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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsegood in view of (US 2016/0278304) in view of Che et al. (US 2015/0030705 henceforth Che).
Regarding claim 1, Elsegood discloses a light source module for plant cultivation, comprising: a substrate (panel 110, para. 0027); a main light source electrically connected to the substrate and supplying background light to a plant (white LED 126, para. 0033); and a supplemental light source electrically connected to the substrate and supplying supplemental light to the plant (blue LED 126, para. 0033), wherein the supplemental light source is configured to continuously supply the supplemental light for a continuous period of 5 to 7days (switch 50 can be turned on for a continuous period of time, para. 0033), the background light and the supplemental light have different peak wavelengths (a blue LED 126 and white LED have different peak wavelengths), and the supplemental light has an irradiance of about 5 W/m2 (para. 0035) and a peak wavelength (para. 0032) but fails to teach the supplemental light has an irradiance of about 30 W/m2 and a peak wavelength of 385 nm or 395 nm, the plant is an ice plant, and the supplemental light enhances both growth of the ice plant and the content of a sugar alcohol selected from pinitol, myo-inositol, and sucrose without causing visible damage to the plant. However, Che teaches supplemental light having an irradiance (para. 0061) and a peak wavelength of 385 nm or 395 nm (para. 0061), the plant is an ice plant (claim 8), and the supplemental light enhances both growth of the ice plant and the content of a sugar alcohol selected from pinitol, myo-inositol, and sucrose without causing visible damage to the plant (claim 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Elsegood’s light source with a wavelength as taught by Che to help increase the functional contents of a plant. Regarding “an irradiance of about 30 W/m2 “ it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an irradiance of 30 W/m2, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Elsegood as modified by Che teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Elsegood further teaches wherein the main light source supplies the plant with white light as the background light (white LED 126 is can be used all the time, para. 0032).
Regarding claim 4 Elsegood as modified by Che teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Che further teaches wherein the supplemental light has at least one peak wavelength selected from among 385 nm and 395 nm (para. 0061).
Regarding claim 5, Elsegood as modified by Che teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Elsegood further teaches wherein the main light source is turned on or off every 12 hours to allow or interrupt supply of the background light (para. 0033).
Regarding claim 6, Elsegood as modified by Che teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Elsegood further teaches wherein the supplemental light source continuously supplies the supplemental light to the plant before harvesting of the plant (para. 0033).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12 and 14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 4/10/2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of 1, 2, and 4-6 has been withdrawn.
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 EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 9am -5pm EST.
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, Tien Dinh can be reached at 5712726899. 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.
/EBONY E EVANS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights