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 § 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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, “a grow space” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the grow space of claim 14 is the same as that claimed in the preamble of claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grichnik (US20070118338A1).
Regarding claim 1, a system comprising:
a reference sensor (¶33 – sensor for input parameters 302);
a query sensor (¶33 – sensor for output parameters 306);
a processor (¶32 – processor 202); and
memory (Figure 2: 204/206/212), the memory storing instructions to cause a processor to execute a method, the method comprising:
training a machine learning model (¶44), the training comprising:
obtaining a first set of measurements from the reference sensor (¶33);
obtaining a second set of measurements from the query sensor (¶33);
processing the first and second set of measurements to train a machine learning model (¶44); and
training the machine learning model to build a map from the reference sensor to the query sensor (¶44);
obtaining a third set of measurements from the reference sensor (¶47);
inputting the third set of measurements into the trained machine learning model (¶47); and
outputting one or more predicted query sensor values (¶47).
Regarding claim 2, Grichnik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the second set of measurements from the query sensor is remotely acquired by a mechanical or robotic apparatus in an environment or grow space (¶33, a NOx sensor can be considered a remotely acquired measurement by a mechanical apparatus in an environment).
Regarding claim 3, Grichnik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the predicted query sensor values are used to provide robustness and redundancy in the case of unreliable sensor measurements (¶2).
Regarding claim 4, Grichnik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the predicted query sensor values are used to notify changes or disruptions in grow spaces and/or environmental control systems (¶47, the predicted values can be considered notifications of changes in an environmental control system because the system controls some environment and the sensor tracks changes for control responses).
Regarding claim 5, Grichnik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
predicted query sensor values are used to control environmental control systems (¶68).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Grichnik accord to claim 1 teaches all of the limitations of the body of claims 8 and 15. Regarding “a grow space” and “grow space sensor query values” in claims 8 and 15, respectively, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. This is the case for claims 8 and 15 and thus Grichnik teaches all of the limitations of claims 8 and 15.
Regarding claims 9-12 and 16-19, Grichnik according to claims 2-5 teaches all of the limitations of claims 9-12 and 16-19.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grichnik (US20070118338A1) in view of Coen (WO2020230126A1).
Regarding claim 6, Grichnik teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the application to plant phenotypes, i.e. wherein predicted query sensor values are used to explain variation in plant phenotypes.
Coen teaches wherein predicted query sensor values are used to explain variation in plant phenotypes (“detecting or predicting a phenotype, the nature of the phenotype, the type and species of the plant or plurality of plants and the like”) in order to provide precision farm management and/or high quality control of plant growth (“The constant increase in the world population and the demand for high quality food without negatively affecting the environment, creates the needs to develop technological means for use in agriculture and Eco culture. Tools for precision farm management with the goal of optimizing returns on investment while preserving resources are required”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the methodology of Grichnik to plant phenotyping in order to provide cost-effective plant growth/farm management, i.e. wherein predicted query sensor values are used to explain variation in plant phenotypes.
Regarding claim 7, Grichnik teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the application to a grow space or wherein the query sensor is a moving sensor configured to sense conditions around a grow space.
Coen teaches wherein the query sensor is a moving sensor configured to sense conditions around a grow space (“The system of the present invention can be stationary, mounted on a manually held platform, or installed on a moving vehicle…The complex interaction between a plant genotype and its environment controls the biophysical properties of the plant, manifested in observable traits, i.e., the plant phenotype or phenome. The system of the present invention can be used to determine and/or predict a plant phenotype of agricultural or ecological importance as long as the phenotype is associated with imagery data that may be obtained from the plant.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the methodology of Grichnik to a grow space wherein the query sensor is a moving sensor configured to sense conditions around a grow space in order to provide cost-effective plant growth/farm management.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 20, Grichnik according to claims 6-7 teaches all of the limitations of claims 13-14 and 20.
Regarding claims 8-20, Grichnik according to claim 6 and/or claim 7 teaches all of the limitations of claims 8-20 because claims 6 and 7 cover the application of Grichnik to a grow space and/or the prediction of a grow space sensor query sensor value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129