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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 31, 33, 35-50 have been examined in this application. This communication is a final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 5/9/2025.
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.
Claims 31, 33, 36-40, 42-46, 49-50 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20100299993 by Lais in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20160327228 by Farkas and US Patent Application Number 2018/0332779 by Reach.
Regarding claim 31, Lais discloses a growth chamber for an agricultural plant (grow tube 20a), the growth chamber comprising:
Collecting solar energy (through open top 47),
A light transmitter for directing the collected solar energy toward the agricultural crop therethrough, the light transmitter comprising: an inner wall comprising a perimeter positioned between the solar concentrator and the agricultural crop plant (interior member 24), the inner wall further comprising a reflective inner surface for directing collected solar energy toward the agricultural crop plant (see Figures 4-7);
A light transmitter base defining a protected zone surrounding the agricultural crop plant (see lower portion of wall 21 in Figure 1),
Wherein one or both of the light transmitter and the light transmitter base comprise one or more openings (apertures 202 and 204) for allowing one or both of a) operator access to the agricultural crop plant therethrough (an operator could access the plant through apertures 202 and 204 via a tool or water) and b) airflow between the outside environment and the protected zone (paragraphs 127, 129, 131 disclose apertures 202 and 204 being used for ventilation).
Lais does not disclose a solar concentrator for collecting and concentrating solar energy in optical communication with the light transmitter, the solar concentrator comprising a solar-facing surface positioned above the agricultural crop plant, the solar-facing surface comprising a reflective material. However, this limitation is taught by Farkas. Farkas discloses a method of collecting and concentrating solar energy to a plant (see the abstract) with a solar concentrator 56 comprising a solar-facing surface positioned above the agricultural crop plant (Figure 1 shows concentrator 56 positioned above canopy 60), the solar-facing surface comprising a reflective material (paragraph 38 discloses “a compound parabolic concentrator reflective element 56”). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lais using the teachings from Farkas in order to provide a wider opening to better collect and concentrate light into the grow tube.
Lais does not disclose the light transmitter base comprising a receiving portion and a base portion, the light transmitter base coupled to the light transmitter at the receiving portion and extending downward form the light transmitter, wherein the light transmitter base comprises a rigid outer wall, the rigid outer wall configured to protect the protected zone from one or more growth limiting factors selected from the group consisting of: wind damage; heat damage; cold damage; frost damage; herbicide damage; and animal damage; and/or for reducing evapo-transpiration by the agricultural crop plant positioned in the protected zone. However, these limitations are taught by Reach. Reach discloses a plant protection system comprising a receiving portion (upper portion of 12 in Figure 5) and a base portion (lower portion of 12), the light transmitter base coupled to the light transmitter at the receiving portion and extending downward from the light transmitter (see Figure 5), wherein the light transmitter base comprises a rigid outer wall (paragraph 36 discloses “Thicker layer 10 or mesh is beneficial to the heat application of the layer 12 or film in that some rigidity in the layer 10 or mesh is maintained immediately after application bonding”)for protecting the protected zone from one or more growth limiting factors selected from the group consisting of: wind damage; heat damage; cold damage; frost damage; herbicide damage; and animal damage (paragraph 2 discloses protecting the plant from animals, herbicides, and frost, and paragraph 34 discloses herbicide spray protection); and/or for reducing evapo-transpiration by the agricultural crop plant positioned in the protected zone (film 12 would inhibit water exiting the tree protection system 20 and would thus reduce evapo-transpiration of the plant positioned within the tree protection system). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lais using the teachings from Reach in order to better protect the plant against animals, herbicides, and frost.
Lais as modified by Reach further teaches the rigid outer wall defining an upper perimeter for engaging the light transmitter (the lower portion of 10 has an upper perimeter for engaging the upper portion of 10) and a lower perimeter for engaging the soil surface surrounding the agricultural plant (see Figure 3 of Reach and Figure 1 of Lais). Lais and Reach do not disclose the lower perimeter being smaller than the upper perimeter. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the grow tube of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient to facilitate insertion of the grow tube into the soil. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 33 (dependent on claim 32), Lais discloses the light transmitter base and the light transmitter are integrally connected to one another. Figure 1 shows the upper and lower portions of wall 21 are integrally connected to one another.
Regarding claim 36 (dependent on claim 31), Farkas further teaches that the solar concentrator comprises a funnel shape, a cone shape, a parabolic shape, a partial funnel shape, a partial cone shape, a compound or partial parabolic shape (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 37 (dependent on claim 31), Lais discloses one or both of the reflective material and the reflective inner surface comprising a plastic material (paragraph 99 discusses the use of materials such as plastics).
Regarding claim 38 (dependent on claim 31), Lais discloses one or both of the reflective material and the reflective inner surface are red in color (paragraph 73 discloses “The interior member 24 may possess a red or magenta color”).
Regarding claim 39 (dependent on claim 31), Lais as modified by Reach further teaches the rigid outer wall defining an upper perimeter for engaging the light transmitter (the lower portion of 10 has an upper perimeter for engaging the upper portion of 10) and a lower perimeter for engaging the soil surface surrounding the agricultural plant (see Figure 3 of Reach and Figure 1 of Lais).
Lais and Reach do not disclose the lower perimeter being smaller than the upper perimeter. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the grow tube of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient to facilitate insertion of the grow tube into the soil. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 40 (dependent on claim 31), Reach further teaches one or both of the light transmitter and the light transmitter base comprising one or more vertical openings comprising: edges, joints and a hinge, such that one or both of the light transmitter and the light transmitter base is configurable to be opened or closed along the vertical opening, thereby allowing air to pass the outside environment and the protected zone (at the edge adjacent fasteners 16 in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 42 (dependent on claim 32), Lais, Farkas, and Reach do not disclose the solar concentrator, the light transmitter or the light transmitter base being connected to one another through an interlocking connection or a rotary connection. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to allow the base to be removed from the receiving portion of the plant protection system in order to allow the pieces to be taken apart when not needed or for transport and storage, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 43 (dependent on claim 32), Lais discloses one or both of the light transmitter base and the light transmitter are adapted to train the agricultural crop plant to grow in a desired direction. Grow tube 20a is adapted to train the crop 28 to grow in an upward direction.
Regarding claim 44 (dependent on claim 31), Lais discloses the light transmitter comprises a transmitter outer wall (26) having a textured pattern configured to inhibit or limit the creation of hotspots within the light transmitter. Figure 2 shows the outer wall having a textured pattern, and paragraph 83 discloses “the transmitted component 58 of the exterior incident component 54 may be scattered by the exterior member 26, such as represented at numerical reference 76 and paragraph 85 disclose “Functionally, the scattered and diffusely reflecting components 76 and 80 diffuses or spreads the direct radiation of the exterior and interior incident components 54 and 60”).
Regarding claim 45 (dependent on claim 32), Lais discloses the solar-facing surface, the reflective inner surface, an inner wall of the light transmitter, or any combination thereof, is adapted to scatter, manipulate the spectral composition, or both, of the collected solar energy before the collected solar energy is directed to the surface of the agricultural crop plant. Figure 5 shows the inner surface scattering component 80 of the light, and paragraph 73 discloses the interior member possessing a red or magenta color that partially transmits, and therefore manipulates the spectral composition of, the light.
Regarding claim 46 (dependent on claim 45), Lais discloses the spectrally modifying the solar energy comprises enriching relative content of light in each of the yellow, red, and far-red spectral regions by at least about 10% compared to the solar energy prior to spectral modification, reducing blue light by at least about 20% compared to the solar energy prior to spectral modification (see paragraph 73), or enriching one or more photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) wavelengths with a range from about 400-700 nanometers, about 540-750 nm, and/or about 620-750 nm comparted to the solar energy prior to spectral modification (see paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 49 (dependent on claim 31), Lais discloses a polarized reflective outer surface coating. Paragraph 91 discloses “a reflective exterior coating 97 may be disposed on the exterior surface of the exterior member 26”.
Regarding claim 50, Lais discloses a method of collecting and concentrating solar energy to an agricultural crop plant (paragraph 17 disclose “promotes photosynthesis by selectively enabling the blue and/or the red band passes, which contain photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), and to propagate the PAR in a scattered or diffuse manner”), comprising:
Collecting and spectrally modifying solar energy (through open top 47, Figures 4-7 shows a variety of ways interior member 24 spectrally modifies the light),
Directing the collected solar energy toward the agricultural crop plant through a light transmitter (wall 21, see Figures 4-7); and
The light transmitter comprising:
An inner wall comprising a perimeter positioned between the solar concentrator and the agricultural crop plant (interior member 24), the inner wall further comprising a reflective inner surface for directing collected solar energy toward the agricultural crop plant (see Figures 4-7); and
A light transmitter base defining a protected zone surrounding the agricultural crop plant (see lower portion of wall 21 in Figure 1),
Wherein one or both of the light transmitter and the light transmitter base comprise one or more openings (apertures 202 and 204) for allowing one or both of a) operator access to the agricultural crop plant therethrough (an operator could access the plant through apertures 202 and 204 via a tool or water) and b) airflow between the outside environment and the protected zone (paragraphs 127, 129, 131 disclose apertures 202 and 204 being used for ventilation)..
Lais does not disclose collecting and concentrating solar energy with a solar concentrator comprising a solar facing surface positioned above the agricultural crop plant, the solar-facing surface comprising a reflective material, the solar concentrator having an upper perimeter and a lower perimeter, wherein the lower perimeter is less than the upper perimeter, and in optical communication with the light transmitter. However, this limitation is taught by Farkas. Farkas discloses a method of collecting and concentrating solar energy to a plant (see the abstract) with a solar concentrator 56 comprising a solar-facing surface positioned above the agricultural crop plant (Figure 1 shows concentrator 56 positioned above canopy 60), the solar concentrator having an upper perimeter and a lower perimeter, wherein the lower perimeter is less than the upper perimeter (see Figure 1), the solar-facing surface comprising a reflective material (paragraph 38 discloses “a compound parabolic concentrator reflective element 56”). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lais using the teachings from Farkas in order to provide a wider opening to better collect and concentrate light into the grow tube.
Lais does not disclose the light transmitter base comprising a receiving portion and a base portion, the light transmitter base coupled to the light transmitter at the receiving portion and extending downward form the light transmitter, wherein the light transmitter base comprises a rigid outer wall, the rigid outer wall configured to protect the protected zone from one or more growth limiting factors selected from the group consisting of: wind damage; heat damage; cold damage; frost damage; herbicide damage; and animal damage; and/or for reducing evapo-transpiration by the agricultural crop plant positioned in the protected zone. However, these limitations are taught by Reach. Reach discloses a plant protection system comprising a receiving portion (upper portion of 12 in Figure 5) and a base portion (lower portion of 12), the light transmitter base coupled to the light transmitter at the receiving portion and extending downward from the light transmitter (see Figure 5), wherein the light transmitter base comprises a rigid outer wall (paragraph 36 discloses “Thicker layer 10 or mesh is beneficial to the heat application of the layer 12 or film in that some rigidity in the layer 10 or mesh is maintained immediately after application bonding”)for protecting the protected zone from one or more growth limiting factors selected from the group consisting of: wind damage; heat damage; cold damage; frost damage; herbicide damage; and animal damage (paragraph 2 discloses protecting the plant from animals, herbicides, and frost, and paragraph 34 discloses herbicide spray protection); and/or for reducing evapo-transpiration by the agricultural crop plant positioned in the protected zone (film 12 would inhibit water exiting the tree protection system 20 and would thus reduce evapo-transpiration of the plant positioned within the tree protection system). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lais using the teachings from Reach in order to better protect the plant against animals, herbicides, and frost.
Lais as modified by Reach further teaches the rigid outer wall defining an upper perimeter for engaging the light transmitter (the lower portion of 10 has an upper perimeter for engaging the upper portion of 10) and a lower perimeter for engaging the soil surface surrounding the agricultural plant (see Figure 3 of Reach and Figure 1 of Lais). Lais and Reach do not disclose the lower perimeter being smaller than the upper perimeter. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the grow tube of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient to facilitate insertion of the grow tube into the soil. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais, Farkas, and Reach, in further view of US Patent Application Number 20030029079 by Kleinert.
Regarding claim 35 (dependent on claim 34), Lais does not disclose two or more of the openings are arranged in pairs positioned on laterally opposing sides of the light transmitter or protective inner surface from one another, to allow lateral airflow through the light transmitter or protective inner surface. However, this limitation is taught by Kleinert. Kleinert discloses a plant protection device comprising one or more openings (24) positioned on opposing sides of the protective surface from one another (see Figure 2 and 4). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lais using the teachings from Kleinert in order to dispose the openings on all sides of the tube in order to create even ventilation.
Claims 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais, Farkas, and Reach, in further view of US Patent Number 3,206,892 to Telkes.
Regarding claim 41 (dependent on claim 32), Lais does not disclose a heat sink in one or both of the light transmitter and the protective inner surface, for gathering the collected solar heat energy in the heat sink at one time and releasing the gathered solar energy into the protected zone at a later time. However, this limitation is taught by Telkes. Telkes discloses an enclosure 1 for plants that includes one or more heat sinks (water within ballast tube 41) attached to a base (ballast tube 41) for gathering at least a portion of the collected solar energy in the one or more heat sinks at one time and releasing the gathered solar energy into the protected zone at a later time (column 1, lines 46-60 disclose water in the tube trapping infrared heat radiations to maintain a more even temperature of the earth under the ballast tube and within the cold frame). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lais using the teachings from Telkes in order to maintain a more even temperature around the plant.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais, Farkas, and Reach, in further view of US Patent Application Number 2017/0354097 by Hadley.
Regarding claim 47 (dependent on claim 31), Lais does not disclose the light transmitter and the light transmitter base each comprising a first pair of vertical edges connectable at one or more joints, such that the light transmitter and the light transmitter base are each configurable to be opened along a second pair of vertical edges opposing the first pair of vertical edges, thereby creating a vertical edge opening for the light transmitter and the light transmitter base. However, these limitations are taught by Hadley. Hadley discloses a plant protector 200 comprising an upper portion (202) and base portion (203) each comprising a first pair of vertical edges connectable at one or more joints (204 and 205), such that the upper and base portions are each configurable to be opened along a second pair of vertical edges opposing the first pair of vertical edges (see edges joined by 204 and 205 in the back of Figure 4), thereby creating a vertical edge opening for the light transmitter and light transmitter base (see open edges at the front of Figure 4). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lais using the teachings from Hadley in order to make the enclosure easier to open in order to place around or remove from around a plant.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais, Farkas, Reach, and Hadley, in further view of US Patent Application Number 20160374275 by Galdi.
Regarding claim 48 (dependent on claim 47), Lais and Hadley do not disclose an extension panel configured to be coupled to the second pair of vertical edges of the light transmitter base and across the vertical edge opening of the light transmitter base. However, this limitation is taught by Galdi. Galdi discloses a plant enclosure having separate panels 42 at vertical edges 66, and Figures 14 and 15 discloses addition extension panels 82 configured to couple at these vertical edges. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lais and Hadley using the teachings from Galdi in order to allow the base to be more configurable and expandable to accommodate plants of different shapes and sizes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the lower perimeter being smaller than the upper perimeter is not obvious because the features in the claimed growth chamber and claimed method generated an unexpected level of increase in plant growth and are not mere design choices, the applicant’s specification lists a variety of reasons for this increase in plant growth, including the light transmitting and the protective surface protecting the plant from the outside environment and damage and reducing evapo-transpiration by the plant in the protected zone. In contrast, there is no discussion of how a smaller lower perimeter helps to increase plant growth, and the lower perimeter is only discussed as engaging the soil surface. This limitation is therefore an obvious change in form or shape that is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the argument that Reach has a publication date of November 22, 2018, and is not citable art, the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Reach has a priority date of May 22, 2017, and is therefore citable art.
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 MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights