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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The is a second non-final office action.
Applicant argues:
At p. 7 last para to p. 8 para 1 that Steffen is not proper to combine with Belzie and Satake because Steffen is not in the same field of endeavor as Belzie.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Steffen and Belzie measure fluorescence signals from the sample (the sample simply serves as an intended use). Also, replacing the filters of Belzie with the filter assembly of Steffen is an extension to Belzie’s device because the arrangement of Belzie device is very similar to the arrangement of Steffen’s device as shown in fig. 4. Thus, Steffen and Belzie are appropriate to combine.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belzile, Charles, et al. "An operational fluorescence system for crop assessment." Monitoring Food Safety, Agriculture, and Plant Health. Vol. 5271. SPIE, 2004(hereinafter Belzile), in view of US6466321B1 (hereinafter Satake), and further in view of Steffen, J., et al., US20100044583A1 (hereinafter Steffen).
Regarding claim 1, Belzile teaches a photonic sensor comprising: an excitation pulse generator (fig. 4 “LED”, p. 3 last para) configured to generate an excitation pulse of light (fig. 4 “LED”, p. 3 last para) and direct the excitation pulse of light towards a target area of a plant (fig. 4 “target”, the target is a plant leaf), “a lens configured to receive fluorescent light from the target area of the plant and direct the fluorescent light to a focal point” (fig. 4 “lens” directs the signal to the sensor; also, the lens and the filter can interchange positions as long as the signal is focused on the detector, see evidentiary reference DE 10148748 A1 (hereinafter Stefan) Abstract lines 9-10); a plurality of optical filters (fig. 4 “filters”, p. 4 para 1), each optical filter configured to selectively transmit a selected wavelength range (fig. 4 “filters”, p. 4 para 1) of the fluorescent light from the target area of the plant (p. 4 para 1, result shows in fig. 6), the selected wavelength range indicates an activity and/or a concentration of at least one molecule of the plant (this is fig. 6 showing the behavior of the chlorophyll); and “a photodiode configured to determine an intensity of the fluorescent light having the selected wavelength range and convert the measured intensity to a digital signal to be transmitted as molecular activity data to a computing device” (fig. 6, these are the sensor up to the computer), and
Belzile does not teach a filter assembly comprising one two filter housing configured to support each of the plurality of optical filters, the filter assembly being configured to position each of the optical filters at or near the focal point, and two step motors, and wherein the one each filter housing being coupled to one of the step motor motors and configured to rotate about a vertical axis.
Satake, from the same field of endeavor as Belzile, teaches “a filter assembly comprising one filter housing configured to support each of the plurality of optical filters, the filter assembly being configured to position each of the optical filters at or near the focal point, and a one step motor, and wherein the one filter housing being coupled to one of the step motor and configured to rotate about a vertical axis” (fig. 2 filter wheel 6 rotates by the step motor 9 at a vertical axis, col 6 lines 11-22; the filter assembly are elements 5, 6, 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Satake to Belzile to have “a filter assembly comprising one filter housing configured to support each of the plurality of optical filters, the filter assembly being configured to position each of the optical filters at or near the focal point, and a one step motor, and wherein the one filter housing being coupled to one of the step motor and configured to rotate about a vertical axis” in order to enhance the measurement precision (Abstract last sentence).
Belzile, when modified by Satake, does not teach another “a filter assembly comprising one filter housing configured to support each of the plurality of optical filters, the filter assembly being configured to position each of the optical filters at or near the focal point, and a one step motor, and wherein the one filter housing being coupled to one of the step motor and configured to rotate about a vertical axis”.
Steffen, from the same field of endeavor as Belzile, teaches “a filter assembly comprising one filter housing configured to support each of the plurality of optical filters, the filter assembly being configured to position each of the optical filters at or near the focal point, and a one step motor, and wherein the one filter housing being coupled to one of the step motor and configured to rotate about a vertical axis” (fig. 4 para [0072]; the step motor corresponds to the motor driven actuation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Steffen to the modified device of Belzile to have “a filter assembly comprising one filter housing configured to support each of the plurality of optical filters, the filter assembly being configured to position each of the optical filters at or near the focal point, and a one step motor, and wherein the one filter housing being coupled to one of the step motor and configured to rotate about a vertical axis” in order to have a wide selection of filters in the device (para [0003 last line]).
Belzie, when modified by Satake and Steffen, fails to teach another step motor attached to the other filter assembly.
MPEP 2144.04 VI-B states “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
This means another step motor attached to the other filter assembly a duplication of parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply two step motors in the teaching of Belzie, when modified by Satake and Steffen, to have another step motor attached to the other filter assembly in order to increase the time efficiency of the measurements.
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Belzile fails to teach the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein the filter assembly comprises: eight optical filters housed in each of the filter housings.
MPEP 2144.04 VI-B states “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
This means the eight optical filters is just a duplication of parts (see evidentiary reference US20120001094A1 para [0063] last sentence, a single filter wheel can have up to 8 filters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have eight optical filters in the teaching of Belzie in order to further increase the selection of filters in the device.
Regarding claim 15, Belzile teaches the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein the excitation pulse generator is configured to generate the excitation pulse light at a predetermined frequency and pulse duration (fig. 4 “LED” and “Modulation”, the LED light has a predetermined frequency and pulse duration).
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belzile, Satake, and Steffen as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Moise, N. et al., US 20100181496 A1 (hereinafter Moise).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Belzile does not teach the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein each of the optical filters is selected based on wavelength spikes corresponding to different molecules of the plant.
Moise, from the same field of endeavor as Belzile, teaches the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein each of the optical filters is selected based on wavelength spikes corresponding to different molecules of the plant (para [0174] claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Moise to the modified device Belzile to have the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein each of the optical filters is selected based on wavelength spikes corresponding to different molecules of the plant in order to increase the width of the measurable range (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Belzile teaches the photonic sensor of claim 2, wherein the molecules of the plant are selected from Chlorophyl A and B, Carotenoids, Phycocyanin and Phycoerythrin and others (this is shown in fig. 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belzile, Satake, and Steffen, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Amsbeck, D., US 10225532 B2 (hereinafter Amsbeck).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Belzile does not teach the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein the filter housings are configured to rotate simultaneously in opposite directions.
Amsbeck, from the same field of endeavor as Belzile, teaches the photonic sensor of claim 6, wherein the filter housings are configured to rotate simultaneously in opposite directions (col 10 claim 9; this is a general teaching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Amsbeck to the modified device of Belzile to have the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein the filter housings are configured to rotate simultaneously in opposite directions in order to increase the time efficiency of the measurements.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belzile, Satake, and Steffen, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Lin, H., TWI729723B (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Belzile does not teach the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein each filter housing is configured to rotate each optical filter into a path of the light from the plant at the focal point.
Lin, from the same field of endeavor as Belzile, teaches the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein each filter housing is configured to rotate each optical filter into a path of the light from the plant at the focal point (fig. 5 rotating filter wheel 120 is positioned at the focal point of surface 131 of which is the reflected light coming from 110; p. 2 last para lines 10-14; this is a general teaching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Lin to the modified device of Belzile to have the photonic sensor of claim 1, wherein each filter housing is configured to rotate each optical filter into a path of the light from the plant at the focal point in order to maximize the fluorescent signal of the measurements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belzile, Satake, and Steffen, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Lin, H., TWI729723B (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Belzile does not teach the photonic sensor of claim 6, wherein the filter assembly is adjustable to position the optical filters at the focal point.
Ghandehari, from the same field of endeavor as Belzile, teaches the the photonic sensor of claim 6, wherein the filter assembly is adjustable to position the optical filters at the focal point (fig. 1 shows a motor keeps filter at a focal point, Abstract lines 22-27; this is a general teaching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ghandehari to the modified device of Belzile to have the photonic sensor of claim 6, wherein the filter assembly is adjustable to position the optical filters at the focal point in order to maximize the fluorescent signal of the measurements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belzile.
Regarding claim 10, Belzile teaches a system for controlling growth of a plant, the system comprising a photonic sensor (fig. 4) configured to: direct an excitation pulse of light (fig. 4 “LED”, p. 3 last para) towards a target area of the plant (fig. 4 “target”, the target is a plant leaf), receive fluorescent light from the target area of the plant (fig. 6) and direct the fluorescent light to a focal point (fig. 4 “lens” directs the signal to the sensor; also, the lens and the filter can interchange positions as long as the signal is focused on the detector, see evidentiary reference DE 10148748 A1 (hereinafter Stefan) Abstract lines 9-10); selectively transmit a selected wavelength range of the fluorescent light from the target area of the plant (fig. 4 “filters”, p. 4 para 1), the selected wavelength range indicating an activity and/or a concentration of at least one molecule of the plant (this is fig. 6 showing the behavior of the chlorophyll); determine an intensity of the fluorescent light having the selected wavelength range (this is fig. 6 showing the behavior of the chlorophyll); convert the measured intensity to a digital signal (fig. 6, these are the sensor up to the computer); transmit the digital signal to a computing device as plant molecular activity data (fig. 6, these are the sensor up to the computer); and a computing device communicatively coupled to the photonic sensor (fig. 6, these are the sensor up to the computer), the computing device configured to: receive the plant molecular activity data from the photonic sensor these are the sensor up to the computer, the plant molecular activity data indicating molecular activity or a molecular concentration of one or more molecules (result shows in fig. 6); receive environmental data associated with an environment around the plant (fig. 8 has environmental sensors, p. 6 last para lines 4-6, p. 4 para 3 lines 3-4), and based on the plant molecular activity data (fig. 10), determine a setting of one or more conditions of the environment that improves health of the plant (results from this device can monitor the plants health, Abstract lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 11, Belzile teaches the system of claim 10, further comprising at least one environmental sensor (p. 4 para 3 lines 3-4) configured to: measure at least one environmental factor (p. 4 para 3 lines 3-4); and transmit environmental data indicating the environmental factor to the computing device (like in fig. 8, these sensors transmit data to the computer).
Regarding claim 12, Belzile teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the computing device is configured to determine the command based on the plant molecular activity data and the environmental data (the environmental data is part of the data since it is integrated in the device, p. 4 last para).
Regarding claim 13, Belzile teaches a method of controlling growth of a plant, the method comprising: directing an excitation pulse of light (fig. 4 “LED”, p. 3 last para) towards a target area of the plant (fig. 4 “target”, the target is a plant leaf); receiving fluorescent light from the target area of the plant (fig. 6) and directing the fluorescent light to a focal point (fig. 4 “lens” directs the signal to the sensor; also, the lens and the filter can interchange positions as long as the signal is focused on the detector, see evidentiary reference DE 10148748 A1 (hereinafter Stefan) Abstract lines 9-10); selectively transmitting a selected wavelength range of the fluorescent light from the target area of the plant (fig. 4 “filters”, p. 4 para 1), the selected wavelength range indicating an activity and/or a concentration of at least one molecule of the plant (this is fig. 6 showing the behavior of the chlorophyll); determining an intensity of the fluorescent light having the selected wavelength range (fig. 7); converting the measured intensity to a digital signal (fig. 6, these are the sensor up to the computer); and transmitting the digital signal to a computing device as plant molecular activity data (fig. 6, these are the sensor up to the computer).
Regarding claim 18, Belzile teaches the system of claim 11, wherein computing device is configured to transmit a signal to the photonic sensor to generate the excitation pulse of light at a predetermined frequency and pulse duration (fig. 4 shows the computer is connected to the LED).
Regarding claim 19, Belzile teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the predetermined frequency and pulse duration are variable to trigger different activity data from the plant (this is fig. 6 chlorophyll fluorescence variation according to the change in the ambient light).
Regarding claim 20, Belzile teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the at least one environmental sensor is selected from one or more spectrophotometer, a CO2 and/or 02 sensor, a temperature/relative humidity sensor, a pH sensor, a conductivity sensor, an oxidation/reduction potential (ORP) sensor and one or more photocells (fig. 4 “Sensor”).
Regarding claim 22, Belzile teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising transmitting a signal by the computing device to generate the excitation pulse of light at a predetermined frequency and pulse duration duration (fig. 4 shows the computer is connected to the LED).
Regarding claim 23, Belzile teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising varying the predetermined frequency and pulse duration to trigger different activity data from the plant (this is fig. 6 chlorophyll fluorescence variation according to the change in the ambient light).
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 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.
Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belzile, Satake, and Steffen as applied to claim(s) 1, 15 above, and further in view of US 4650336 A (hereinafter Moll).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Belzile does not teach the photonic sensor of claim 15, wherein the predetermined frequency is in a range of about 5 to about 500 pulses per second.
Moll, from the same field of endeavor as Belzile, teaches the photonic sensor of claim 15, wherein the predetermined frequency is in a range of about 5 to about 500 pulses per second (col 10 lines 5-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Moll to the modified device of Belzile to have the photonic sensor of claim 15, wherein the predetermined frequency is in a range of about 5 to about 500 pulses per second in order to control the frequency of the flash and synchronize fluorescence measurement with the flash (col 7 lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Belzile does not teach the photonic sensor of claim 15, wherein the predetermined pulse duration is in a range of about 1 to about 10 microseconds.
Moll, from the same field of endeavor as Belzile, teaches the photonic sensor of claim 15, wherein the predetermined pulse duration is in a range of about 1 to about 10 microseconds (col 10 lines 22-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Moll to the modified device of Belzile to have the photonic sensor of claim 15, wherein the predetermined pulse duration is in a range of about 1 to about 10 microseconds in order to determine the extent to which a plant has been damaged by photoinhibitory stress, or is susceptible to damage by such stress (col 7 lines 20-23).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belzile, as applied to claim(s) 10 above, and in view of US 20170311553 A1 (hereinafter Dobrinsky).
Regarding claim 21, Belzile does not teach the system of claim 10, wherein the computing device is further communicatively coupled to at least one peripheral subsystems selected from a watering subsystem, a nutrient subsystem, and an environmental controller for controlling ambient temperature and relative humidity.
Dobrinsky, from the same field of endeavor as Belzile, teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the computing device is further communicatively coupled to at least one peripheral subsystems selected from a watering subsystem, a nutrient subsystem, and an environmental controller for controlling ambient temperature and relative humidity (para [0032] lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Dobrinsky to the modified device of Belzile to have the system of claim 10, wherein the computing device is further communicatively coupled to at least one peripheral subsystems selected from a watering subsystem, a nutrient subsystem, and an environmental controller for controlling ambient temperature and relative humidity in order to determine the flavonoid content of the plant (para [0028] last sentence).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877