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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 04/16/26 regarding Claim/Specification Objection, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “During and/or after emission of the excitation light: - "a third light intensity value with in the first observation wavelength range". - "a fourth light intensity value within the second observation wavelength range"”.
Current amended claims disclose: “a first light intensity within a first observation wavelength range and a second light intensity within a second observation wavelength range … a third light intensity value within the first observation wavelength range and a fourth light intensity value within the second observation wavelength range”, and “comparing a difference between the first and third light intensity values to a difference between the second and fourth light intensity values”. However, no-where in the specification disclosed the above limitations. In the other words, these limitations are considered as new matter, and would be rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
The Examiner has conducted interview with Jenny Chou dated 05/11/26. However, there is no agreement/response has been reached.
For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow:
a first light intensity within a first observation wavelength range: emission light intensity within the first observation wavelength range.
a second light intensity within the second observation wavelength range: emission light intensity within the second observation wavelength range.
a third light intensity value: the first measurement of light intensity within the first observation wavelength range.
a fourth light intensity value: the first measurement of light intensity within the second observation wavelength range.
According to reference of Tischler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0349180), the claims are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow:
The chlorophyll fluorescence radiation between 670nm and 700nm from the plant is not different from a third light within the first observation wavelength range from 200nm to 400nm, and the chlorophyll fluorescence radiation between 715nm and 745nm from the plant is not different from a fourth light within the second observation wavelength range from 450nm to 650nm.
3. With respect to the new added limitation “prior to emitting excitation light, performing a first measurement by obtaining a first light intensity value within a first observation wavelength range and a second light intensity value within a second observation wavelength range … by obtaining a third light intensity value within the first observation wavelength range and a fourth light intensity value within the second observation wavelength range, wherein the first observation wavelength range, the second observation wavelength range, and the emission wavelength range are different from one another, and wherein the first measurement and second measurement are obtained via one or more detectors having a field of view containing the one or more subject plants … wherein the fluorescence response is obtained by comparing a difference between the first and third light intensity values to a difference between the second and fourth light intensity values”, please see the following new rejection.
Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
5. Claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 12, no-where in the specification disclosed the following limitations: “a first light intensity within a first observation wavelength range and a second light intensity within a second observation wavelength range … a third light intensity value within the first observation wavelength range and a fourth light intensity value within the second observation wavelength range”, and “comparing a difference between the first and third light intensity values to a difference between the second and fourth light intensity values”.
For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow:
a first light intensity within a first observation wavelength range: emission light intensity within the first observation wavelength range.
a second light intensity within the second observation wavelength range: emission light intensity within the second observation wavelength range.
a third light intensity value: the first measurement of light intensity within the first observation wavelength range.
a fourth light intensity value: the first measurement of light intensity within the second observation wavelength range.
According to reference of Tischler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0349180), the claims are interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follow:
The chlorophyll fluorescence radiation between 670nm and 700nm from the plant is not different from a third light within the first observation wavelength range from 200nm to 400nm, and the chlorophyll fluorescence radiation between 715nm and 745nm from the plant is not different from a fourth light within the second observation wavelength range from 450nm to 650nm.
