DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s filing, received 16 May 2023, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Claim 11 is objected to.
Priority
This application claims benefit of 63/347,164, filed 31 May 2022.
Therefore, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 31 May 2022.
Drawings
The drawings received 16 May 2023 are not accepted. These drawings are objected to, as noted below.
These drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
#502 in FIG. 5 (the specification refers to “an open microenvironment 502” at para. [0044] and also refers to “a configurable plant growing base 502” at para. [0055]).
These drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
at least S32, S33, and S34 in FIG. 6 (in addition to multiple other reference characters).
The replacement drawings received 28 July 2023 are not accepted. These drawings are objected to, as noted below.
These drawings are objected to because FIG. 3B has a text overlay that is not legible.
The drawings received 16 May 2023 and the replacement drawings received 28 July 2023 are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a), as noted below.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, however the Figures do not show “a configurable plant growing base.” Therefore, the “configurable plant growing base” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
a configurable plant growing base for growing, in claims 1 and 11;
a trained artificial intelligence (AI) engine for correlating, in claim 1;
a portable photosynthesis system for measuring, in claim 2; and
a dashboard configured to display, in claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses a corresponding structure for the non-structural generic placeholder:
a configurable plant growing base for growing, in claims 1 and 11, at para. [0055] in the specification (i.e., a base 502 for growing plants) and at Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 in the drawings;
a trained artificial intelligence (AI) engine for correlating, in claim 1, at para. [0045] in the specification (the AI engine may be located in the cloud (i.e., software) or in a local computer (i.e., hardware);
a portable photosynthesis system for measuring, in claim 2, at para. [0022] in the specification (e.g., LI-COR LI-6800 portable photosynthesis system); and
a dashboard configured to display, in claim 11, at para. [0055] in the specification and FIG. 5 in the drawings (e.g., dashboard 504 may be a physical (i.e., hardware) or a web-based (i.e., software) dashboard).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: A semi-colon should be inserted after the word “base” in line five.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite for reciting “a configurable plant growing base for growing plants” because it is not clear as to whether the limitation “configurable” means that the structure of the base itself is configurable (e.g., structural modifications allowing for increasing/decreasing the size of the base, and/or to be portable where a system may be moved from one place to another), or alternatively, if the structure of the base is fixed, but allows for a configurable arrangement of plants and/or sensors within the base (e.g., the number of plants and/or sensors and the proximity of each plant and sensor to one another) and thus, there are alternative interpretations of the limitation that make it unclear as to which interpretation to apply to the instant claims. This limitation is interpreted to mean that the “configurable plant growing base” allows for a configurable arrangement of plants and/or sensors within the base.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite for depending from claim 1 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 1 is further indefinite for reciting “applying the reference data…to a trained artificial intelligence (AI) engine for correlating…” because it is not clear as to whether the step of “applying” only involves a step of inputting data to the trained model, or alternatively, if the step of “applying” means that the trained model is both receiving data and also performing calculations on that data, e.g., performing additional training (i.e., fine-tuning a foundational or pre-trained model). This limitation is interpreted to mean a step of training the trained model, i.e., fine-tuning a pre-trained model.
Claims 2-10 are further indefinite for depending from claim 1 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 11 is indefinite for reciting “a dashboard configured to display predicted plant health parameters” because it is not clear as to whether the apparatus generates the “predicted plant health parameters” or alternatively, whether the apparatus only receives the “predicted plant health parameters,” since the claim only recites an apparatus comprising a configurable plant growing base and a plurality of sensors.
Claims 12 and 13 are indefinite for depending from claim 11 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 recites “a configurable plant growing base for growing plants.” This limitation is interpreted to mean that the “configurable plant growing base” allows for a configurable arrangement of plants within the base and/or allows for the control system architecture to be configurable.
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1-10 recite a method (i.e., a process); and claims 11-13 recite an apparatus (i.e., a machine and/or a manufacture).
Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus, satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
applying the reference data representing the one or more micro-environmental parameters to a trained artificial intelligence (AI) engine for correlating micro-environment changes to the plants with one or more plant health parameters (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., training the model by inputting data, generating a prediction, using a loss function to calculate the difference between that prediction and a correct prediction, and optimizing the algorithm to minimize that difference); and
predicting, by the trained Al engine, the one or more plant health parameters for monitoring plant health (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., using the algorithm to calculate a prediction).
Independent claim 11 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
a dashboard configured to display predicted plant health parameters (i.e., mental processes, e.g., organizing and conveying data).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, and 13 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Dependent claim 2 further recites:
applying the reference data representing the one or more environmental parameters and plant health parameters of the plants and plant health parameters of the plants to train and validate the Al engine (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., training the model by inputting data, generating a prediction, using a loss function to calculate the difference between that prediction and a correct prediction, and optimizing the algorithm to minimize that difference).
Dependent claim 3 further recites:
validation of the Al engine comprises: using the reference data representing the one or more near-leaf environmental parameters and plant health parameters unused and unseen from the training of the Al engine (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., training the model by inputting data, generating a prediction, using a loss function to calculate the difference between that prediction and a correct prediction, and optimizing the algorithm to minimize that difference).
Dependent claim 4 further recites:
the one or more micro-environmental parameters comprise relative humidity (RH), temperature (T), and carbon dioxide (C02) of the plants (i.e., mental processes, e.g., choosing parameters).
Dependent claim 5 further recites:
the one or more plant health parameters comprise photosynthetic rate (A) and stomatal conductance (SC) (i.e., mental processes, e.g., choosing parameters).
Dependent claim 7 further recites:
determining a number of plants in the configurable plant growing base to be measured for the reference data (i.e., mental processes, e.g., making a decision); and
training the Al engine using the reference data (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., training the model by inputting data, generating a prediction, using a loss function to calculate the difference between that prediction and a correct prediction, and optimizing the algorithm to minimize that difference).
Dependent claim 8 further recites:
determining, based on differences between the one or more health parameters corresponding to a distant sensor position with respect to a plant, and the one or more health parameters corresponding to a close sensor position with respect to the plant, optimal positions for placing the plurality of sensors with respect to the plants (i.e., mental processes, e.g., analyzing data to make a decision).
Dependent claim 10 further recites:
the dashboard updates the predicted plant health parameters based on a preset duration of time (i.e., mental processes, updating the representation of data).
Dependent claim 13 further recites:
the one or more plant health parameters comprise photosynthetic rate (A) and stomatal conductance (SC) (i.e., mental processes, e.g., selecting parameters).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., determining optimal positions for placing the plurality of sensors with respect to the plants), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., predicting, by the trained Al engine, the one or more plant health parameters for monitoring plant health) are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 1-13 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8, 10, and 13 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements in independent claim 1 include:
placing a plurality of sensors in a configurable plant growing base for growing plants for monitoring the plants, the plurality of sensors being configured to measure one or more micro-environmental parameters of the plants being monitored;
collecting, by the plurality of sensors, reference data representing the one or more environmental parameters of the plants continuously in real-time; and
communicating the collected reference data through a sensor network mediated by gateways.
The additional elements in independent claim 11 include:
a configurable plant growing base for growing plants; and
a plurality of micro-environment sensors placed near the plants and configured to measure one or more environmental parameters of a space near the plants in the configurable plant growing base.
The additional elements in dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 12 include:
placing a portable photosynthesis system in a predetermined position near the plurality of environmental sensors for measuring one or more plant health parameters (claim 2); collecting, by the plurality of sensors and portable photosynthesis system, reference data representing the micro-environmental parameters and plant health parameters of the plants (claim 2); and communicating the reference data representing the one or more micro-environmental parameters and plant health parameters of the plants through the sensor network mediated by gateways (claim 2);
the plurality of sensors comprises one or more of relative humidity (RH) sensor, carbon dioxide (C02) sensor, and temperature (T) sensor (claim 6);
collecting the reference data from sensors corresponding to the number of plants (claim 7);
displaying the predicted plant health parameters on a dashboard (claim 9); and
the plurality of sensors comprises one or more of relative humidity (RH) sensor, carbon dioxide (CO2) sensor, and temperature (T) sensor (claim 12).
The additional elements of a configurable plant growing base for growing plants (claim 11); placing a plurality of sensors in a configurable plant growing base for growing plants for monitoring the plants, the plurality of sensors being configured to measure one or more micro-environmental parameters of the plants being monitored (claim 1); a plurality of micro-environment sensors placed near the plants and configured to measure one or more environmental parameters of a space near the plants in the configurable plant growing base (claim 11); placing a portable photosynthesis system in a predetermined position near the plurality of environmental sensors for measuring one or more plant health parameters (claim 2); and the plurality of sensors comprises one or more of relative humidity (RH) sensor, carbon dioxide (C02) sensor, and temperature (T) sensor (claims 6 and 12); are merely steps or components that are part of the pre-solution activities of gathering data – nominal or tangential additions to the claims that do not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of collecting, by the plurality of sensors, reference data representing the one or more environmental parameters of the plants continuously in real-time (claim 1); collecting, by the plurality of sensors and portable photosynthesis system, reference data representing the micro-environmental parameters and plant health parameters of the plants (claim 2); collecting the reference data from sensors corresponding to the number of plants (claim 7); are merely pre-solution activities of gathering data – nominal or tangential additions to the claims that do not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of communicating the collected reference data through a sensor network mediated by gateways (claim 1); communicating the reference data representing the one or more micro-environmental parameters and plant health parameters of the plants through the sensor network mediated by gateways (claim 2); are merely pre-solution activities of transmitting data – nominal or tangential additions to the claims that do not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of displaying the predicted plant health parameters on a dashboard (claim 9); is merely a post-solution activity of displaying data – a nominal or tangential addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer and/or computer related components as tools; and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity; and/or a field of use in which to apply a judicial exception; and as such, when all limitations in claims 1-13 have been considered as a whole (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 1-13 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8, 10, and 13 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception(s).
The additional elements recited in independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 12 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional element of displaying data (claim 9); comprises conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes).
The additional elements of communicating the collected reference data through a sensor network mediated by gateways (i.e., transmitting data) (claim 1); communicating the reference data representing the one or more micro-environmental parameters and plant health parameters of the plants through the sensor network mediated by gateways (i.e., transmitting data) (claim 2); comprise conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes). Additional evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Ouhami et al. (“Computer Vision, IoT and Data Fusion for Crop Disease Detection Using Machine Learning: A Survey and Ongoing Research.” Remote Sensing, 2021, vol. 13, No. 2486, pp. 1-24).
Ouhami et al. reviews the state-of-the-art technological advances in sensors, data storage, computing resources and artificial intelligence applied to plant disease detection (Title; and Abstract); and shows that a typical wireless monitoring system must contain multiple sensors connected in each zone to an installed node, with sensors and nodes communicating via radio-frequency, and in addition, a gateway is also needed to accomplish connection between sensors and the user (page 9, para. 2).
The additional elements of collecting, by the plurality of sensors, reference data representing the one or more environmental parameters of the plants continuously in real-time (claim 1); collecting, by the plurality of sensors and portable photosynthesis system, reference data representing the micro-environmental parameters and plant health parameters of the plants (claim 2); collecting the reference data from sensors corresponding to the number of plants (claim 7); are conventional. Evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Hunt (“Measurements of photosynthesis and respiration in plants.” Physiologia Plantarum, 2003, vol. 117, pp. 314-325).
Hunt reviews the techniques for measuring photosynthesis and respiration in plants (Title; and Abstract); and shows measurement of photosynthetic or respiratory rate in leaf studies using electronic leaf area meters from several manufacturers (page 320, col. 1, para. 2); and further shows field-portable CO2 analysis systems can be used for individual leaves, or several replicate leaves (page 320, col. 2, para. 2).
The additional elements of a configurable plant growing base for growing plants (claim 11); placing a plurality of sensors in a configurable plant growing base for growing plants for monitoring the plants, the plurality of sensors being configured to measure one or more micro-environmental parameters of the plants being monitored (claim 1); a plurality of micro-environment sensors placed near the plants and configured to measure one or more environmental parameters of a space near the plants in the configurable plant growing base (claim 11); placing a portable photosynthesis system in a predetermined position near the plurality of environmental sensors for measuring one or more plant health parameters (claim 2); and the plurality of sensors comprises one or more of relative humidity (RH) sensor, carbon dioxide (C02) sensor, and temperature (T) sensor (claims 6 and 12); are conventional. Evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Poorter et al. (“The art of growing plants for experimental purposes: a practical guide for the plant biologist.” Functional Plant Biology, 2012, vol. 39, pp. 821-838); and
Yee et al. (“Specialized Plant Growth Chamber Designs to Study Complex Rhizosphere Interactions.” Frontiers in Microbiology, 2021, vol. 12, No. 625752, pp. 1-15).
Poorter et al. reviews experiments using plants grown under more-or-less controlled environmental conditions, and discusses the minimum knowledge necessary for a plant biologist to set up such experiments and apply the environmental conditions that are appropriate to answer the questions of interest, e.g., basic choices that have to be made with regard to the experimental setup, such as where are the plants grown; what rooting medium; what pot size, etc., and further discusses eight of the most important environmental factors for plant growth (i.e., light quantity, light quality, CO2, nutrients, air humidity, water, temperature and salinity) (Abstract). Poorter et al. further discusses growing plants in pots (page 825, col. 1, para. 2) and notes that the smaller the pot, the more plants fit into a growth chamber, however if pots are closely spaced, there is a comparatively lower amount of irradiance available for each plant, and moreover, the smaller the pot the stronger roots become pot-bound, leading to undesirable secondary effects (page 825, col. 1, para. 3).
Yee et al. reviews specialized plant growth chambers to study complex rhizosphere interactions (Title), and notes that to overcome the challenges associated with in situ study of rhizosphere interactions, specialized plant growth chamber systems have been developed that mimic the natural growth environment, and further discusses the currently available lab-based systems ranging from widely known rhizotrons to other emerging devices designed to allow continuous monitoring and non-destructive sampling of the rhizosphere ecosystems in real-time throughout the developmental stages of a plant (Abstract). Yee et al. further shows schematic diagrams of representative growth chamber designs (FIG. 2) and examples of the next generation of growth chamber systems developed to study rhizosphere interactions (FIG. 3).
Therefore, when taken alone (i.e., individually), all additional elements in claims 1-13 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 1-13 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genty et al. (“AI-powered autonomous plant-growth optimization system that automatically adjusts input variables to yield desired harvest traits.” US 2019/0377946) and Adhikari et al. (“Phenomic and Physiological Analysis of Salinity Effects on Lettuce.” Sensors, 2019, vol. 19, No. 4814, pp. 1-25).
Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 recites “a configurable plant growing base for growing plants.” This limitation is interpreted to mean that the “configurable plant growing base” allows for a configurable arrangement of plants within the base and/or allows for the control system architecture to be configurable.
Independent claim 1 encompasses an open micro-environment plant health sensing method comprising steps of collecting environmental parameters from sensors in a configurable plant growing base, and using the parameter data to train and use an artificial intelligence model for predicting plant health parameters for monitoring plant health.
Independent claim 11 encompasses an apparatus for an open micro-environment plant health sensing, comprising a configurable plant growing base and a plurality of micro-environment sensors, and a dashboard configured to display predicted plant health parameters.
Genty et al. provides specific guidance for a system and use of an AI-powered autonomous plant-growth optimization system that automatically adjusts input variables to yield desired harvest traits.
Adhikari et al. teaches a method for identifying physiological traits important in salt tolerance that allows lettuce adaptation to high salinity while maintaining its productivity.
Regarding independent claim 1, Genty et al. shows incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) and Internet-of-Things (IoT) for monitoring and optimizing plant growth and quality in an indoor farm using optical sensors, imaging sensors, environmental sensors, and light sensors in real-time, wherein the input from the multiple sensors is used to determine characteristics about plants growing in an indoor farm, including light provided to the plants, to optimize the growth at each of the plants’ growth phases to achieve the desired harvest traits (para. [0002]); the sensors are configured to communicate wirelessly with a cloud server through an intermediate device referred to as an edge device (e.g., the edge device operates as a gateway or hub for the devices in the indoor farming facility) (para. [0036]); training the artificial-intelligence decision model (para. [0055]); and the artificial-intelligence decision model processes inputs from one or more image sensors, environmental sensors, and user data to predict the correct spectrum and intensity of light needed to achieve desired harvest characteristics and/or yield of one or more plants in the indoor farm (para. [0045]).
Regarding independent claim 1, Genty et al. does not show a configurable plant growing base for growing plants.
Regarding independent claim 1, Adhikari et al. shows measuring physiological parameters of lettuce plants grown in a growth chamber (Abstract) with controlled conditions (page 3, para. 2) in a Conviron CMP6050 growth chamber at 20 C, 200 umol m-2 s-1 continuous white light, and relative humidity between 50-70%.
Regarding independent claim 11, Genty et al. shows a self-regulating, interconnected system that includes intelligent lighting hardware, image-capture sensors, environmental sensors, and a user dashboard and/or mobile app for complete control of and visibility into the system (para. [0020]).
Regarding independent claim 11, Genty et al. does not show a configurable plant growing base for growing plants.
