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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “60” has been used to designate both accelerometer and emission energy detecting appliance. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (e.g., pg. 26, line 5). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: “the a least one item” on the last line in claim 1 should probably be --the at least one item--. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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(s) 2-6, 12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the excitation amount of excitation energy” in numbered lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the excitation amount of excitation energy” in numbered lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the excitation amount of excitation energy” in numbered lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the energy emission detector” in numbered line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “at least one energy emission detection component” in numbered line 4. The antecedent basis is unclear.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the irrigation action” in numbered line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the hood” in numbered line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the excitation energy” in numbered lines 28-29. The antecedent basis is unclear.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “emission energy” in numbered lines 29-30. The antecedent basis is unclear.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the hood to other recited elements such as a light-blocking component and a light source.
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 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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 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, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lussier (US 2005/0072935).
In regard to claim 1, Lussier discloses a method, comprising:
(a) facilitating, by an emission energy detecting appliance comprising a processor, excitation energy being directed to at least one item comprising at least one substance (e.g., see “… closed box (1), is inserted into closed-side extenders (2) to accommodate varying plant height and is placed over the test plant (3) so that the plant has no incident ambient light except for the active light source (4) from either a NUV mercury lamp or a mercury halogen lamp with continuous visible light or from an array of light emitting diodes with blue, and/or blue-green, yellow spectra … computer information processor (19) with embedded control program software to illuminate and control the test program for the plant specimen … plant's physiological response to any plant stress stimuli that is present or introduced, pathogen or environmental, is imaged, recorded and processed by the intensified CMOS or CCD silicon-based video imager (8) …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 42); and
(b) facilitating, by the emission energy detecting appliance, detecting emission energy, emitted by the at least one substance in response to the excitation energy impinging on the at least one item, to result in a detected emission energy amount (e.g., “… quantify with one measurement chlorophyll yield, photosynthetic efficiency and the plant's physiological response to plant stress. Fsubc, the chlorophyll yield at the x,y leaf location (FIG. 2) is the initial chlorophyll fluorescence quantum energy level. This fluorescence level is independent of the electron transport fluorescence or variable fluorescence. The two fluorescence signatures superimpose to give a graphic result. Fsubc is normally a step or pedestal curve. Fsubv, variable fluorescence, is the absorbed light emission that is not used in the plant's photochemical process. Fsubv is a transient response that peaks and quenches to a steady-state fluorescence value, Fsubs. The transient fluorescence variables are shown in FIG. 2 …” in paragraph 54).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Lussier also discloses that the facilitating of the directing of an excitation amount of the excitation energy and the facilitating of the detecting of the emission energy is facilitated in the absence of direct sunlight (e.g., see “… closed box (1), is inserted into closed-side extenders (2) to accommodate varying plant height and is placed over the test plant (3) so that the plant has no incident ambient light …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 42).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Lussier also discloses that the facilitating of the directing of an excitation amount of the excitation energy and the facilitating of the detecting of the emission energy is performed during nighttime (e.g., “… inspect plants at night with the above portable light source, imager and computer interface but without the confinement of the closed box …” in paragraph 43).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Lussier also discloses that the facilitating of the directing of an excitation amount of the excitation energy and the facilitating of the detecting of the emission energy is performed by the emission energy detecting appliance, wherein the emission energy detecting appliance comprises at least one light-blocking component and at least one energy emission detection component, wherein the method further comprises: locating the emission energy detecting appliance to attenuate, by the at least one light-blocking component, energy, other than the excitation energy, from impinging on the at least one item and to attenuate detection of energy, other than the emission energy, by the emission energy detecting appliance (e.g., “… closed box (1), is inserted into closed-side extenders (2) to accommodate varying plant height and is placed over the test plant (3) so that the plant has no incident ambient light except for the active light source (4) … active light source is irradiated on the low-pass-band filters (5) to limit the spectral pass-bands … video image sensor area array (12) provides video operation in the usual manner. The narrow-band interference filters of 10 nm bandwidth limit incident light to 690 nm (13) to a single image sensor area array and to 740 nm (14) for a second, image sensor area array …” in paragraph 42).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 4 in so far as understood, Lussier also discloses that the at least one light-blocking component comprises a hood having at least one outside surface and at least one inside surface, and wherein the emission energy detecting appliance comprises at least one light emitting component and the at least one energy emission detection component; the method further comprising: covering, by the hood, the at least one item to result in a covered at least one item, wherein sunlight can impinge on the at least one outside surface and wherein the hood blocks the sunlight from the covered at least one item; wherein the facilitating of the excitation energy being directed to the at least one item further comprises emitting, by the at least one light emitting component, the excitation energy; and wherein the facilitating of the detecting of the emission energy further comprises detecting, by the at least one energy emission detection component, the emission energy (e.g., “… closed box (1), is inserted into closed-side extenders (2) to accommodate varying plant height and is placed over the test plant (3) so that the plant has no incident ambient light except for the active light source (4) from either a NUV mercury lamp or a mercury halogen lamp with continuous visible light or from an array of light emitting diodes with blue, and/or blue-green, yellow spectra … computer information processor (19) with embedded control program software to illuminate and control the test program for the plant specimen … plant's physiological response to any plant stress stimuli that is present or introduced, pathogen or environmental, is imaged, recorded and processed by the intensified CMOS or CCD silicon-based video imager (8) …” in paragraph 42).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, Lussier also discloses that the at least one substance comprises chlorophyll (e.g., “… invention uses a light-tight box to dark-adapt the plants and, with computer, shutters the visible spectral light with low band-pass filter for optimal chlorophyll absorption ( 400-650 nm), controls the intensified Video Imager (CMOS or CCD) with lens and narrow-band spectral filters at the sensor array, to digitize and capture, in real-time, the low-level digital imaging of the induced variable or transient chlorophyll fluorescence in the near infrared bandwidth of 690 nm-760 nm …” in paragraph 49).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 7, Lussier also discloses that the excitation energy is light and wherein the emission energy is light energy emitted by the at least one substance via fluorescence (e.g., “… invention uses a light-tight box to dark-adapt the plants and, with computer, shutters the visible spectral light with low band-pass filter for optimal chlorophyll absorption (400-650 nm), controls the intensified Video Imager (CMOS or CCD) with lens and narrow-band spectral filters at the sensor array, to digitize and capture, in real-time, the low-level digital imaging of the induced variable or transient chlorophyll fluorescence in the near infrared bandwidth of 690 nm-760 nm …” in paragraph 49).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussier (US 2005/0072935) in view of Hays (US 2018/0195902).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 5, while Lussier also discloses that the method further comprising locating the hood over the at least one item to result in the covering, by the hood, of the at least one item to result in the covered at least one item (e.g., “… closed box (1), is inserted into closed-side extenders (2) to accommodate varying plant height and is placed over the test plant (3) so that the plant has no incident ambient light except for the active light source (4) …” in paragraph 42), the method of Lussier lacks an explicit description of details of the “… imager …” (paragraph 42) such as at least one wirelessly-controllable drone component. However, “… imager …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… TFIS instrument according to the present invention embodies small, high-throughput, high resolution spectrometers for laboratory or field studies of spectral regions in the visible, near and far infrared. Applications of the present invention further include mineral prospecting with handheld fluorometers using the TFIS, or drones mounting TFIS devices for pushbroom imaging (Watson et al., 1974) as discussed earlier, and in situ measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence in the field and in the laboratory …” in paragraph 59 of Hays). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional imager (e.g., comprising details such as “drones mounting TFIS devices” in order to automate measurements) for the imager of Lussier and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional imager (e.g., comprising details such as the emission energy detecting appliance comprises at least one wirelessly-controllable drone component, the method further comprising: locating, by the at least one wirelessly-controllable drone component, the hood over the at least one item to result in the covering, by the hood, of the at least one item to result in the covered at least one item) as the imager of Lussier.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussier (US 2005/0072935) in view of Sneed et al. (US 2013/0308675).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 7, the method of Lussier lacks an explicit description of details of the “… plant …” (paragraph 42) such as at least one of one of a grass blade, a grass culm, a grass tiller, and a grass node. However, “… plant …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… plant is selected from the group consisting of a non-vascular plant, a vascular plant, a shrub, a seedling, a grass variety, a tree, a bush, and a vine …” in paragraph 37 of Sneed et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional plant (e.g., comprising details such as “drones mounting TFIS devices” in order to automate measurements) for the unspecified plant of Lussier and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional plant (e.g., comprising details such as the at least one item is at least one of one of: a grass blade; a grass culm; a grass tiller; or a grass node) as the unspecified plant of Lussier.
