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 § 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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites “a first downward extension” and “a second downward extension”. As best understood, the original disclosure only supports two vertical extensions, which were recited in claim 1. It is unclear whether these are additional vertical extensions, or additional extensions totaling four extensions.
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.
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1-8, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (KR 20120060096 A) in view of Venkata (US 20220369566 A1), and Tsao (US 10881052 B1).
Regarding claim 1: Moon discloses a plant cultivator (1) comprising: a cultivation package (area within 10); a main body (body 10) on which the cultivation package is disposed; a light source (21b) configured to emit light toward the cultivation package (Fig. 3); and a housing (frame 22) disposed above the main body and configured to accommodate the light source (Fig. 3); wherein the housing includes: a horizontal extension portion extending in one direction and spaced apart from the main body (Fig. 1); and a vertical extension portion extending from both ends of the horizontal extension portion toward the main body (sliding bars 32), and connected to the main body (Fig. 1), wherein the light source (21b) is disposed in an accommodation space defined at the horizontal extension portion (Fig. 3).
Moon fails to explicitly teach wherein the cultivation package is detachably disposed, and wherein a plurality of light transmission holes are defined in a lower surface of the horizontal extension portion and opened toward the cultivation package
However, Venkata teaches wherein the cultivation package (102) is detachably disposed (para 23 speaks of seating frame 102 over housing 110, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cultivation system as disclosed by Moon with the detachable plant panel as taught by Venkata with a reasonable expectation of success because providing means for the cultivation area to be detached would achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to easily maintain the plant system.
Tsao teaches wherein a plurality of light transmission holes (Fig. 3) are defined in a lower surface of the horizontal extension portion and opened toward the cultivation package.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lighting system as disclosed by modified Moon with the two housing parts as taught by Tsao with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a lighting system sandwiched between two housing sections would achieve the predictable result of protecting the lighting from any damage as a result of external factors or conditions, therefore achieving a longer lifespan for the apparatus.
Regarding claim 2: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Moon further teaches wherein the light source includes: a circuit board (circuit described within substrate 21a) disposed to extend parallel to the upper surface of the cultivation package and having a length in a left and right direction larger than a width of the circuit board in a front and rear direction (Fig. 3); and a plurality of light source elements (21b) configured to generate the light emitted toward the cultivation package and disposed on the circuit board (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, and Moon further teaches wherein the plurality of light source elements (21b) are located above and laterally inside of an area of the upper surface of the cultivation package (Fig. 4 shows a collapsed configuration which teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Moon as modified fails to teach wherein the plurality of light source elements include: a plurality of first light source elements arranged on a first extension line extending along a longitudinal direction of the circuit board; and a plurality of second light source elements arranged on a second extension line extending along the longitudinal direction of the circuit board, the second extension line being spaced apart from the first extension line.
However, Venkata teaches wherein the plurality of light source elements include: a plurality of first light source elements arranged on a first extension line extending along a longitudinal direction of the circuit board; and a plurality of second light source elements arranged on a second extension line extending along the longitudinal direction of the circuit board, the second extension line being spaced apart from the first extension line (Fig. 4, array of lights 186 would teach this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lights as disclosed by modified Moon with the light arrays as taught by Venkata with a reasonable expectation of success because providing array of lights would achieve the predictable result of complete illumination of all plant area.
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 4 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the first extension line and the second extension line are parallel to each other (Venkata lights 186 teaches parallel lines with equal distance).
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 4 as shown above, and further teaches wherein a spacing between the plurality of first light source elements in the left and right direction is constant, and a spacing between the plurality of second light source elements in the left and right direction is constant (Venkata lights 186 teaches parallel lines with equal distance).
Regarding claim 7: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 4 as shown above.
Moon as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a spacing between the plurality of first light source elements in the left and right direction is varied while along the first extension line, and a spacing between the plurality of second light source elements in the left and right direction is varied along the second extension line. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the spacing between the light elements, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Arranging the light elements in such a way so that there is varying spaces between them would be done in order to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the way the lighting is distributed among the vegetation being grown in the main body.
Regarding claim 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above.
Moon as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the spacing between the plurality of first light source elements in the left and right direction gradually becomes smaller away from a center of the horizontal extension, and the spacing between the plurality of second light source elements in the left and right direction gradually becomes smaller as away from the center of the horizontal extension part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the spacing of the light sources, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Arranging the light elements in such a way so that there is varying spaces between them would be done in order to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the way the lighting is distributed among the vegetation being grown in the main body.
Regarding claim 18: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkata further teaches a wireless communications interface (external device 172); and an input device (para 40), wherein the light source includes a controller (156) configured to manage the light emitted toward the cultivation package based on a signal received from at least one of the wireless communications interface or the input device (para 40, para 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the plant cultivation system as disclosed by modified Moon with the wireless communication as taught by Venkata with a reasonable expectation of success because providing wireless communications would achieve the predictable result of allowing the user to adjust the characteristics of the plant system without being physically present.
Regarding claim 20: Moon discloses a plant cultivator (1) comprising: a main body (10); a water tank (reservoir with holes 11) coupled to main body and defining a cavity to receive a cultivation package and a cultivation liquid (Figs. 1-3); a housing (20) detachably coupled to the water tank (Fig. 1); and a plurality of light source elements (21b) provided in the housing and including, wherein the housing includes: a horizontal extension portion (22) extending in one direction and spaced apart from the main body; and a vertical extension portion (32) extending from both ends of the horizontal extension portion toward the main body, and connected to the main body (Fig. 2),
Moon fails to teach first light source elements provided on a first extension line extending along a longitudinal direction of the housing; and second light source elements provided on a second extension line extending along the longitudinal direction of the housing and parallel to the first extension line, and wherein the plurality of light source elements are disposed in an accommodation space defined at the horizontal extension portion, wherein a plurality of light transmission holes are defined in a lower surface of the horizontal extension portion and opened toward the cultivation package, so that the light generated by the plurality of light source elements pass through the light transmission holes and is irradiated onto the cultivation package.
However, Venkata teaches first light source elements provided on a first extension line extending along a longitudinal direction of the housing; and second light source elements provided on a second extension line extending along the longitudinal direction of the housing and parallel to the first extension line (Fig. 4, array of lights 186 would teach this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lights as disclosed by modified Moon with the light arrays as taught by Venkata with a reasonable expectation of success because providing array of lights would achieve the predictable result of complete illumination of all plant area.
Tsao teaches wherein the housing comprises: a first housing body (31) including a plurality of light transmission holes opening (Fig. 3) toward an upper surface of the cultivation package (Fig. 12), and a second housing body (41) disposed above the first housing body and forming an accommodation space in which the light source is disposed together with the first housing body (Fig. 6), and wherein the plurality of light source elements (20) are disposed in the accommodation space (Fig. 6), so that the light generated by the plurality of light source elements pass through the light transmission holes and is irradiated onto the cultivation package (Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lighting system as disclosed by modified Moon with the two housing parts as taught by Tsao with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a lighting system sandwiched between two housing sections would achieve the predictable result of protecting the lighting from any damage as a result of external factors or conditions, therefore achieving a longer lifespan for the apparatus.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon, Venkata, and Tsao as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Montagano (US 11166417 B2).
Regarding claim 9: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Moon as modified fails to teach wherein the horizontal extension includes a plurality of light transmission holes that are open toward an upper surface of the cultivation package, and the light generated by the plurality of light source elements passes through the plurality of light transmission holes.
However, Montagano teaches wherein the horizontal extension includes a plurality of light transmission holes (106) that are open toward an upper surface of the cultivation package (Fig. 6), and the light generated by the plurality of light source elements (110) passes through the plurality of light transmission holes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light elements as disclosed by modified Moon with the openings as taught by Montagano with a reasonable expectation of success because providing holes in which the light sources are positioned in would allow a user the ability to replace the light sources easily when one is damaged or no longer in service.
Regarding claim 10: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, and further teaches wherein each of the plurality of light source elements (Montagano 110) is disposed to emit light, respectively, through a corresponding one of the plurality of light transmission holes (Montagano 106, as seen in Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 11: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, and further teaches wherein each of the plurality of light source elements (Montagano 110) is at least partially inserted, respectively into the corresponding one of the plurality light transmission holes (Montagano Fig. 1A).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon, Venkata, Tsao, and Montagano as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ahn (KR 20120069070 A).
Regarding claim 12: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Moon as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of light transmission holes has an upper opening that opens in an upward direction and into which a corresponding one of the plurality of light source elements is at least partially inserted, and a lower opening that opens in a downward direction, and wherein a cross-section area of the lower opening greater than a cross-section area of the upper opening.
However, Ahn teaches wherein each of the plurality of light transmission holes (42) has an upper opening that opens in an upward direction and into which a corresponding one of the plurality of light source elements (43) is at least partially inserted, and a lower opening that opens in a downward direction, and wherein a cross-section area of the lower opening greater than a cross-section area of the upper opening (Best seen in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the holes as disclosed by modified Moon with the tapering as taught by Ahn with a reasonable expectation of success because providing tapering for the holes would result in the majority of the bulb being protected from external elements while still allowing for the light to be distributed to the plants.
Regarding claim 13: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Ahn further teaches wherein the housing further includes a transparent cover coupled to the horizontal extension, disposed on a lower side of the lower opening, and through which light generated by the plurality of light source elements passes; and wherein the transparent cover includes a condensing lens that is formed to be convex toward the lower opening (fastening end 44 contains a lens which is attached, as shown in Figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light sources as disclosed by modified Moon with the condensing lens as taught by Ahn with a reasonable expectation of success because providing lens for the light sources would allow for the distribution of light to be controlled in order to achieve a desired intensity and illumination for the plants.
Regarding claim 14: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the condensing lens extends linearly in the left and right direction, and a width in the front and rear direction is constant along the left and right direction (Ahn, Different configurations of lens shown in Figs. 5-6 meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 15: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 14 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the width of the condensing lens in the front and rear direction is greater than a width of each of the plurality of light transmission holes in the front and rear direction (Ahn, Different configurations of lens shown in Figs. 5-6 meet this limitation).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon, Venkata, and Tsao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogata (US 20180288950 A1).
Regarding claim 16: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Moon as modified further teaches wherein the housing includes: a first downward extension having an upper end portion which is connected to a left end portion of the horizontal extension and a lower end portion which is detachably connected to the main body; and a second downward extension having an upper end portion which is connected to a right end portion of the horizontal extension and a lower end portion which is detachably connected to the main body (sling bars 32 act as downward extensions, Fig. 2).
Moon as modified fails to teach wherein the first downward extension includes a first ventilation hole that communicates with an inside of the horizontal extension with indoor air, and wherein the second downward extension is includes a second ventilation hole that communicates with the inside of the horizontal extension.
However, Ogata teaches wherein the first downward extension (1f) includes a first ventilation hole (11) that communicates with an inside of the horizontal extension with indoor air, and wherein the second downward extension is includes a second ventilation hole (blower 6) that communicates with the inside of the horizontal extension (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the plant system as disclosed by modified Moon with the ventilations as taught by Ogata with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the ventilations within the plant system would achieve the predictable result of allowing desired air to be provided to the plants at all times.
Regarding claim 17: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 16 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the first ventilation hole (Ogata 11) and the second ventilation hole (Ogata 6) are disposed to be spaced apart from each other with the light source (Ogata 4) interposed therebetween (Ogata Figs. 1-2).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montagano (US 11166417 B2) in view of Ahn (KR 20120069070 A).
Regarding claim 19: Montagano discloses a plant cultivator (100) comprising: a main body (102) in which a cultivation medium is received; a housing (104) detachably coupled to the main body (Fig. 6), a light source (110) provided in the accommodation space and configured to output light toward the cultivation medium through the plurality of openings (106, Fig. 6); wherein the housing includes: a horizontal extension portion (top wall of 104) extending in one direction and spaced apart from the main body (102); and a vertical extension portion (corner walls of 104) extending from both ends of the horizontal extension portion toward the main body, and connected to the main body (Fig. 2), and wherein the light source (110) is disposed in an accommodation space defined at the horizontal extension portion (openings seen in Fig. 2), and wherein the plurality of openings are defined in a lower surface of the horizontal extension portion (Fig. 2) and opened toward the cultivation medium so that the light generated by the light source passes through the plurality of openings is irradiated onto the cultivation medium (Fig. 2).
Montagano fails to teach and a condensing lens, coupled to a lower surface of the housing; and disposed below the plurality of the openings, the condensing lens extending along an extension direction of the housing.
However, Ahn teaches a condensing lens, coupled to a lower surface of the housing; and disposed below the plurality of the openings, the condensing lens extending along an extension direction of the housing (fastening end 44 contains a lens which is attached, as shown in Figs. 5-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light sources as disclosed by Montagano with the condensing lens as taught by Ahn with a reasonable expectation of success because providing lens for the light sources would allow for the distribution of light to be controlled in order to achieve a desired intensity and illumination for the plants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Moon does not teach the recited features of claim 1 because instead it teaches that the LED module 21 is coupled below the frame 22. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument, as this is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims only require that the light source is disposed in an accommodation space defined at the horizontal extension portion. There is no description of where the accommodation space is in relation to the horizontal extension portion. As seen in Figures 3 and 6 of Moon, the prior art does teach the light modules in an accommodation space defined at the horizontal extension portion. As such, these limitations are considered to be met.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the references Venkata, Tsao, and Montagano, and Ogata were not found persuasive, because Moon in view of these references would be used to arrive at the language of the independent claims.
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 EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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.
/E.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights