant and the baseline reflectance data associated with the first plant.
Ashdown et al. (US 20160007426 A1) contains what could be considered a monitoring system for greenhouses with window obstruction control and sensors to measure reflectance, however, the art does not specifically disclose causing a viewing window of the enclosure to become obstructed; receiving second sensor data associated with the planting column of the enclosure while the viewing window is obstructed; determining, based at least in part on the second sensor data, baseline reflectance data associated with the first plant, as well as determining a first illumination setting associated with a first illuminator based at least in part on the first plant and the baseline reflectance data associated with the first plant.
The prior art of record while teaching some aspects of the claimed invention fail to cure the deficiencies of each other in a manner that would render the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 10 that “Applicant respectfully assert that providing a crop health diagnostics does not teach or otherwise suggest ‘determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a classification or type of the first plant,’ as amended claim 1 recites,” the Examiner submits that Hunter is relied upon instead of Martin to teach the amended limitation “determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a classification or type of the first plant,” as Hunter details in ¶ 0060 the detection system determines the type of grow pod plant, in addition to the assigned location of the plant within the system as claimed.
Regarding the argument on pages 12 and 13 that “Applicant notes that harvesting crops when they are ready to be harvested does not teach or otherwise suggest ‘determining ... that the first plant is within a harvest threshold,’ let alone that ‘determining, based at least in part on the first feature associated with the plant, that the first plant is within a harvest threshold,’ as amended claim 15 recites (emphasis added). While Martin discusses that the harvesting system harvests ‘by utilizing sensors of the device to detect when the prime time to harvest is,’ (Martin, paragraph [0160]). Martin does not provide any discussion related to determining the prime time. Martin does discuss that the ‘system initiates a drying stage algorithm process. Once the plant is sufficiently dry and/or ready for harvesting,’ (id., paragraph [0268]). Accordingly, it appears that Martin discusses harvesting when a plant is sufficiently dry which does not each or otherwise suggest ‘determining, based at least in part on the first feature associated with the plant, that the first plant is within a harvest threshold,’ as amended claim 15 recites (emphasis added),” the Examiner submits that the amended limitation “determining, based at least in part on the first feature associated with the plant, that the first plant is within a harvest threshold,” is disclosed by Martin in ¶ 0160, as Martin details that harvesting is automatic based on sensors detecting a prime time for harvesting. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “harvest threshold,” Martin’s prime time is a harvest threshold, as the harvesting process is initiated according the sensors detecting the system falling within the “prime time,” which is a time threshold.
Regarding the argument on page 14 that “having sensors distributed throughout the grow pod does not teach or suggest determining anything based on a distance between them. Rather, Martin merely discuss that the sensors may not be grouped together. Accordingly, Martin fails to teach or otherwise suggest ‘wherein determining the first area of interest is based at least in part on the third sensor data, a first distance between the first sensor and the illuminator, and a second distance between the third sensor and the illuminator,’ as claim 8 recites,” the Examiner submits that Martin discloses different arrangements of lights with respect to sensors, however, Hunter is relied upon to teach the distance aspect of the amended “determining the first area of interest is based at least in part on the third sensor data, a first distance between the first sensor and the illuminator, and a second distance between the third sensor and the illuminator,” as Hunter details in ¶ 0068 that sensor spacing is used to determine an area of interest based on triangulation.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hall et al., US 20190200542 A1, discusses a plant grow unit.
Kent et al., US 20200333782 A1, discusses a method and system for agriculture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642