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
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn et al. (US 20210127593 A1), hereinafter Krijn, in view of Schaefer et al. (US 20140374780 A1), hereinafter Schaefer.
Regarding claim 1, Krijn discloses an article that supports germinating seeds and growing plants, the article comprising:
a layer disposed atop a substrate (reflective elements 310; Fig. 2), the substrate including a plurality of openings extending through a thickness of the layer (Fig. 2 shows openings through a thickness of the layer 310 for plants 1 to grow), each opening of the plurality of openings capable of accommodating passage therethrough of the developing plants (Fig. 2);
wherein the layer is configured to redirect the red light to the developing plants (¶ 0093, lines 1-3, “FIG. 2 shows an embodiment wherein one or more reflective elements 310 configured to redirect the horticulture light 101 to the plants 1”).
Krijn, however, fails to specifically disclose that the layer contains phosphor and phosphor containing layer or a composite with phosphor particles is configured to convert light incident on a reflective layer into red spectrum light.
Schaefer teaches a phosphor containing layer or a composite with phosphor particles is configured to convert light incident on a reflective layer into red spectrum light (phosphor particles 117, volumetric light conversion element 118; Fig. 11; ¶ 0063, lines 18-20, “The phosphor mix may be formed of one or more types of phosphors, such as RR6436-02A-12 by Internatix with a peak wavelength of 629 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Krijn to include a phosphor containing layer or a composite with phosphor particles is configured to convert light incident on a reflective layer into red spectrum light, as taught by the phosphor layer of Schaefer. The phosphor layer would allow for the conversion of light into red wavelengths, which would improve plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Krijn in view of Schaefer discloses the device of claim 1.
Krijn discloses wherein the substrate has a corrugated structure (Fig. 2 shows corrugations in the substrate layer).
Regarding claim 3, Krijn in view of Schaefer discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the phosphor particles are mulched phosphor chips (Schafer; ¶ 0063, lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 4, Krijn in view of Schaefer discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the phosphor containing layer (Schaefer; phosphor particles 117, volumetric light conversion element 118; Fig. 11) is disposed at a growth plane of the developing plants (Krijn; Fig. 2 shows reflective elements 310 are disposed at a growth plane of plants 1).
Regarding claim 5, Krijn in view of Schaefer discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches further comprising a reflective layer positioned below the phosphor containing layer (Schaefer; reflector ring 114, phosphor particles 117, volumetric light conversion element 118; Fig. 11 shows a reflective layer 114 below the phosphor containing layer 118).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 8 that “Incorporating a ‘static’ phosphor layer for converting light into red light - such as the ‘static’ phosphor layer recited in claim 1 - would be against the teachings of Krijn, which relies on constantly adjusting and adapting the operation of the light source itself to achieve the desired spectral distribution and intensity. The system of Krijn is therefore structurally and operationally different from the article recited in claim 1,” the Examiner submits that providing the device of Krijin with the phosphor layer of Schaefer would not be against the teachings or operations of Krijin, as the adjusting and adapting of the light source of Krijin would not be eliminated by providing the phosphor layer structure. Since the operation of the light source of Krijin is dictated via a controller, a component which would not be operationally impacted by the provision of a static phosphor layer. Furthermore, there is no teaching in Krijin which explicitly prohibits the inclusion of a phosphor layer.
Regarding the argument on page 9 that “The light source of Schaefer includes a resin with phosphor elements that convert the initial wavelength of light to a longer wavelength of light to assist with the temperature reduction. See id. However, the phosphor resin of Schaefer is incorporated into the light source itself, and Schaefer fails to discuss an article for growing plants with a phosphor layer. There is no discussion in Schafer that would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a phosphor resin in a light source and use it as a layer capable of being disposed atop a substrate for germinating seeds and growing plants, as recited in claim 1,” the Examiner submits that the phosphor layer of Schaefer is a separate component from the light source, as Fig. 11 shows the light source 110 below and separate from the light conversion element 118 which comprises phosphor particles 117. Additionally, the light source 110 of Schaefer is not relied upon in the current rejection, but instead the light conversion element with phosphor particles is relied upon to teach the phosphor layer as claimed. The Examiner further recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation exists in Schaefer, as the phosphor layer would allow for the conversion of light into red wavelengths, with Schaefer detailing the growth benefits of providing red light to plants.
Regarding the argument on page 9 that “Any suggestion of such modification would be based on improper hindsight reconstruction in view of Applicant's application. In particular, any suggestion in the Office Action to modify Krijn with Schaefer is improper, because - as noted above - Krijn focuses on dynamically changing the operation of the light source itself to achieve the desired intensity and/or spectral distribution without a phosphor layer on a growing substrate, and Schaefer similarly fails to discuss a phosphor layer on a growing substrate. Even if Schaefer were combined with Krijn, the result would be incorporation of a different light source into Krijn, not changing the growth media to include a phosphor layer. Thus, the combination of Krijn with Schaefer is also structurally and operationally different from the article recited in claim 1,” the Examiner recognizes that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As established above, the phosphor layer of Schaefer is a separate component from the light source, and providing the device of Krijin with the phosphor layer of Schaefer would not be against the teachings or operations of Krijin. Since motivation for providing the device of Krijin with the phosphor layer of Schaefer exists in Schaefer, the judgement on obviousness incorporates knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and not knowledge only gleaned from Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Vardi, US 10244687 B1, discusses an LED grow light system.
Hata et al., US 20140340890 A1, discusses a light emitting apparatus and method for manufacturing the same.
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 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
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642