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 7, the method of Lussier lacks an explicit description of details of the “… plant …” (paragraph 42) such as at least one tree leaf. However, “… plant …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… plant is selected from the group consisting of a non-vascular plant, a vascular plant, a shrub, a seedling, a grass variety, a tree, a bush, and a vine …” in paragraph 37 of Sneed et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional plant (e.g., comprising details such as “drones mounting TFIS devices” in order to automate measurements) for the unspecified plant of Lussier and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional plant (e.g., comprising details such as the at least one item is at least one tree leaf) as the unspecified plant of Lussier.
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 10, the method of Lussier lacks an explicit description of details of the “… archival capability …” such as the emission energy detecting appliance comprises a wireless communication transceiver, the method further comprising: facilitating directing, to a computer server by the wireless communication transceiver, detected emission energy amount indication, indicative of the detected emission energy amount, usable by the server to determine a substance amount, corresponding to an amount of the chlorophyll associated with the at least one item, to be used by the server to determine an irrigation action to be performed with respect to the at least one item. However, “… archival capability …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… other type of sensor) takes an average of its last several readings and transmits the average to the field base station 34. The field base station 34 can be a receiver (for one way transmission) … field base station 34 contains a motherboard 50, a modem 52, a communications cable 56, and is programmed with a specific IP address. In a one embodiment, at various time intervals, for example every two hours, a remote central computer with a processor or microprocessor and a memory calls the modem 52 and uploads the collected data for storage and processing. The central computer can upload the data to a web host or server 36. The web server 36 can store the data, for reference by the grower … grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected and used as the basis for the watering decision. He can analyze trends as desired. In one embodiment, the grower can override any decision made by the computer algorithms by manually resetting his irrigation or topical application, or resetting the control panel or choosing specific options on the website. …” in paragraphs 278, 281 and 284 of Sneed et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as “web server 36 can store the data” so that “grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected and used as the basis for the watering decision” in order for “manually resetting his irrigation” “or choosing specific options on the website”) for the archival database of Lussier and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as the emission energy detecting appliance comprises a wireless communication transceiver, the method further comprising: facilitating directing, to a computer server by the wireless communication transceiver, detected emission energy amount indication, indicative of the detected emission energy amount, usable by the server to determine a substance amount, corresponding to an amount of the chlorophyll associated with the at least one item, to be used by the server to determine an irrigation action to be performed with respect to the at least one item) as the archival database of Lussier.
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 9 in so far as understood, the method of Lussier lacks an explicit description of details of the “… archival capability …” such as irrigation action comprises one of: instructing one or more irrigation heads to irrigate the at least one item; or instructing the one or more irrigation heads to refrain from irrigation of the at least one item. However, “… archival capability …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… other type of sensor) takes an average of its last several readings and transmits the average to the field base station 34. The field base station 34 can be a receiver (for one way transmission) … field base station 34 contains a motherboard 50, a modem 52, a communications cable 56, and is programmed with a specific IP address. In a one embodiment, at various time intervals, for example every two hours, a remote central computer with a processor or microprocessor and a memory calls the modem 52 and uploads the collected data for storage and processing. The central computer can upload the data to a web host or server 36. The web server 36 can store the data, for reference by the grower … grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected and used as the basis for the watering decision. He can analyze trends as desired. In one embodiment, the grower can override any decision made by the computer algorithms by manually resetting his irrigation or topical application, or resetting the control panel or choosing specific options on the website. …” in paragraphs 278, 281 and 284 of Sneed et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as “web server 36 can store the data” so that “grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected and used as the basis for the watering decision” in order for “manually resetting his irrigation” “or choosing specific options on the website”) for the archival database of Lussier and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as irrigation action comprises one of: instructing one or more irrigation heads to irrigate the at least one item; or instructing the one or more irrigation heads to refrain from irrigation of the at least one item) as the archival database of Lussier.