All these limitations are considered as new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 6-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tischler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0349180). Hereafter “Tischler”.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 12, Tischler teaches a method of monitoring plant status performed by a computing system of one or more computing devices (abstract, lines 1-2; [0001]), the method comprising:
performing a plurality of measurement operations periodically over a period of time ([0057]. The light-emitting diodes 15 to 20 are switched on and off within the period of time to detect, is not different from performing a plurality of measurement operations periodically over a period of time) in which each measurement operation includes:
prior to emitting excitation light, performing a first measurement by obtaining a first light intensity value within a first observation wavelength range and a second light intensity value within a second observation wavelength range ([0026, 0078]; Figure 1, excitation radiation 3, prior to emitting excitation light, the first exciting wavelength is within the first observation wavelength range 200nm to 400nm, and the second exciting wavelength is within the second observation wavelength range 450nm to 650nm);
emitting, via one or more emitters, excitation light within an emission wavelength range into an environment containing one or more subject plants ([0014], lines 1-8; [0015, 0055]; Figure 2, diodes 15-20),
performing a second measurement during and/or after emission of the excitation light, by obtaining a third light intensity value within the first observation wavelength range and a fourth light intensity value within the second observation wavelength range, ([0027, 0059]; Figure 1, fluorescence radiation 5, the chlorophyll fluorescence radiation between 670 nm and 700 nm from the plant is not different from a third light within the first observation wavelength range from 200nm to 400nm, the chlorophyll fluorescence radiation between 715 nm and 745 nm from the plant is not different from a fourth light within the second observation wavelength range from 350 nm to 400 nm. Please see the paragraphs 2-5 above), wherein the first observation wavelength range, the second observation wavelength range, and the emission wavelength range are different from one another, (the first observation wavelength range 200nm to 400nm, the second observation wavelength range 350 nm to 400 nm, and the emission wavelength range 670 nm and 700 nm and 715 nm and 745 nm are different from one another), and wherein the first measurement and second measurement are obtained via one or more detectors having a field of view containing the one or more subject plants ([0033, 0066]); and
for each measurement operation performed,
determining a fluorescence response by obtaining a result indicative of the plant status, ([0014, 0024]), wherein the fluorescence response is obtained by comparing a difference between the first and third light intensity values to a difference between the second and fourth light intensity values ([0024], the quotient of the fluorescence radiation induced by excitation radiation of the second excitation wavelengths divided by the fluorescence radiation induced by excitation radiation of the first excitation wavelengths is not different from comparing a difference between the first and third light intensity values to a difference between the second and fourth light intensity values; Wherein the fluorescence radiation induced by excitation radiation of the second excitation wavelengths is not different from fourth light intensity values, and the fluorescence radiation induced by excitation radiation of the first excitation wavelengths is not different from third light intensity values, and the quotient of these values is not different from comparing a difference between these values. Please see the paragraphs 2-5 above);
Further, regarding Claims 11, 12, Tischler teaches a logic machine; and a data storage machine (figure 1, it is inherent that control unit 4, digitizing unit 12, analyzing unit 13 must include a logic machine and data storage).
Regarding Claim 6, Tischler teaches the emission wavelength range is less than the first observation wavelength range and the second observation wavelength range ([0027, 0057], the emitting excitation wavelengths emitted from radiation sources (the emission wavelength range), 200 nm - 400 nm, and 450 nm - 650 nm, is less than the measurement wavelengths (first observation wavelength range) 670 nm -700 nm, and 715 nm - 745 nm (second observation wavelength range). The measurement wavelength of the reference is not different from observation wavelength range of the claims).
Regarding Claim 7, Tischler teaches the emission wavelength range includes ultraviolet light; wherein the first observation wavelength range includes red light and/or near red light; and wherein the second observation wavelength range includes green light and/or blue light ([0027, 0057], the emitting excitation wavelengths emitted from radiation sources are 200 nm - 400 nm, and 450 nm - 650 nm, which include ultraviolet light and red light and/or near red light).
Regarding Claim 8, Tischler teaches first and second light intensity values are captured in parallel via the one or more detectors during the same sample period; and wherein the third and fourth light intensity are captured in parallel via the one or more detectors during the same sample period (figure 1, first optical filter 11-1 and second optical filter 11-2 are in parallel via detector 6. Parallel light emitting unit 2 allows the first and second light intensity values 3 captured in parallel via the filters 11-1, 11-2 and digitizing unit 12. And the third and fourth light intensity of excited radiations 5 are captured in parallel via the filters 11-1, 11-2 and digitizing unit 12. Please see 112(a) Rejection in paragraphs 2-5 above).
Regarding Claim 9, Tischler teaches the first and second light intensity values are captured in sequence via the one or more detectors during different sample periods; and wherein the third and fourth light intensity values are captured in sequence via the one or more detectors during different sample periods ([0055, 0065]. The cycle begins with light-emitting diodes emitting radiation at a wavelength for a particular period of time is not different from wavelength range are captured in sequence during different sample periods).
