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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150342125) in view of McCord (U.S. Pub. 20180007838) and Suntych (U.S. Pat. 9526215).
In regard to claim 1, Krijn et al. discloses a method for one or more growing plants comprising: identifying at least a species of the one or more plants being grown (Abstract and Paragraphs [0010] and [0069], where the system at least identifies (“a label for identifying a type of plant”) a species of one or more plants being grown); selecting a spectra shift recipe from a menu of spectra shift recipes for the one or more plants based on species identification of the one or more plants (Fig. 10, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0010], [0033], [0069-0075], and [0136], where a spectra shift recipe (“light recipe” which include “dynamic spectral control for growth light”) from a menu of spectra shift recipes (“a light recipe database 21 that contains one or more light recipes 22” and “Multiple light recipes can be provided in a database”) for the one or more plants is selected based on the species identification (“The optimum light combination… depending on the specific plant” and “a horticulture light recipe comprising at least a label for identifying a type of plant”) of the one or more plants); emitting light on the one or more plants, wherein a spectrum of the light being emitted is selected according to the selected spectra shift recipe (Figs. 1-2 and 10, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0010], [0033], [0069-0075], [0092], [0098], [0102], and [0135-0136], where a spectrum of the light (“lighting devices that can be adaptable in intensity, in emission spectrum, or both”) emitted (via “one or more lighting systems 4, 12”) on the one or more plants is at least selected according to the selected spectra shift recipe (“a light recipe database 21 that contains one or more light recipes 22” which include “dynamic spectral control for growth light”)), the spectrum of the light comprises a blue light (Paragraphs [0013], [0134], and [0143], where blue light (“LED blue 450 nm”) is used for plant growth); wherein the spectra shift recipes comprise a plurality of durations (Abstract and Paragraphs [0013], [0069-0075], and [0102], where the spectra shift recipes comprise a plurality of durations (each “light recipe” includes a “time schedule” which is at least comprised of a plurality of durations and “the method may comprise varying the spectral intensity distribution of the horticulture light” which at least includes a plurality of durations)); and the light recipe includes emitting a blue wavelength of light and incorporating photoperiodic lighting (Paragraphs [0013], [0134], and [0143], where the ratio of light and dark periods is contemplated for enhancing plant growth and where blue light (“LED blue 450 nm”) is used for plant growth). Krijn et al. is silent on the spectra shift recipes comprise at least a spectral category for each duration, and the spectral category cycles from no light ramping up to blue peak and ramping down back to no light at least one time; wherein the spectrum of the light further comprises a UV light, and wherein the UV light is emitted together with the blue light for at least one of the plurality of durations. McCord discloses the spectra shift recipes comprise at least a spectral category for each duration, and the spectral category cycles from no light ramping up to blue peak and ramping down back to no light at least one time (Figs. 1-3c and Paragraphs [0054-0079], where there are spectra shift recipes (“optimal PAR” for a specific plant, PAR is previously defined as Photosynthetically Active Radiation) which include at least a spectral category for each duration (“during at least three different time periods at least three different spectra of PAR are delivered to the plant”) and where the spectral category cycles from no light ramping up to blue peak and ramping down back to no light at least one time (see at least Figs. 2b-2c and Paragraph [0079])); wherein the spectrum of the light further comprises a UV light, and wherein the UV light is emitted together with the blue light for at least one of the plurality of durations (Figs. 2b-2c and Paragraphs [0095] and [0101-0115], where the spectrum of the light further comprises a UV light (““UV” ultraviolet palette”) and wherein the UV light is emitted together with the blue light for at least one of the plurality of durations (see “overlapping” of colors 31/32/33 at same “Time of Day” in figures)). Krijn et al. and McCord are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include lighting devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. such that the spectra shift recipes comprise at least a spectral category for each duration, and the spectral category cycles from no light ramping up to blue peak and ramping down back to no light at least one time; wherein the spectrum of the light further comprises a UV light, and wherein the UV light is emitted together with the blue light for at least one of the plurality of durations in view of McCord. The motivation would have been to provide the plants with a natural lighting cycle which is photoperiodic (Krijn et al., Paragraph [0013]). Additionally, the motivation would have been to allow for adjustment of the light spectrum across time, in order to achieve the desired response from the plant (McCord, Paragraph [0057]).