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 11, the method of Lussier lacks an explicit description of details of the “… archival capability …” such as the determined substance amount, in conjunction with at least one historical weather condition, is usable by the server to determine the irrigation action to be performed. However, “… archival capability …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… other type of sensor) takes an average of its last several readings and transmits the average to the field base station 34. The field base station 34 can be a receiver (for one way transmission) … field base station 34 contains a motherboard 50, a modem 52, a communications cable 56, and is programmed with a specific IP address. In a one embodiment, at various time intervals, for example every two hours, a remote central computer with a processor or microprocessor and a memory calls the modem 52 and uploads the collected data for storage and processing. The central computer can upload the data to a web host or server 36. The web server 36 can store the data, for reference by the grower … grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected and used as the basis for the watering decision. He can analyze trends as desired. In one embodiment, the grower can override any decision made by the computer algorithms by manually resetting his irrigation or topical application, or resetting the control panel or choosing specific options on the website. …” in paragraphs 278, 281 and 284 of Sneed et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as “web server 36 can store the data” so that “grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected and used as the basis for the watering decision” in order for “manually resetting his irrigation” “or choosing specific options on the website”) for the archival database of Lussier and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as the determined substance amount, in conjunction with at least one historical weather condition, is usable by the server to determine the irrigation action to be performed) as the archival database of Lussier.
In regard to claim 14, it should be noted that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)) if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114). Thus, “biological” was not given any patentable weight since biological does not appear to impose any additional structural limitations on the claimed apparatus. It should be noted that “biological” would be given patentable weight in a method claim. Lussier discloses an emission energy detecting appliance, comprising:
(a) a hood (e.g., see “… closed box (1), is inserted into closed-side extenders (2) to accommodate varying plant height and is placed over the test plant (3) so that the plant has no incident ambient light …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 42);
(b) at least one light emitting component (e.g., see “… plant has no incident ambient light except for the active light source (4) from either a NUV mercury lamp or a mercury halogen lamp with continuous visible light or from an array of light emitting diodes with blue, and/or blue-green, yellow spectra …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 42);
(c) at least one energy emission detection component (e.g., see “… plant's physiological response to any plant stress stimuli that is present or introduced, pathogen or environmental, is imaged, recorded and processed by the intensified CMOS or CCD silicon-based video imager (8) …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 42); and
(d) a processor configured to process executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations (e.g., see “… computer information processor (19) with embedded control program software to illuminate and control the test program for the plant specimen …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 42), comprising:
(d1) directing, by the at least one light emitting component, excitation energy at at least one biological item, comprising at least one substance, wherein the at least one biological item is covered by the hood (e.g., see “… closed box (1), is inserted into closed-side extenders (2) to accommodate varying plant height and is placed over the test plant (3) so that the plant has no incident ambient light except for the active light source (4) from either a NUV mercury lamp or a mercury halogen lamp with continuous visible light or from an array of light emitting diodes with blue, and/or blue-green, yellow spectra …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 42);
(d2) detecting, by the at least one energy emission detection component, emission energy, emitted by the at least one substance in response to the excitation energy impinging on the at least one item, to result in detected emission energy (e.g., see “… plant's physiological response to any plant stress stimuli that is present or introduced, pathogen or environmental, is imaged, recorded and processed by the intensified CMOS or CCD silicon-based video imager (8) …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 42); and
(d3) based on the detected emission energy, determining a detected emission energy amount (e.g., “… quantify with one measurement chlorophyll yield, photosynthetic efficiency and the plant's physiological response to plant stress. Fsubc, the chlorophyll yield at the x,y leaf location (FIG. 2) is the initial chlorophyll fluorescence quantum energy level. This fluorescence level is independent of the electron transport fluorescence or variable fluorescence. The two fluorescence signatures superimpose to give a graphic result. Fsubc is normally a step or pedestal curve. Fsubv, variable fluorescence, is the absorbed light emission that is not used in the plant's photochemical process. Fsubv is a transient response that peaks and quenches to a steady-state fluorescence value, Fsubs. The transient fluorescence variables are shown in FIG. 2 …” in paragraph 54).
(d4) transmitting, to an archival database, a detected emission energy amount indication indicative of the detected emission energy amount (e.g., “… With computer processing and its inherent archival capability, the method provides an image database for plant stress management and management information applications …” in paragraph 34).
The appliance of Lussier lacks an explicit description of details of the “… archival capability …” such as a server. However, “… archival capability …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… other type of sensor) takes an average of its last several readings and transmits the average to the field base station 34. The field base station 34 can be a receiver (for one way transmission) … field base station 34 contains a motherboard 50, a modem 52, a communications cable 56, and is programmed with a specific IP address. In a one embodiment, at various time intervals, for example every two hours, a remote central computer with a processor or microprocessor and a memory calls the modem 52 and uploads the collected data for storage and processing. The central computer can upload the data to a web host or server 36. The web server 36 can store the data, for reference by the grower … grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected and used as the basis for the watering decision. He can analyze trends as desired …” in paragraphs 278, 281 and 284 of Sneed et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as “web server 36 can store the data” so that “grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected”) for the archival database of Lussier and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as transmitting, to a server, a detected emission energy amount indication indicative of the detected emission energy amount) as the archival database of Lussier.
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 14, Lussier also discloses that the excitation energy directed at the at least one biological item is an excitation energy amount (e.g., “… active light source for day-night operation, filtered for visible light in the spectral band of 400-650 nm … for active chlorophyll induction of the dark-adapted plants …” in paragraph 19), and wherein the detected emission energy amount indication is based performing a mathematical function with respect to the excitation energy amount and the detected emission energy amount (e.g., “… digital video processing and, together with computer information processing, images and quantifies CFiT signatures with Fluorescence-Intensity-Time (FIT) graphics that measure the transfer of fluorescence energy and fluorescence quenching to detect and diagnose the early, advanced and critical stages of plant stress, the symptoms of which are not visible to the eye. With video imaging, information processing and database architecture, the invention records plant stresses as files that are stored in the computer database as a library of fluorescence signatures and/or plant stress responses for plant health evaluation by the user. The image processing auto-calibrates the system in real-time and removes the problem of balanced light variation. The algorithms and software for the calibration of light and the imaging, measure and diagnosis of plant stress are embedded in the computer application software program …” in paragraph 19).
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 14, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 14 above. Lussier also discloses that the excitation energy directed at the at least one biological item is an excitation energy amount (e.g., “… active light source for day-night operation, filtered for visible light in the spectral band of 400-650 nm … for active chlorophyll induction of the dark-adapted plants …” in paragraph 19), and wherein the detected emission energy amount indication is usable to determine a stress corresponding to the at least one biological item (e.g., “… digital video processing and, together with computer information processing, images and quantifies CFiT signatures with Fluorescence-Intensity-Time (FIT) graphics that measure the transfer of fluorescence energy and fluorescence quenching to detect and diagnose the early, advanced and critical stages of plant stress, the symptoms of which are not visible to the eye. With video imaging, information processing and database architecture, the invention records plant stresses as files that are stored in the computer database as a library of fluorescence signatures and/or plant stress responses for plant health evaluation by the user. The image processing auto-calibrates the system in real-time and removes the problem of balanced light variation. The algorithms and software for the calibration of light and the imaging, measure and diagnosis of plant stress are embedded in the computer application software program …” in paragraph 19).
In regard to claim 17 in so far as understood, it should be noted that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)) if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114). Thus, “biological” was not given any patentable weight since biological does not appear to impose any additional structural limitations on the claimed apparatus. It should be noted that “biological” would be given patentable weight in a method claim. Lussier discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of an emission energy detecting appliance, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
(a) directing, by the emission energy detecting appliance during a first detection occasion, a first excitation energy amount of excitation energy at at least one biological item, comprising chlorophyll of a first chlorophyll amount, wherein the at least one biological item is covered by the hood (e.g., “… closed box (1), is inserted into closed-side extenders (2) to accommodate varying plant height and is placed over the test plant (3) so that the plant has no incident ambient light except for the active light source (4) from either a NUV mercury lamp or a mercury halogen lamp with continuous visible light or from an array of light emitting diodes with blue, and/or blue-green, yellow spectra … computer information processor (19) with embedded control program software to illuminate and control the test program for the plant specimen … plant's physiological response to any plant stress stimuli that is present or introduced, pathogen or environmental, is imaged, recorded and processed by the intensified CMOS or CCD silicon-based video imager (8) … Fsubc, the chlorophyll yield at the x,y leaf location (FIG. 2) is the initial chlorophyll fluorescence quantum energy level. This fluorescence level is independent of the electron transport fluorescence or variable fluorescence …” in paragraphs 42 and 54);
(b) detecting, by the emission energy detecting appliance during the first detection occasion, a first emission energy amount of emission energy, emitted by the chlorophyll of the first chlorophyll amount in response to the first excitation energy amount of excitation energy impinging on the at least one biological item, to result in a first detected emission energy amount (e.g., “… Fsubc, the chlorophyll yield at the x,y leaf location (FIG. 2) is the initial chlorophyll fluorescence quantum energy level. This fluorescence level is independent of the electron transport fluorescence or variable fluorescence. …” in paragraph 54);
(c) directing, by the emission energy detecting appliance during a second detection occasion, a second excitation energy amount of excitation energy at the at least one biological item, comprising chlorophyll of a second chlorophyll amount, wherein the at least one biological item is covered by the hood (e.g., “… Fsubv, variable fluorescence, is the absorbed light emission that is not used in the plant's photochemical process. Fsubv is a transient response that peaks and quenches to a steady-state fluorescence value, Fsubs. The transient fluorescence variables are shown in FIG. 2 …” in paragraph 54);
(d) detecting, by the emission energy detecting appliance during the second detection occasion, a second emission energy amount of emission energy, emitted by the chlorophyll of the second chlorophyll amount in response to the second excitation energy amount of excitation energy impinging on the at least one biological item, to result in a second detected emission energy amount (e.g., “… Fsubv, variable fluorescence, is the absorbed light emission that is not used in the plant's photochemical process. Fsubv is a transient response that peaks and quenches to a steady-state fluorescence value, Fsubs. The transient fluorescence variables are shown in FIG. 2 …” in paragraph 54);
(e) transmitting, to an archival database, a first detected emission energy amount indication indicative of the first detected emission energy amount; and transmitting, to the archival database, a second detected emission energy amount indication indicative of the second detected emission energy amount.
The medium of Lussier lacks an explicit description of details of the “… archival capability …” such as an agricultural services computer server. However, “… archival capability …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… other type of sensor) takes an average of its last several readings and transmits the average to the field base station 34. The field base station 34 can be a receiver (for one way transmission) … field base station 34 contains a motherboard 50, a modem 52, a communications cable 56, and is programmed with a specific IP address. In a one embodiment, at various time intervals, for example every two hours, a remote central computer with a processor or microprocessor and a memory calls the modem 52 and uploads the collected data for storage and processing. The central computer can upload the data to a web host or server 36. The web server 36 can store the data, for reference by the grower … grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected and used as the basis for the watering decision. He can analyze trends as desired …” in paragraphs 278, 281 and 284 of Sneed et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as “web server 36 can store the data” so that “grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected”) for the archival database of Lussier and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as transmitting, to an agricultural services computer server, a first detected emission energy amount indication indicative of the first detected emission energy amount; and transmitting, to the agricultural services computer server, a second detected emission energy amount indication indicative of the second detected emission energy amount) as the archival database of Lussier.