Regarding independent claim 11, Adhikari et al. shows measuring physiological parameters of lettuce plants grown in a growth chamber (Abstract) with controlled conditions (page 3, para. 2) in a Conviron CMP6050 growth chamber at 20 °C, 200 μmol m-2 s-1 continuous white light, and relative humidity between 50-70% (page 3, para. 4).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Genty et al. shows a sensor network configured to communicate wirelessly with a cloud server through an intermediate device referred to as an edge device (e.g., the edge device operates as a gateway or hub for the devices in the indoor farming facility) (para. [0036]); training the artificial-intelligence decision model (para. [0055]); and validating the artificial-intelligence decision model (para. [0071]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Genty et al. does not show placing a portable photosynthesis system in a predetermined position near the plurality of environmental sensors for measuring one or more plant health parameters; or collecting, by the plurality of sensors and portable photosynthesis system, reference data representing the micro-environmental parameters and plant health parameters of the plants.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Adhikari et al. shows obtaining measurements of actual photosynthetic CO2 assimilation using the LiCor 6400 XT Portable Photosynthesis System (page 4, para. 4; and page 10, para. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Genty et al. shows a step of validating the artificial-intelligence decision model, which one of skill in the art would understand to be a process that uses “unseen data” that was not used to train the model.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 6, and 12, Genty et al. shows that the environmental sensors (and thus environmental parameters) may include, e.g., carbon dioxide (CO2) sensors, moisture or humidity sensors, and temperature sensors (para. [0031]).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 13, Adhikari et al. shows parameters comprising photosynthetic rate (page 8, para. 1) and stomatal conductance (page 12, para. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Genty et al. shows that the number of plants, image sensors, light fixtures, and environmental sensors may vary based on the specific farming facility (para. [0025]); continuously collecting data from sensors (para. [0032]); and training the machine-learning model (para. [0057]).
Regarding dependent claims 9 and 10, Genty et al. shows a user dashboard and/or mobile app for complete control of and visibility into the system (para. [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method shown by Genty et al. by incorporating a configurable growth chamber and obtaining measurements for photosynthetic rate, as shown by Adhikari et al. and discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of Genty et al. with the methods of Adhikari et al., because Adhikari et al. shows using a configurable growth chamber to control for environmental conditions, and using a portable photosynthesis system to obtain measurements of photosynthetic rate, because environmental factors can significantly affect photosynthesis. This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both Genty et al. and Adhikari et al. disclose methods for using environmental sensors to monitor environmental factors related to the growing conditions of plants in a controlled environment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genty et al. and Adhikari et al. as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-13 above, and further in view of Bhujel et al. (“Sensor systems for greenhouse microclimate monitoring and control: a review.” Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 2020, vol. 45, pp. 341-361).
Dependent claim 8 is broadly directed to determining optimal positions for placing sensors with respect to the plants.
Bhujel et al. is broadly directed to a review of appropriately designed sensor systems for use in systems that automatically monitor and control greenhouse environments.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Genty et al. and Adhikari et al. as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-13 above, does not show determining, based on differences between the one or more health parameters corresponding to a distant sensor position with respect to a plant, and the one or more health parameters corresponding to a close sensor position with respect to the plant, optimal positions for placing the plurality of sensors with respect to the plants.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Bhujel et al. shows that a major contribution of the review is a discussion of the different approaches to identify the optimal sensor number and position in a greenhouse (page 343, col. 2, bullet point 4); and further discusses the selection of optimum sensor number and position (pages 354-356) and in particular shows a grid-based sensor deployment scheme (page 355, FIG. 8) and further shows a methodology to determine the optimal number and location of a temperature sensor (page 355, FIG. 9).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method shown by Genty et al. and Adhikari et al. as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-13 above, by incorporating a method for determining the optimal number and location of the plurality of sensors, as shown by Bhujel et al. and discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of Genty et al. and Adhikari et al. as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-13 above, with the methods of Bhujel et al., because Bhujel et al. shows that the non-uniformity of the greenhouse microclimate is a major challenge that might severely affect the overall crop yield, and therefore, multiple sensor networks with proper spacing and needed to maintain uniformity (page 355, col. 1, para. 2). This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both Genty et al. and Adhikari et al. as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-13 above, and Bhujel et al. disclose methods for utilizing sensor systems for microclimate monitoring.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply o this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this application.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/STEVEN W. BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights