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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on July 29, 2025. Claims 1-2 and 5 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 3-4 and 6-9 have been canceled. Claims 1-2 and 5 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, it is suggested to amend the phrase “such that the lever is set any one position” to --such that the lever is set to any one position-- to improve clarity of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bongartz et al. (US 2019/0259108 A1), hereinafter Bongartz, in view of Kim (KR 2005-0027190 A), hereinafter Kim, and Kroth et al. (US 4,458,124 A), hereinafter Kroth.
Regarding claim 1, Bongartz discloses a plant factory lighting system (title, abstract, para [1126]) comprising:
a substrate (base of agricultural light fixture 110, shown in fig. 78-79);
a lighting unit (light sources 8301) mounted on the substrate and includes a plurality of LED groups generating light of different wavebands (red light sources 8301.1 and blue light sources 8301.2; para [2583]);
a first switch unit (comprises “mobile device”1, para [1678]) that enables a worker to input a first operation signal (“executable command data”, para [1678]) for operation of the LED groups (“lighting fixture”, para [1678]) through a touch for operation ([para 1678], worker may use a mobile device for “controlling and regulating the at least one lighting fixture and/or actuator based on executable command data transmitted by the mobile device”; it is well understood in the art that operating a mobile device utilizes touch for operation), wherein the LED groups are operated in accordance with an operation order of light emission patterns (para [1877], mobile devices may accept and implement light recipes within the system; para [1811], light recipes control light emission patterns), which emit light of wavebands corresponding to growth states of plants (para [1811], light recipes may take into account plant growth states, or stages);
a second switch unit (comprises “user interface” and “computing device” 2, para [0569]) that has a signal generator (“computing device”, para [0569]) generating a second operation signal (para [0569], computing device sends signal to lighting fixtures to control lighting modes);
a control module (“control unit”, para [0939]) that controls the lighting unit (“light fixture”, para [0939]) in accordance with the first operation signal or the second operation signal (para [0939], control unit “actuates the light sources of the at least one light fixture on the basis of the data of the computing device”).
Bongartz does not appear to specifically disclose:
the second switch unit that has a lever configured to be operated by the worker, and includes a toggle switch formed such that the lever is set any one position of a plurality of setting positions or a neutral position by operation of the worker and the signal generator generating a second operation signal such that the LED groups are operated in different operation patterns in accordance with the position of the lever set by the worker; and
the control module that controls operation of the LED groups to correspond to the first operation signal provided from the first switch unit when the lever of the toggle switch is set at the neutral position, and controls operation of the LED groups to correspond to the second operation signal provided from the second switch unit when the lever of the toggle switch is set at the setting positions.
However, Kim is in the field of control of LED lighting (abstract) and teaches:
the second switch unit (“switching unit”, page 11/15, last paragraph) that includes a toggle switch (“switching unit configured by any one of a dip switch and a toggle switch”, page 11/15, last paragraph) set any one position of a plurality of setting positions or a neutral position by operation of the worker (“toggle switch capable of opening and closing at least three (LED) light”, page 14/15, third paragraph) and the signal generator generating a second operation signal such that the LED groups are operated in different operation patterns in accordance with the position of the lever set by the worker (“toggle switch capable of opening and closing at least three (LED) light”, page 14/15, third paragraph; switch generates an electrical current to operate LEDs in different patterns and is thus interpreted to generate a signal); and
the control module (illumination controller 500) that controls operation of the LED groups to correspond to the first operation signal provided from the first switch unit when the lever of the toggle switch is set at the neutral position, and controls operation of the LED groups to correspond to the second operation signal provided from the second switch unit when the lever of the toggle switch is set at the setting positions (“By doing so, the user can select the mode of the switch to partially or wholly blink the illumination light of the lamp 10”, page 14/15, second and third paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plant factory lighting system with lighting unit, first switch, second switch unit, and control module of Bongartz to incorporate the second switch unit having a toggle switch as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success to allow multiple means for a user to directly control operation of the lighting device, thereby allowing more flexibility to the user such that the user has multiple ways to control the device should one way fail.
Additionally, Kroth is in the field of lighting control (title, abstract) and teaches the second switch unit (“three-position toggle switch”, abstract) that has a lever (transparent toggle lever 28) configured to be operated by the worker (fig. 1, lever 28 is capable of being operated by a worker), and includes a toggle switch formed such that the lever is set any one position of a plurality of setting positions (“a left position, and a right position”, col 2, lines 48-50) or a neutral position (“a center position”, col 2, lines 48-50) by operation of the worker (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plant factory lighting system with lighting unit, first switch, second switch, and control module of Bongartz to incorporate the lever and toggle switch as taught by Kroth with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize a well-understood tactile switch design wherein a user can switch between a plurality of settings to generate a plurality of light settings (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Bongartz as modified discloses the plant factory lighting system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the substrate (base of agricultural light fixture 110) is installed in an internal space of a plant cultivation device in which a plurality of plants are grown (see fig. 59-61 and para [0728], Agricultural System may be an “indoor farm”), and
the plant factory lighting system further comprises:
a measurement sensor (“sensors”, para [1373]) installed on the substrate (para [0126], luminaires can contain a variety of sensors) and measuring concentration of oxygen or carbon dioxide in the internal space (para [1372]-[1373], sensors may be attached to the light module and are capable of detecting CO2 concentration);
a determination module (“computing device”, para [0383]) determining a growth state of plants grown in the internal space on the basis of information measured by the measurement sensor (para [2553] and [0383]-[0387] and [0391]-[0392], “Agricultural System can comprise a computing device, able to access and control the at least one sensor device and the data storage device”); and
a recommendation unit (“data storage device”, para [0384]) providing the worker with information about the waveband of light corresponding to a growth state of plants on the basis of determination information provided from the determination module (para [0383]-[0385], [0391]-[0392], and [2227], “Agricultural System can also comprise a data storage device (e.g. platform/cloud) for storing data about the plant growing facility”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bongartz et al. (US 2019/0259108 A1), hereinafter Bongartz, in view of Kim (KR 2005-0027190 A), hereinafter Kim, and Kroth et al. (US 4,458,124 A), hereinafter Kroth, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2013/0258684 A1), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 2, Bongartz as modified discloses the plant factory lighting system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first switch unit includes:
a pattern storage (“data storage device”, para [1052]) that stores a plurality of light emission patterns about operation of the LED groups (para [1052], data storage device stores controlling schemes for the light modules); and
a pattern setter (“computing device”, para [1051]) that generates the first operation signal that the LED groups are operated in any one of the light emission patterns stored in the storage (para [1051] and [1053], computing device controls light modules based on controlling schemes stored in the data storage device), and generates the first operation signal (para [1053], computing device is interpreted to generate an operation signal by its communication with the control unit) such that light emission patterns, which are applied to the LED groups of the light emission patterns, are sequentially changed in accordance with a preset operation order (para [0341], “light recipe may comprise a time-sequential set of individual light recipes”).
Bongartz as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first switch unit includes:
an on/off power touch pad that the worker can touch for operation; and
the pattern setter that generates the first operation signal when a touch by the worker is input on the on/off power touch pad.
However, Yang is in the field of plant factory lighting systems (title; abstract; fig. 2) and teaches wherein the first switch unit (user interface 210) includes:
an on/off power touch pad that the worker can touch for operation (para [0034], exemplary input devices include…a touch screen); and
the pattern setter (controller 132) that generates the first operation signal when a touch by the worker is input on the on/off power touch pad (para [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plant factory lighting system with lighting unit and first switch unit of Bongartz as modified to incorporate the on/off power touch pad as taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize a well-understood tactile switch design wherein a user can switch between a plurality of settings to easily active and deactivate the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 3-4 of 4), filed July 29, 2025, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not disclose wherein “the LED groups are operated in accordance with an operation order of light emission patterns, which emit light of wavebands corresponding to growth states of plants”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully asserts that, as outlined in the rejection above, the prior art reference Bongartz et al. (US 2019/0259108 A1) does appear to disclose wherein LED groups are operated in accordance with an operation order of light emission patterns in paragraph [1877] and does appear to disclose wherein light emission patterns emit light of wavebands corresponding to growth states of plants in paragraph [1811] under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Conclusion
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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 The “mobile device” disclosed by Bongartz is capable of controlling the lighting unit of the plant factory lighting system, which includes switching between different lighting recipes (see para [1774]), and thus the “mobile device” is interpreted as a “switch unit”.
2 The “computing device” disclosed by Bongartz is capable of controlling the lighting unit of the plant factory lighting system, including switching between a normal illumination mode and a detect mode (see para [0569]), and thus the “computing device” is interpreted as a “switch unit”.