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 17 in so far as understood, Lussier also discloses that both the first and second excitation energy amount of the excitation energy are light energy corresponding to a first wavelength and wherein both the first and second emission energy amount of the emission energy are light energy corresponding to a second wavelength, wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are different (e.g., “… invention uses a light-tight box to dark-adapt the plants and, with computer, shutters the visible spectral light with low band-pass filter for optimal chlorophyll absorption (400-650 nm), controls the intensified Video Imager (CMOS or CCD) with lens and narrow-band spectral filters at the sensor array, to digitize and capture, in real-time, the low-level digital imaging of the induced variable or transient chlorophyll fluorescence in the near infrared bandwidth of 690 nm-760 nm …” in paragraph 49).
In regard to claim 20 which is dependent on claim 17, Lussier also discloses that the operations further comprising: detecting, during the first detection occasion or during the second detection occasion, light noise emitted by a light source, other than the energy detecting appliance or the at least one biological item; canceling the light noise to avoid the first detected emission energy amount indication or the second detected emission energy amount indication being indicative of the light noise (e.g., “… image processing auto-calibrates the system in real-time and removes the problem of balanced light variation …” in paragraph 19).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lussier in view of Sneed et al. as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of Hays (US 2018/0195902).
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 17 in so far as understood, while Lussier also discloses that the operations further comprising receiving first and second detection instructions to cause a light-blocking component of the emission energy detecting appliance to cover the at least one biological item during the first and second detection occasions, respectively (e.g., “… closed box (1), is inserted into closed-side extenders (2) to accommodate varying plant height and is placed over the test plant (3) so that the plant has no incident ambient light except for the active light source (4) …” in paragraph 42), the medium of Lussier lacks an explicit description of details of the “… imager …” (paragraph 42) such as comprising at least one wirelessly-controllable drone component. However, “… archival capability …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… other type of sensor) takes an average of its last several readings and transmits the average to the field base station 34. The field base station 34 can be a receiver (for one way transmission) … field base station 34 contains a motherboard 50, a modem 52, a communications cable 56, and is programmed with a specific IP address. In a one embodiment, at various time intervals, for example every two hours, a remote central computer with a processor or microprocessor and a memory calls the modem 52 and uploads the collected data for storage and processing. The central computer can upload the data to a web host or server 36. The web server 36 can store the data, for reference by the grower … grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected and used as the basis for the watering decision. He can analyze trends as desired …” in paragraphs 278, 281 and 284 of Sneed et al. and “… imager …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… TFIS instrument according to the present invention embodies small, high-throughput, high resolution spectrometers for laboratory or field studies of spectral regions in the visible, near and far infrared. Applications of the present invention further include mineral prospecting with handheld fluorometers using the TFIS, or drones mounting TFIS devices for pushbroom imaging (Watson et al., 1974) as discussed earlier, and in situ measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence in the field and in the laboratory …” in paragraph 59 of Hays). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional archival database (e.g., comprising details such as “web server 36 can store the data” so that “grower is able to visit the web server 36 to view the historical data that was collected”) for the archival database of Lussier and substituted a known conventional imager (e.g., comprising details such as “drones mounting TFIS devices” in order to automate measurements) for the imager of Lussier and the results of the substitutions would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional imager (e.g., comprising details such as the emission energy detecting appliance comprises at least one wirelessly-controllable drone component, the operations further comprising: receiving, from the agricultural services computer server, a first detection instruction to cause the at least one wirelessly-controllable drone component to cause a light-blocking component of the emission energy detecting appliance to cover the at least one biological item during the first detection occasion; and receiving, from the agricultural services computer server, a second detection instruction to cause the at least one wirelessly-controllable drone component to cause the light-blocking component of the emission energy detecting appliance to cover the at least one biological item during the second detection occasion) as the imager of Lussier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0150357 teaches a chlorophyll sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884