Regarding Claim 10, Tischler teaches wherein the first measurement of the first light intensity value is one of multiple measurements that are obtained for each measurement operation ([0027, 0057]. The first measurement of the first light intensity value is one of multiple measurements in wavelength range 200 nm - 400 nm);
wherein the first measurement of the second light intensity value is one of multiple measurements that are obtained for each measurement operation ([0027, 0057]. The first measurement of the second light intensity value is one of multiple measurements in wavelength range 350 nm – 400 nm);
wherein the second measurement of the third light intensity value is one of multiple measurements that are obtained for each measurement operation ([0027, 0057]. The second measurement of the third light intensity value is one of multiple measurements in wavelength range 670 nm – 700 nm);
wherein the second measurement of the fourth light intensity value is one of multiple measurements that are obtained for each measurement operation ([0027, 0057]. The second measurement of the fourth light intensity value is one of multiple measurements in wavelength range 715 nm – 745 nm);
wherein the fluorescence response is obtained for each measurement operation ([0027, 0057]).
Regarding Claim 13, Tischler teaches outputting the result indicative of the plant status for at least one of the plurality of measurement operations, ([0001, 0024]),
Regarding Claim 14, Tischler teaches the second measurement is performed after a time delay following the emitting of the excitation light (figure 1, it is inherent that the second measurement for fluorescence radiation 5 from plant 14 is performed after a time delay following the emitting of the excitation light 3).
Regarding Claims 15, 16, Tischler teaches the excitation light comprises pulsed light and the second measurement is performed during a pulse of the excitation light (figure 1, it is inherent that the excitation light 3 comprising pulsed light, and the second measurement for fluorescence radiation 5 from plant 14 is performed during a pulse of the excitation light 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Tischler teaches determining the fluorescence response comprises calculating a ratio between the first and second observation wavelength ranges ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 18, Tischler teaches the first measurement corresponds to ambient light conditions ([0031], lines 8-11; [0057], lines 4-7).
Regarding Claims 19-20, Tischler teaches the data storage machine having instructions stored thereon executable by the logic machine (figure 1, it is inherent that control unit 4, digitizing unit 12, analyzing unit 13 must include a logic machine and data storage) to output the result indicative of the plant status for at least one of the plurality of measurement operations ([0014, 0024]),
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claim(s) 2-5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tischler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0349180) in view of Chieh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0298161). Hereafter “Tischler” and “Chieh”.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Tischler teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for outputting an alert responsive to any of the results exceeding a threshold value. Chieh teaches outputting an alert responsive to any of the results exceeding a threshold value, ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tischler by outputting an alert responsive to any of the results exceeding a threshold value in order to determine the status of the plant (Chieh, [0033]).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Tischler teaches outputting a control signal to one or more physical actuators to control an operating condition of the environment containing the one or more plants responsive to any of the results ([0080]). However, Tischler does not teach exceeding a threshold value. Chieh teaches exceeding a threshold value, ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tischler by having exceeding a threshold value in order to determine the status of the plant (Chieh, [0033]).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Tischler teaches identifying a rate of change of the results over the period of time ([0057, 0076-0078]); comparing the rate of change ([0024, 0076-0078]); and outputting an alert responsive to the rate of change ([0078, 0080]; Figure 7). However, Tischler does not teach exceeding the threshold. Chieh teaches exceeding a threshold value, ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tischler by having exceeding a threshold value in order to determine the status of the plant (Chieh, [0033]).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Tischler teaches identifying a rate of change of the results over the period of time ([0057, 0076-0078]); comparing the rate of change ([0024, 0076-0078]); and outputting a control signal to one or more physical actuators to control an operating condition of the environment containing the one or more plants. ([0031, 0078, 0080]; Figure 7). However, Tischler does not teach responsive to exceeding the threshold rate of change. Chieh teaches exceeding the threshold rate of change, ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Tischler by having exceeding the threshold rate of change in order to determine the status of the plant (Chieh, [0033]).
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Prosecution Insights