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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 9/15/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, and 34 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/15/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024, 10/04/2024, and 9/15/2025 were filed and are being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
The applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 7/19/2024 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genga Jr et al (US 10,842,082 B1) in view of Tanaka (US 2020/0245564 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Genga Jr et al disclose an LED-based lighting fixture for Controlled Environment Horticulture (CEH) of one or more plants having respective day cycles and respective night cycles, the lighting fixture comprising:
a frame (42);
a first LED source (20A), mechanically supported by the frame, configured to emit photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) towards the one or more plants;
a second LED source (20B), mechanically supported by the frame, configured to emit inspection light towards the one or more plants to facilitate inspection of the one or more plants; and
control circuitry (80), mechanically supported by the frame, to receive AC power and supply DC power to at least the first and second LED sources, wherein:
the first LED source is deactivated during the respective night cycles of the one or more plants;
the second LED source is activated to emit the inspection light only when the first LED source is deactivated (this is the night cycle talked about in Col 10 Line 23-36);
the first LED source emits the PAR at a first intensity (white) and the second LED source emits the inspection light at a second intensity (only green) less than the first intensity so as not to disrupt the respective night cycles of the one or more plants; and
the second intensity varies depending on a wavelength of the inspection light (this is inherent—in horticulture, “intensity” is defined in units of μmol/s, that is total number of photons a second—for a fixed wattage, the intensity will be dependent on wavelength, where a red light emits more photons per watt than a blue light because the blue photons have higher energy per photon). (Figure 9; see at least Col 4 Line 40 onward)
Where it is argued that Genga Jr et al fail to disclose the secondary light is activated only when the first is deactivated, the Examiner offers Tanaka.
Tanaka teaches a first LED source (13) configured to emit photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) towards the one or more plants, a second LED source (14), configured to emit inspection light towards the one or more plants to facilitate inspection of the one or more plants, and control circuitry (12) to receive AC power and supply DC power to at least the first and second LED sources, wherein the second LED source is activated to emit the inspection light only when the first LED source is deactivated. (Figure 1; see at least [0022] onward)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Genga Jr et al and Tanaka so that the grow light and work light are on a frame in order to allow the grow room to be seen when a human is present.
In regard to claim 2, Genga Jr et al disclose that the second LED source is independently controllable with respect to the first LED source.
In regard to claim 3, Genga Jr et al disclose the second LED source is disposed within a housing that separates the second LED source from the first LED source, the housing being mechanically coupled to the frame. (Each LED is separately installed in the housing.)
Where this is argued, Tanaka teaches first and second light sources in separate housings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide lighting housings and attach them to a frame in the combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka in order to use modular lights.
In regard to claim 8 and 9, the combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka fail to disclose that the first LED source emits the PAR at a first photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) and the second LED source emits the inspection light at a second PPF, the first PPF being greater than the second PPF by a factor greater than or equal to 100, and as recited in claim 9, that the second LED source emits the inspection light at a photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) equal to or less than approximately 7 pmol per second.
However, a night light inspection system is already disclosed—plant circadian rhytms are well-understood by a PHOSITA—they know that they need to minimize total flux at night in order to not disrupt the grow cycle of the target plant. From here, minimizing and maximizing the intensity of a light source would be routine optimization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the relative output of the second light source in the combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka in order to prevent disruption of the grow cycle of a target plant.
In regard to claim 12, Genga Jr et al disclose the wavelength of the inspection light ranges between at least one of 310 nm and 400 nm, 500 nm and 550 nm (green light is disclosed), or 720 nm and 740 nm.
In regard to claim 12 and 17, Genga Jr et al disclose green light of 500 nm to 550nm.
The combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka fail to disclose, as recited in claim 12, the wavelength of the inspection light ranges between at least one of 310 nm and 400 nm, or 720 nm and 740nm, or as recited in claim 17, the inspection light is white light.
But which is it? Is it colored light or is it white light? Is this even critical to the invention? The color of the inspection light/work light is not critical because it needs to be any light that can be used to work at night. Any color can do this, it’s about the intensity of the light at night that matters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the work light of any color or wavelength or combination of wavelengths in the combination of combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka in order to provide useful light at night.
In regard to claim 18, Genga Jr et al disclose the lighting fixture of claim 1.
Genga Jr et al fail to disclose a sensor.
Tanaka teaches a sensor, communicatively coupled to the control circuitry of the lighting fixture and disposed proximate to the second LED source of the lighting fixture, configured to detect a person within a threshold distance from the lighting fixture, wherein the second LED source is activated and emits the inspection light when the sensor detects the person is within the threshold distance and the second LED source is deactivated when the sensor does not detect the person is within the threshold distance. (Figure 1; see at least [0022] onward)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Genga Jr et al and Tanaka so that the grow light and work light are on a frame in order to allow the grow room to be seen when a human is present.
The combination fails to teach that the threshold distance ranges between 5 meters and 15 meters. However, this is routine optimization of the sensor, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the activation state of the sensor in order to ensure useful light for a person walking into the grow space.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genga Jr et al (US 10,842,082 B1) in view of Tanaka (US 2020/0245564 A1), and further, in view of Aidun (US 2011/0153093 A1).
In regard to claim 4, the combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka fail to disclose a camera, flash, and remote trigger.
Aidun teaches a LED source is communicatively coupled to a remote trigger;
when the remote trigger is activated, the LED source emits a flash of light to illuminate a target; and
the lighting fixture further comprises:
a camera, communicatively coupled to the control circuitry, configured to acquire imagery of a target when the remote trigger is activated. (See [0116])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to install the camera and flash of Aidun into the combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka in order to track the growth of the target plant.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genga Jr et al (US 10,842,082 B1) in view of Tanaka (US 2020/0245564 A1), and further, in view of Lys et al (WO 2019/040944 A1).
In regard to claim 6, the combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka fail to disclose aluminum frame and copper cooling pipes.
Lys et al teach the frame is formed of aluminum and includes a channel formed therein;
the lighting fixture further comprises:
a coolant pipe, disposed in the channel of the frame to establish a thermal connection between the coolant pipe and the frame, to carry a fluid coolant to extract heat generated by at least one of the first LED source or the second LED source during operation of the lighting fixture; and
the coolant pipe is formed of copper and press-fit into the channel of the frame. (See claim 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the frame of the combination in the manner taught by Lys et al in order to prevent overheating of the grow house.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genga Jr et al (US 10,842,082 B1) in view of Tanaka (US 2020/0245564 A1), and further, in view of Rooymans et al (US 2011/0209400 A1).
In regard to claim 10, the combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka fail to disclose an inspection light with independently controlled first and second wavelengths.
Rooymans et al teaches an LED source comprising a plurality of LEDs, each LED of the plurality of LEDs being independently controllable from another LED of the plurality of LEDs, and the plurality of LEDs comprises:
a first LED that emits first light at a first wavelength (600-750 nm); and
a second LED that emits second light at second wavelength (375 to 500 nm) different from the first wavelength, the inspection light comprising the first light and the second light. (See Abstract: “Disclosed is a lighting assembly for growing plants. The lighting assembly has a first light source emitting light in a first wavelength range of 600 to 750 nm; a second light source emitting light in a second wavelength range of 375 to 500 nm; and a controller for controlling the output of the first light source independent from the output of the second light source. Disclosed are also an enclosure for growing plants, and a method for growing plants.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to allow for multiple wavelengths in night mode of Genga Jr et al in the manner taught by Rooymans et al in order to provide user option and decorative effect.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genga Jr et al (US 10,842,082 B1) in view of Tanaka (US 2020/0245564 A1), and further, in view of Recker et al (US 2010/0141153 A1).
In regard to claim 21 and 22, the combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka disclose a plurality of lighting fixtures, each lighting fixture of the plurality of lighting fixtures corresponding to the lighting fixture a claim 1.
The combination fails to disclose a plurality of sensors.
Recker et al teach a sensors to respectively measure at least one environmental parameter, the sensor being disposed proximate to one lighting fixture and communicatively coupled to the control circuitry of the one lighting fixture,
wherein for each one lighting fixture, at least one of the second intensity or the wavelength of the inspection light emitted by the second LED source is dependent on a value of the at least one environmental parameter measured by a corresponding sensor communicatively coupled to the one lighting fixture,
and as recited in claim 22, the at least one environmental parameter is one of an ambient temperature (thermal sensors), an air speed, a CO2 concentration, a relative humidity, or a leaf temperature. (See [0324])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to install plural sensors of Recker et al to the combination of Genga Jr et al and Tanaka in order to for the work light to act as an environmental alarm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wasserman (US 5,454,187) disclose a plant tender.
Sparks et al (US 2008/0106422 A1) disclose a pool sensor.
Ohura et al (US 2013/0003382 A1) disclose a horticulture device.
Dittman (US 2014/0283452 A1) disclose a grow module.
Kivioja (US 2023/0189721 A1) disclose a horticulture device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (Jong-Suk) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875