Krijn et al. is silent on the spectra shift recipes start with an FR or R light spectrum that emulates a specified daily light integral (DLI). Suntych discloses the spectra shift recipes start with an FR or R light spectrum that emulates a specified daily light integral (DLI) (Fig. 9 and Column 18 lines 60-67, where spectra shift recipes start with an FR or R light (“As shown in the graph a far-red spectrum is pulsed first followed by a delay”) spectrum that at least emulates a specified daily light integral). Krijn et al. and Suntych are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include lighting devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. such that the spectra shift recipes start with an FR or R light spectrum that emulates a specified daily light integral in view of Suntych. The motivation would have been to promote growth in plants which require or prefer a lighting recipe which starts with far red light.
In regard to claim 2, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych discloses the method for growing plants of claim 1, wherein the one or more plants are being grown in a greenhouse or other indoor growing environment (Krijn et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0120], where the one or more plants are being grown in a greenhouse 1).
In regard to claim 3, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych discloses the method for growing plants of claim 1, wherein the spectra shift recipes further comprises at least a spectral intensity (Krijn et al., Paragraph [0102], where the spectra shift recipes further comprises at least a spectral intensity (“varying the spectral intensity distribution of the horticulture light”)).
In regard to claim 18, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych discloses the method for growing plants of claim 3, wherein the spectra shift recipes comprise a spectral category of FR, FR-R, FR-R dominating, UV blue increasing, UV blue peak, or UV blue decreasing (McCord, Figs. 1-3c and Paragraphs [0102-0112], where the spectra shift recipes comprise a spectral category of FR 38 or UV blue peak 31-33).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150342125) in view of McCord (U.S. Pub. 20180007838) and Suntych (U.S. Pat. 9526215) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Barnes et al. (U.S. Pub. 20170323472).
In regard to claim 5, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych discloses the method for growing plants of claim 1. Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych is silent on identifying at least the species of the one or more plants being grown further comprises identifying one or more of a geographic origin or genetics of the one or more plants. Barnes et al. discloses identifying at least the species of the one or more plants being grown further comprises identifying one or more of a geographic origin or genetics of the one or more plants (Paragraphs [0128], where identifying at least the species of the one or more plants being grown further comprises identifying genetics of the one or more plants (“plant data of an unknown plant may be collected and compared against existing databases to identify a species of the plant… collecting morphological and physiological information”)). Krijn et al. and Barnes et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych such that identifying at least the species of the one or more plants being grown further comprises identifying one or more of a geographic origin and/or genetics of the one or more plants in view of Barnes et al. The motivation would have been to allow the system, in real time, to identify the species of the growing plant. This would ensure that labeling errors or invasive species were not present in the system.
In regard to claim 6, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych discloses the method for growing plants of claim 1. Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych is silent on the identifying at least the species of one or more plants is done by one or more sensors. Barnes et al. discloses the identifying at least the species of one or more plants is done by one or more sensors (Paragraphs [0117], [0128], and [0133], where the identifying at least the species of one or more plants is done by one or more sensors (“dataset that includes time-stamped images of the subject and corresponding sensor readings” and “visualizations resulting from image processing”)). Krijn et al. and Barnes et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych such that the identifying at least the species of one or more plants is done by one or more sensors in view of Barnes et al. The motivation would have been to allow the system, in real time, to identify the species of the growing plant. This would ensure that labeling errors or invasive species were not present in the system.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150342125) in view of McCord (U.S. Pub. 20180007838) and Suntych (U.S. Pat. 9526215) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bainbridge et al. (WO 2021255458).
In regard to claim 7, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych discloses the method for growing plants of claim 1, dynamically adjusting the spectra shift recipe based on the one or more sensors (Krijn et al., Paragraph [0071], where sensor data is used to dynamically adjust the spectra shift recipe (“feedback for controlling the at least one lighting system”)). Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych is silent on monitoring the one or more plants being grown using one or more sensors; and dynamically adjusting the spectra shift recipe based on the one or more sensors monitoring the one or more plants being grown. Bainbridge et al. discloses monitoring the one or more plants being grown using one or more sensors (Translated Specification, Page 2 lines 39-52, where one or more sensors (via image capture and analysis) are used to monitor the one or more plants (crops) being grown); and dynamically adjusting the recipe based on the one or more sensors monitoring the one or more plants being grown (Translated Specification, Page 4 lines 5-24, where the recipe is dynamically adjusted (“crop monitoring outputs may include… intervention instructions”) based on the one or more sensors (via image capture and analysis) monitoring the one or more plants (crops) being grown). Krijn et al. and Bainbridge et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych such that monitoring the one or more plants being grown using one or more sensors; and dynamically adjusting the spectra shift recipe based on the one or more sensors monitoring the one or more plants being grown in view of Bainbridge et al., since the one or more monitoring sensors of Bainbridge et al. could be used with the spectra shift recipe of Krijn et al. as modified by McCord. The motivation would have been to ensure, in real time, that the plants are growing as predicted and as desired by the user.
In regard to claim 8, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Suntych and Bainbridge et al. discloses the method for growing plants of claim 7, wherein the one or more sensors monitoring the one or more plants being grown include at least a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) camera (Bainbridge et al., Translated Specification, Page 2 lines 39-52, where the one or more sensors monitoring the one or more plants (crops) being grown include at least a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) camera (crop feature attributes are determined at least via image capture and analysis)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150342125) in view of McCord (U.S. Pub. 20180007838) and Suntych (U.S. Pat. 9526215) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Bongartzet al. (U.S. Pub. 20190259108).
In regard to claim 9, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych discloses the method for growing plants of claim 2, wherein the control system at least maintains CO2 levels in the greenhouse (Krijn et al., Paragraph [0120], where the climate control system includes ventilation to maintain carbon dioxide content and lighting systems to implement the spectra shift recipes). Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych is silent on the spectra shift recipes further comprise at least CO2 levels in the greenhouse or other indoor growing environment, the CO2 levels being adjusted dependent or independent of the spectrum of the light. Bongartzet al. discloses the spectra shift recipes further comprise at least CO2 levels in the greenhouse or other indoor growing environment, the CO2 levels being adjusted dependent or independent of the spectrum of the light (Paragraphs [1291], [1507], [1605], [1973], [1987], [2837], and [2860], where the recipes further comprise at least CO2 levels in the greenhouse or other indoor growing environment (“CO2-content of the air” and “recipe consists of values for light recipe (spectrum, intensity, photoperiod), CO2”) and where the CO2 levels are adjusted dependent or independent of the spectrum of the light (“When light intensity is increased, also CO2 levels can be increased”)). Krijn et al. and Bongartzet et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Suntych such that the spectra shift recipes further comprise at least CO2 levels in the greenhouse or other indoor growing environment, the CO2 levels being adjusted dependent or independent of the spectrum of the light in view of Bongartzet et al. The motivation would have been to provide an optimal gas composition in the greenhouse, in order to enhance plant growth.
Claims 10-12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150342125) in view of McCord (U.S. Pub. 20180007838), Barnes et al. (U.S. Pub. 20170323472), and Suntych (U.S. Pat. 9526215).
In regard to claim 10, Krijn et al. discloses a system for growing one or more plants comprising: the one or more plants being grown (Abstract and Paragraphs [0010] and [0069], where the system at least comprises one or more plants being grown); a spectra shift recipe selected from a menu of spectra shift recipes based on the species identification of the one or more plants (Fig. 10, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0010], [0033], [0069-0075], and [0136], where a spectra shift recipe (“light recipe” which include “dynamic spectral control for growth light”) from a menu of spectra shift recipes (“a light recipe database 21 that contains one or more light recipes 22” and “Multiple light recipes can be provided in a database”) for the one or more plants is selected based on the species identification (“The optimum light combination… depending on the specific plant” and “a horticulture light recipe comprising at least a label for identifying a type of plant”) of the one or more plants); one or more lights configured to emit light on the one or more plants (Figs. 1-2 and 10, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0010], [0033], [0069-0075], [0092], [0098], [0102], and [0135-0136], where there are one or more lights (“lighting devices that can be adaptable in intensity, in emission spectrum, or both”) configured to emit light (via “one or more lighting systems 4, 12”) on the one or more plants); wherein a spectrum of the one or more light being emitted is selected according to the selected spectra shift recipe (Figs. 1-2 and 10, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0010], [0033], [0069-0075], [0092], [0098], [0102], and [0135-0136], where a spectrum of the light (“lighting devices that can be adaptable in intensity, in emission spectrum, or both”) emitted (via “one or more lighting systems 4, 12”) on the one or more plants is at least selected according to the selected spectra shift recipe (“a light recipe database 21 that contains one or more light recipes 22” which include “dynamic spectral control for growth light”)), the spectrum of the light comprises a blue light (Paragraphs [0013], [0134], and [0143], where blue light (“LED blue 450 nm”) is used for plant growth); and wherein the spectra shift recipes comprise a plurality of durations (Abstract and Paragraphs [0013], [0069-0075], and [0102], where the spectra shift recipes comprise a plurality of durations (each “light recipe” includes a “time schedule” which is at least comprised of a plurality of durations and “the method may comprise varying the spectral intensity distribution of the horticulture light” which at least includes a plurality of durations)); and the light recipe includes emitting a blue wavelength of light and incorporating photoperiodic lighting (Paragraphs [0013], [0134], and [0143], where the ratio of light and dark periods is contemplated for enhancing plant growth and where blue light (“LED blue 450 nm”) is used for plant growth). Krijn et al. is silent on wherein the spectra shift recipes comprise at least a spectral category for each duration, and the spectral category of the light emitted by the one or more lights cycles from no light ramping up to blue peak and ramping down back to no light at least one time, wherein the spectrum of the light further comprises a UV light, and wherein the UV light is emitted together with the blue light for at least one of the plurality of durations. McCord discloses wherein the spectra shift recipes comprise at least a spectral category for each duration, and the spectral category of the light emitted by the one or more lights cycles from no light ramping up to blue peak and ramping down back to no light at least one time, (Figs. 1-3c and Paragraphs [0054-0079], where there are spectra shift recipes (“optimal PAR” for a specific plant, PAR is previously defined as Photosynthetically Active Radiation) which include at least a spectral category for each duration (“during at least three different time periods at least three different spectra of PAR are delivered to the plant”) and where the spectral category of the light emitted by the one or more lights cycles from no light ramping up to blue peak and ramping down back to no light at least one time (see at least Figs. 2b-2c and Paragraph [0079])) wherein the spectrum of the light further comprises a UV light, and wherein the UV light is emitted together with the blue light for at least one of the plurality of durations (Figs. 2b-2c and Paragraphs [0095] and [0101-0115], where the spectrum of the light further comprises a UV light (““UV” ultraviolet palette”) and wherein the UV light is emitted together with the blue light for at least one of the plurality of durations (see “overlapping” of colors 31/32/33 at same “Time of Day” in figures)). Krijn et al. and McCord are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include lighting devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. such that wherein the spectra shift recipes comprise at least a spectral category for each duration, and the spectral category of the light emitted by the one or more lights cycles from no light ramping up to blue peak and ramping down back to no light at least one time, wherein the spectrum of the light further comprises a UV light, and wherein the UV light is emitted together with the blue light for at least one of the plurality of durations in view of McCord. The motivation would have been to provide the plants with a natural lighting cycle which is photoperiodic (Krijn et al., Paragraph [0013]). Additionally, the motivation would have been to allow for adjustment of the light spectrum across time, in order to achieve the desired response from the plant (McCord, Paragraph [0057]).
Krijn et al. as modified by McCord is silent on one or more sensors configured to identify at least a species of the one or more plants being grown. Barnes et al. discloses one or more sensors configured to identify at least a species of the one or more plants being grown (Paragraphs [0117], [0128], and [0133], where there are one or more sensors configured to identify at least the species of one or more plants being grown (“dataset that includes time-stamped images of the subject and corresponding sensor readings” and “visualizations resulting from image processing”)). Krijn et al. and Barnes et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. as modified by McCord such that one or more sensors configured to identify at least a species of the one or more plants being grown in view of Barnes et al. The motivation would have been to allow the system, in real time, to identify the species of the growing plant. This would ensure that labeling errors or invasive species were not present in the system.
Krijn et al. is silent on the spectra shift recipes start with an FR or R light spectrum that emulates a specified daily light integral (DLI). Suntych discloses the spectra shift recipes start with an FR or R light spectrum that emulates a specified daily light integral (DLI) (Fig. 9 and Column 18 lines 60-67, where spectra shift recipes start with an FR or R light (“As shown in the graph a far-red spectrum is pulsed first followed by a delay”) spectrum that at least emulates a specified daily light integral). Krijn et al. and Suntych are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include lighting devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. such that the spectra shift recipes start with an FR or R light spectrum that emulates a specified daily light integral in view of Suntych. The motivation would have been to promote growth in plants which require or prefer a lighting recipe which starts with far red light.
In regard to claim 11, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al. and Suntych discloses the system for growing plants of claim 10, further comprising a greenhouse or other indoor growing environment, wherein the one or more plants are being grown in a greenhouse or other indoor growing environment, the CO2 levels being adjusted dependent or independent of the spectrum of the light (Krijn et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0034], [0120], and [0120], where the one or more plants are being grown in a greenhouse 1 and where the CO2 levels are at least adjusted (“ventilation systems that provide… carbon dioxide content” and “ventilation system 3 for providing air having the right composition (carbon dioxide content… ”) dependent or independent of the spectrum of the light).
In regard to claim 12, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al. and Suntych discloses the system for growing plants of claim 10, wherein the spectra shift recipes further comprise at least a spectral intensity for each of the plurality of durations (Krijn et al., Paragraph [0102], where the spectra shift recipes further comprises at least a spectral intensity (“varying the spectral intensity distribution of the horticulture light”) for each of the plurality of durations).
In regard to claim 14, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al. and Suntych discloses the system for growing plants of claim 10, wherein identifying at least the species of the one or more plants being grown further comprises identifying one or more of a geographic origin or genetics of the one or more plants (Barnes et al., Paragraphs [0117], [0128], and [0133], where identifying at least the species of the one or more plants being grown further comprises identifying genetics of the one or more plants (“plant data of an unknown plant may be collected and compared against existing databases to identify a species of the plant… collecting morphological and physiological information”)).
In regard to claim 17, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al. and Suntych discloses the system for growing plants of claim 11, wherein the control system at least maintains CO2 levels in the greenhouse (Krijn et al., Paragraph [0120], where the climate control system includes ventilation to maintain carbon dioxide content and lighting systems to implement the spectra shift recipes). Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al. and Suntych is silent on the spectra shift recipes further comprise at least a CO2 level in the greenhouse or other indoor growing environment for each of the plurality of durations. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spectra shift recipes further comprise at least a CO2 level in the greenhouse or other indoor growing environment for each of the plurality of durations, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the climate control system of Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al. and Suntych. The motivation would have been to provide an optimal gas composition in the greenhouse, in order to enhance plant growth.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krijn et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150342125) in view of McCord (U.S. Pub. 20180007838), Barnes et al. (U.S. Pub. 20170323472) and Suntych (U.S. Pat. 9526215) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Bainbridge et al. (WO 2021255458).
In regard to claim 15, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al. and Suntych discloses the system for growing plants of claim 10, dynamically adjusting the spectra shift recipe based on the one or more sensors (Krijn et al., Paragraph [0071], where sensor data is used to dynamically adjust the spectra shift recipe (“feedback for controlling the at least one lighting system”)). Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al. and Suntych is silent on one or more monitoring sensors which monitor the one or more plants being grown, wherein the spectra shift recipe is dynamically adjusted based on the one or more monitoring sensors. Bainbridge et al. discloses one or more monitoring sensors which monitor the one or more plants being grown (Translated Specification, Page 2 lines 39-52, where one or more monitoring sensors (via image capture and analysis) which monitor the one or more plants (crops) being grown), wherein the spectra shift recipe is dynamically adjusted based on the one or more monitoring sensors (Translated Specification, Page 4 lines 5-24, where the recipe is dynamically adjusted (“crop monitoring outputs may include… intervention instructions”) based on the one or more monitoring sensors (via image capture and analysis) monitoring the one or more plants (crops) being grown). Krijn et al. and Bainbridge et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al. and Suntych such that one or more monitoring sensors which monitor the one or more plants being grown, wherein the spectra shift recipe is dynamically adjusted based on the one or more monitoring sensors in view of Bainbridge et al., since the one or more monitoring sensors of Bainbridge et al. could be used with the spectra shift recipe of Krijn et al. as modified by McCord and Barnes et al.. The motivation would have been to ensure, in real time, that the plants are growing as predicted and as desired by the user.
In regard to claim 16, Krijn et al. as modified by McCord, Barnes et al., Suntych , and Bainbridge et al. discloses the system for growing plants of claim 15, wherein the one or more monitoring sensors include at least a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) camera or chlorophyll fluorescence sensor (Bainbridge et al., Translated Specification, Page 2 lines 39-52, where the one or more monitoring sensors include at least a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) camera (crop feature attributes are determined at least via image capture and analysis)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (filed 05/26/2026) with respect to the claims 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, for the full list of prior art made of record. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of agricultural and lighting devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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 on (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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
