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
Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/3/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 “said method comprising: delivering to said young plant seedling an unnatural short time illumination signal by illuminating said young plant seedling with exposures to Medium Wavelength Infrared MWIR radiation…” should read “said method comprising: .
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “delivering to said young plant seedling an unnatural short time illumination signal.” It is unclear what is required by “an unnatural short time” thus rendering the claim indefinite. The specification has no definition of what an “unnatural” time is, and therefore it is unclear what the scope of this limitation is.
The term “about” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the limitation “about 315 nm and 370 nm wavelength” is rendered indefinite, as it is unclear what the boundaries of the claim are.
Claim 3 states “wherein said Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution comprises relative peaks at about 315 nm and 370 nm wavelength.” It is unclear what the peaks are relative to, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, what range of radiation is included in the term relative? If there were a peak in the visible light or infrared region would that be considered a relative?
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US 2023/0119952) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 11/1/24) in view of Tsurumoto et al. (US 2022/0313765).
Regarding Claim 1, Jackson discloses a method for electrosignaling to obtain higher yield from a non-reproductive stage young plant seedling engaged in photosynthesis (Abstract), said method comprising:
delivering to said young plant seedling an unnatural short time illumination signal (“Exposure—shall denote a process of illumination that shall include stepwise, piecemeal, segmented, separated, sequential, variable, or modulated exposures that when totaled, have a summed duration or the equivalent of well under one minute, such as three 5-second exposures/flashes over a three minute time, or four ¼ second flashes in one hour.” Paragraph [0097]) by illuminating said young plant seedling with exposures to Medium Wavelength Infrared MWIR radiation, and also to an Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution UVID (“An IRID emitter and a MWIR emitter can be combined into one body or component, or device.” Paragraph [0106]; “This definition shall include an Indigo Region Illumination Distribution to be defined to be any of the following wavelength ranges: [0105] [1] A preferred range: 420-450 nm; [2] a larger preferred range of 420-480 nm; [3] a larger preferred range of 400-500 nm; [4] a yet larger preferred range of 400-550 nm; [5] and a broad range of 300-550 nm.” Paragraph [0104]; Figure 23 shows s3 and s4 in the UV light range);
said illuminating precisely so formed and arrayed and timed to illuminate said seedling such that
[a] said Medium Wavelength Infrared radiation has a minimum average irradiance of 0.2 Watt/cm² and a maximum average irradiance of 1 Watt/cm² (“Exposure tube J9 is a 4 inch diameter heated tube or auger housing which generates 0.4 W/cm.sup.2 of Medium Wavelength Infrared radiation at the inside surface of the exposure tube J9” Paragraph [0134]); and also has a minimum cumulative deposited energy of ½ Joule/cm² and a maximum cumulative deposited energy of 15 Joules/cm² (“…which generates 0.4 W/cm.sup.2 of Medium Wavelength Infrared radiation at the inside surface of the exposure tube J9 (heated auger housing) (MWIR APPLIED), and seeds are exposed to this radiation an estimated 2 seconds on average as they pass leftward in the Figure through the system. This imparts approximately 0.8 Joules/cm.sup.2 to the seed” Paragraph [0134]); and
[b] a second illumination which has a minimum average irradiance of 0.01 Watt/cm² and a maximum average irradiance of 1 Watt/cm², (“IRID emitter 88 can be selected… an intensity of 0.07 W/cm.sup.2 into the exposure tube J9 and the auger A9 can be operated such that seeds are exposed to this Indigo Region Illumination Distribution radiation for an average of 0.1 seconds. With both Medium Wavelength Infrared MWIR and Indigo Region Illumination Distribution IRID exposures, each run imparts approximately 0.807 Joules/cm.sup.2 to seed.” Paragraph [0136]).
Jackson fails to disclose [b] said Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution has a minimum average irradiance of 0.01 Watt/cm² and a maximum average irradiance of 1 Watt/cm², and also has a minimum cumulative deposited energy of 0.2 Joule/cm² and a maximum cumulative deposited energy of 4 Joules/cm².
However, Tsurumoto teaches a method of radiation of a plant (Paragraph [0035]; “Alternatively, the “harvested plant”, the “plant after harvest”, or the “post-harvest plant” refers to a plant which is not receiving photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) at a photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) higher than the light compensation point of the plant and can biosynthesize a cannabinoid compound and/or a terpene compound.” Paragraph [0024]), comprising illuminating said plant with exposures to Infrared radiation and Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution, said Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution has a minimum average irradiance of 0.01 Watt/cm² and a maximum average irradiance of 1 Watt/cm², and also has a minimum cumulative deposited energy of 0.2 Joule/cm² and a maximum cumulative deposited energy of 4 Joules/cm² (“the irradiance of the irradiation light having a peak wavelength in the wavelength range from 270 to 290 nm is, for example, in a range from 9000 to 27000 μmol/m.sup.2,” Paragraph [0051]; “ the irradiation time can be, for example, in a range from 30 seconds to 24 hours” Paragraph [0055]; 9000 to 27000 μmol/m.sup.2, is approximately 0.38-1.1 J/cm2 and over 30 seconds is about 0.012-.03 W/cm2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UV radiation of Jackson, to have a range within the UV-A distribution and have the UV light with irradiances and energy levels as taught by Tsurumoto, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help modify the expression of photosensitive components, as desired based on the plant irradiated and the grower’s application.
Additionally it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen from the time range of 30 seconds to 24 hours of Tsurumoto, the 30 second time period, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent damaging or burning the plant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 2, Jackson as modified teaches the method of electrosignaling of claim 1. Jackson further discloses the method for electrosignaling, wherein said Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution radiation comprises any of UV-A, UV-B radiation and indigo/violet radiation of wavelength 400-420 nm, for a total possible wavelength range of 280 nm-420 nm (Figure 23 shows s3 and s4 in the UV light range of 300nm to about 380nm).
Regarding Claim 3, Jackson as modified teaches the method of electrosignaling of claim 1. Jackson further discloses the method for electrosignaling, wherein said Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution comprises relative peaks at about 315 nm and 370 nm wavelength (Figure 23 shows s3 in the UV light range with outputs at about 315 and 370).
Regarding Claim 5, Jackson as modified teaches the method of electrosignaling of claim 1. Jackson further discloses the method for electrosignaling, wherein said illuminating originates from, and moves with a moveable cultivator that moves along a field (Paragraph [0173]; Figures 17, 18, and 33).
Regarding Claim 6, Jackson as modified teaches the method of electrosignaling of claim 1. Jackson further discloses the method for electrosignaling, wherein said exposures of said Medium Wavelength Infrared and said Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution occur at least in part non- simultaneously (“Now referring to FIG. 28, a schematic arrangement is shown using separate MWIR and IRID sources used to irradiate a seed S. Illustratively shown powder coat MWIR emitter E+ and LED array IRID emitter 88 are separately housed and light output is not undergoing superposition as in the previous FIGS. 23 and 24.” Paragraph [0163]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Tsurumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lys et al. (US 2021/0278072).
Regarding Claim 4, Jackson as modified teaches the method of electrosignaling of claim 1. Jackson further discloses said Medium Wavelength Infrared radiation is provided at least in part by any of borosilicate glass, soda lime glass, silica fusion glass, and aluminum oxide ceramic in thermal communication with at least part of said high intensity discharge lamp (“MWIR Emitter (E)—shall denote any glass or material body that has the requisite optical properties or electromagnetic emissivity properties that allow service to the instant invention as described in the appended claims. This can include glass known under the trade name Pyrex® such as borosilicate glass, which is preferred, or Pyrex Glass Code 7740, as well as Pyrex® soda lime glass or other materials, such as aluminum oxide ceramic.” Paragraph [0108]).
Jackson fails to disclose wherein a high intensity discharge lamp HID is used to provide said Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution.
However, Lys teaches a method for electrosignaling, wherein a high intensity discharge lamp HID is used to provide said Ultraviolet Illumination Distribution (“Various types of artificial lighting systems may be used including, but not limited to, a high intensity discharge lamp, a light emitting diode (LED), and a fluorescent lamp.” Paragraph [0112]; “different LED light sources may provide radiation that covers a broad spectrum (e.g., from ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths to infrared wavelengths) and a spectral intensity distribution” Paragraph [0191]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the UV irradiation apparatus of Jackson, to be an HID lamp as taught by Lys, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the intensity of the irradiation, while decreasing the overall power consumption.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kleidon (US 2022/0248619), Jackson et al. (US 2020/0120917), Satterfield et al. (US 2023/0397542), and Dupras et al. (US 2022/0272816) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar lighting recipes with UV and infrared lighting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights