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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 41 includes the limitation “wherein a quantity of the second plurality of minutes is based at least in part on a stomatal closing response time of at least one plant of the one or more plants.” To meet the enablement requirement, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation (Martek Biosciences Corp. V.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." See MPEP 2164.01(a) and In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8, USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998). These factors include, but are not limited to:
a. The breadth of the claims;
b. The nature of the invention;
c. The state of prior art;
d. The level of one of ordinary skill;
e. The level of predictability in the art;
f. The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
g. The existence of working examples; and
h. The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In regard to the breadth of the claims, the claim is not specific as to how Applicant arrives at the stomatal closing time in order to use it for determining the second quantity of minutes.
In regard to the nature of the invention and the amount of direction provided by the inventor – stomatal closing time is specific to each species of plant, and even further specific to a certain plant, based on its growth stage. Therefore, the nature of this part of Applicant’s invention is extremely variable. Applicant fails to provide any direction in the specification of how they are determining the stomatal closing time, whether that be through historical data or calculations. Applicant’s specification paragraph 0022 states that the “The stomatal opening response time and the stomatal closing response time can each be several minutes long, such as 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 15, 20 or more minutes,” however, Applicant fails to provide any reasoning as to how one should determine which time within those examples would be appropriate for a given plant. Further, determination of the stomatal closing time is not currently enabled in the prior art of record, and therefore Applicant’s disclosure does not provide sufficient detail to be considered enabling.
In addition to the lack of direction or evidence in the prior art, the Applicant's specification does not provide specific working examples, embodiments, or adequate direction to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce the invention disclosed in claim 41 without undue experimentation. The language in claim 41, in combination with the lack of description with the specification, would result in undue experimentation necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce the invention. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. No new matter should be added in order to remain in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
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 41 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 41 is rejected under 112(b) for the lack of clarity in regard to the stomatal closing time. The scope of this claim is unclear and indefinite as the claim does not discuss the type or age of plant, and therefore stomatal closing time is a moving value which is not provided with a clear range. Further, as discussed above, the specification does not provide details as to how the stomatal closing time is found or calculated. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-25, 27-35, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US-20200344965-A1) in view of Bostdorff (US-9295201-B2).
Regarding claim 21, Song discloses a plant-growing system, comprising:
a housing configured to hold one or more plants (100, see fig 1);
a light source configured to emit light towards the one or more plants (lighting system 150, lighting elements 155, see fig 1);
a watering system configured to provide liquid to the one or more plants (pump assembly 260 with nutrient solution 280 from reservoir 110, see fig 1, para 0040); and
a controller communicatively coupled with the light source and the watering system (Controllers 160 and 165 for lighting system and pump, see para 0028-0029), the controller configured to:
cause the plant-growing system to operate in a plant-growing mode, wherein in the plant-growing mode, the controller is configured to operate the light source according to a first lighting schedule (multiple plant modes with light schedules, regular mode and offline/holiday mode see para 0116-0117), and
cause the plant-growing system to switch from operation in the plant-growing mode to operate in a plant-preservation mode to reduce plant growth (offline/holiday mode where light & irrigation cycles are modified to reduce water consumption and therefore plant growth, see para 0116-0117),
wherein in plant-preservation mode, the controller is configured to:
operate the light source according to a second lighting schedule, wherein the second lighting schedule comprises alternating light activation periods and light deactivation periods (light on/off times, based on schedule/recipe, para 0096-0097, and 0101-0104).
Song fails to explicitly disclose wherein during a first light activation period of the light activation periods, the controller is configured to activate the light source for a first plurality of minutes that is less than one hour, wherein at completion of the first light activation period, the controller is configured to initiate a first light deactivation period of the light deactivation periods, and wherein during the first light deactivation period, the controller is configured to deactivate the light source for a second plurality of minutes that is less than one hour, wherein the second plurality of minutes is greater than or equal to the first plurality of minutes.
Bostdorff teaches wherein during a first light activation period of the light activation periods (on-periods 112, see col 6, lines 29-45), the controller (8, see col 4, lines 7-30) is configured to activate the light source for a first plurality of minutes that is less than one hour (on-period 112 for about 2 minutes, see col 6, lines 29-45), wherein at completion of the first light activation period, the controller is configured to initiate a first light deactivation period of the light deactivation periods (alternating on and off light periods, 112 and 114), and wherein during the first light deactivation period (off-period 114), the controller is configured to deactivate the light source for a second plurality of minutes that is less than one hour (off-period 114 is about 20 minutes, see col 6, lines 29-45), wherein the second plurality of minutes is greater than or equal to the first plurality of minutes (on-period is about 1-20 percent of the off-period, 2 minutes on vs 20 minutes off, see col 6, lines 29-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the method with the on and off periods, with the off periods being longer as taught by Bostdorff with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plant does not get sunburnt or scorched.
Regarding claim 22, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 21, and Song further discloses wherein the first lighting schedule comprises one or more light activation periods and one or more light deactivation periods (periodic cycle, i.e. more than 1 activation & deactivation period, see para 0094, see also 0096-0097).
Regarding claim 24, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 22, and Song further discloses wherein at least two light activation periods of the one or more light activation periods of the first lighting schedule are consecutive (activation periods of different colored lights in order, see para 0096-0104), wherein during a first light activation period of the at least two light activation periods light is emitted at a first light intensity and during a second light activation period of the at least two light activation periods light is emitted at a second light intensity (activation periods of different colored lights, i.e. different periods at different intensities, see para 0096-0104 and 0008), wherein the first light intensity is different than the second light intensity (see different intensities via different colored lights, para 0096-00104 and 0008).
Regarding claim 25, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 22, and Song further discloses wherein the one or more light deactivation periods of the first lighting schedule is a first light deactivation period (deactivation period see para 0008 and 0097).
Regarding claim 27, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 22.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein an average light intensity of light activation periods of the second lighting schedule is the same as an average light intensity of the light activation periods of the first lighting schedule.
Nicole teaches wherein an average light intensity of light activation periods of the second lighting schedule is the same as an average light intensity of the light activation periods of the first lighting schedule (same average lights for the activation periods, see col 8, lines 56-67 and col 9, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the average light intensity being the same for the first and second lighting schedules as taught by Nicole with a reasonable expectation of success because substantial changes in light intensity can cause unwanted stress to plants (see Nicole, col 8, lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 28, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 22, and Song further discloses wherein a light integral of light emitted during the second lighting schedule is less than a light integral of light emitted during the first lighting schedule (LI is a measure of the photosynthetically active photons over a period of time and the second lighting schedule is reduced consumption, i.e. reduced lighting towards the plants, and therefore would have a lower LI, see para 0094).
Regarding claim 29, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 21, and Song further discloses wherein a sum of a time of the light activation periods of the second lighting schedule is less than a sum of a time of the light deactivation periods of the second lighting schedule (offline/holiday mode where light & irrigation cycles are modified to reduce water consumption and therefore plant growth the light activation times would inherently be less than the deactivation time to ensure plant growth is reduced, see para 0116-0117).
Regarding claim 30, the modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the at least one light deactivation period is greater than one minute and less than five minutes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the off-periods to between one minute and five minutes with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow the plants resting time and prevent sun scorching, while ensuring plants still receive enough light for vital maintenance functions, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 31, the modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the at least one light deactivation period is greater than one minute and less than ten minutes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the off-periods to between one minute and ten minutes with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow the plants resting time and prevent sun scorching, while ensuring plants still receive enough light for vital maintenance functions, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 32, the modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the at least one light deactivation period is greater than one minute and less than fifteen minutes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the off-periods to between one minute and fifteen minutes with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow the plants resting time and prevent sun scorching, while ensuring plants still receive enough light for vital maintenance functions, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 33, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 21, and Bostdorff further teaches wherein the at least one light deactivation period is greater than one minute and less than thirty minutes (off-period 114 is about 20 minutes, see col 6, lines 29-45).
Regarding claim 34, Song discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by one or more processors (controller 160 with computer processor, see abstract and paras 0028-0029 and 0039) and cause the one or more processors to:
cause a plant-growing system to operate in a plant-growing mode (controllers 160 and 165 for lighting system, see para 0028-0029), wherein in the plant- growing mode, the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to operate a light source according to a first lighting schedule (multiple plant modes with light schedules, see para 0116-0117), and
cause the plant-growing system to switch from operating in the plant-growing mode to operate in a plant-preservation mode to reduce plant growth (controllers 160 and 165 for lighting system, see para 0028-0029, offline/holiday mode where light & irrigation cycles are modified to reduce water consumption and therefore plant growth, see para 0116-0117),
wherein in plant-preservation mode, the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to:
operate the light source according to a second lighting schedule, wherein the second lighting schedule comprises alternating light activation periods and light deactivation periods (light on/off times, based on schedule/recipe, para 0096-0097, and 0101-0104).
Song fails to explicitly disclose wherein during a first light activation period of the light activation periods, the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to activate the light source for a first plurality of minutes that is less than one hour, wherein at completion of the first light activation period, the computer- executable instructions cause the one or more processors to initiate a first light deactivation period of the light deactivation periods, and wherein during the first light deactivation period, the computer- executable instructions cause the one or more processors to deactivate the light source for a second plurality of minutes that is less than one hour, wherein the second plurality of minutes is greater than or equal to the first plurality of minutes.
Bostdorff teaches wherein during a first light activation period of the light activation periods (on-periods 112, see col 6, lines 29-45), the computer-executable instructions (8, see col 4, lines 7-30)cause the one or more processors to activate the light source for a first plurality of minutes that is less than one hour (on-period 112 for about 2 minutes, see col 6, lines 29-45), wherein at completion of the first light activation period, the computer- executable instructions cause the one or more processors to initiate a first light deactivation period of the light deactivation periods (alternating on and off light periods, 112 and 114), and wherein during the first light deactivation period (off-period 114), the computer- executable instructions cause the one or more processors to deactivate the light source for a second plurality of minutes that is less than one hour (off-period 114 is about 20 minutes, see col 6, lines 29-45), wherein the second plurality of minutes is greater than or equal to the first plurality of minutes (on-period is about 1-20 percent of the off-period, 2 minutes on vs 20 minutes off, see col 6, lines 29-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the method with the on and off periods, with the off periods being longer as taught by Bostdorff with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plant does not get sunburnt or scorched.
Regarding claim 35, the modified reference teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 34, and Song further discloses wherein the first lighting schedule comprises one or more light activation periods and one or more light deactivation periods (periodic cycle, i.e. more than 1 activation & deactivation period, see para 0094, see also 0096-0097).
Regarding claim 40, Song discloses a method comprising:
causing, via a controller (660) communicatively coupled with a light source (650) and a watering system (626), a plant-growing system to operate in a plant-growing mode (standard growing mode, see para 0116-0117),
wherein the plant- growing mode comprises operating the light source according to a first lighting schedule (light schedules, see para 0096-0097, and 0101-0104), and
causing, via the controller, the plant-growing system to switch from operating in the plant-growing mode to operate in a plant-preservation mode to reduce plant growth (multiple plant modes with light schedules, see para 0116-0117, light on/off times, based on schedule/recipe, para 0096-0097, and 0101-0104), wherein the plant-preservation mode comprises:
operating, via the controller, the light source according to a second lighting schedule, wherein the second lighting schedule comprises alternating light activation periods and light deactivation periods (light on/off times, based on schedule/recipe, para 0096-0097, and 0101-0104).
Song fails to explicitly disclose wherein during a first light activation period of the light activation periods, operating, via the controller, the light source according to the second lighting schedule comprises activating the light source for a first plurality of minutes that is less than one hour, wherein at completion of the first light activation period, initiating, via the controller, a first light deactivation period of the light deactivation periods, wherein during the first light deactivation period, operating, via the controller, the light source according to the second lighting schedule further comprises deactivating the light source for a second plurality of minutes that is less than one hour, wherein the second plurality of minutes is greater than or equal to the first plurality of minutes.
Bostdorff teaches wherein during a first light activation period of the light activation periods (on-periods 112, see col 6, lines 29-45), operating, via the controller (8, see col 4, lines 7-30), the light source according to the second lighting schedule comprises activating the light source for a first plurality of minutes that is less than one hour (on-period 112 for about 2 minutes, see col 6, lines 29-45), wherein at completion of the first light activation period, initiating, via the controller (8, see col 4, lines 7-30), a first light deactivation period of the light deactivation periods (alternating on and off light periods, 112 and 114), wherein during the first light deactivation period (off-period 114), operating, via the controller, the light source according to the second lighting schedule further comprises deactivating the light source for a second plurality of minutes that is less than one hour (off-period 114 is about 20 minutes, see col 6, lines 29-45), wherein the second plurality of minutes is greater than or equal to the first plurality of minutes (on-period is about 1-20 percent of the off-period, 2 minutes on vs 20 minutes off see col 6, lines 29-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the method with the on and off periods, with the off periods being longer as taught by Bostdorff with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plant does not get sunburnt or scorched.
Regarding claim 41, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 21.
Song as modified by Bostdorff teaches the light cycles as claimed in claim 1, and Applicant’s own specification states that the stomatal closing time may be various numbers of minutes, such 20 minutes, which is taught by Bostdorff (off-period 114 is about 20 minutes, see col 6, lines 29-45). Therefore, as the stomatal closing time is an inherent property of the plant, the Applicant does not provide any explanation of how it is calculated aside from the provided values in specification paragraph 0022, and as Bostdorff teaches the light deactivation time as claimed, then Bostdorff teaches wherein a quantity of the second plurality of minutes is based at least in part on a stomatal closing response time of at least one plant of the one or more plants (off-period 114 is about 20 minutes, see col 6, lines 29-45, see also 112(a) and (b) rejections above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the light deactivation period being based at least in part on the stomatal closing response time as taught by Bostdorff with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the lighting schedule is optimized for the plant’s specific lighting and photosynthesis needs to promote plant health.
Regarding claim 42, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 21, and Bostdorff further teaches wherein at completion of the first light deactivation period (controller continues alternating on and off periods 112 and 114 for a predetermined cycle duration, see col 6, lines 61-67), the controller is configured to initiate a second light activation period of the light activation periods (controller continues alternating on and off periods 112 and 114 for a predetermined cycle duration, see col 6, lines 61-67), wherein during the second light activation period, the controller is configured to activate the light source for a third plurality of minutes that is less than one hour (on-period for about 2 minutes, see col 7, lines 1-3), wherein at completion of the second light activation period, the controller is configured to initiate a second light deactivation period of the light deactivation periods (controller continues alternating on and off periods 112 and 114 for a predetermined cycle duration, see col 6, lines 61-67), and wherein during the second light deactivation period, the controller is configured to deactivate the light source for a fourth plurality of minutes that is less than one hour (114, off-period for 20 minutes, see col 7, lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 43, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 21, and Bostdorff further teaches wherein the second plurality of minutes is greater than the first plurality of minutes (on-period 112 for about 2 minutes, off-period 114 is about 20 minutes, on-period is about 1-20 percent of the off-period, see col 6, lines 29-45).
Claim(s) 23 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US-20200344965-A1) in view of Bostdorff (US-9295201-B2) as applied to claims 22 and 35 above, and further in view of Ovadya (US-11122753-B2).
Regarding claim 23, the modified reference teaches the plant growing system of claim 22.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a sum of a time of the one or more light activation periods of the first lighting schedule within a first time period is greater than a sum of a time of the light deactivation periods of the second lighting schedule within a second time period, wherein a duration of the first time period is equal to a duration of the second time period.
Ovadya teaches wherein a sum of a time of the one or more light activation periods of the first lighting schedule within a first time period (sum/total light time for vegetative growing schedule is 14-18 hours, see col 2, lines 65-67 and col 3, lines 1-9) is greater than a sum of a time of the light deactivation periods of the second lighting schedule within a second time period (sum/total light deactivation, i.e. dark time, for the floral induction schedule is 11-13 hours, see col 2, lines 65-67 and col 3, lines 1-9), wherein a duration of the first time period is equal to a duration of the second time period (24 hour period, see col 2, lines 65-67 and col 3, lines 1-9 and col 5, lines 45-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the sum of the light and dark periods with the first schedule having more light than the second schedule has darkness as taught by Ovadya with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for variations in light requirements for different plants or different life stages to optimize the planting environment for plant health and growth.
Regarding claim 36, the modified reference teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 35.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a sum of a time of the one or more light activation periods of the first lighting schedule within a first time period is greater than a sum of a time of the light deactivation periods of the second lighting schedule within a second time period, wherein a duration of the first time period is equal to a duration of the second time period.
Ovadya teaches wherein a sum of a time of the one or more light activation periods of the first lighting schedule within a first time period (sum/total light time for vegetative growing schedule is 14-18 hours, see col 2, lines 65-67 and col 3, lines 1-9) is greater than a sum of a time of the light deactivation periods of the second lighting schedule within a second time period (sum/total light deactivation, i.e. dark time, for the floral induction schedule is 11-13 hours, see col 2, lines 65-67 and col 3, lines 1-9), wherein a duration of the first time period is equal to a duration of the second time period (24 hour period, see col 2, lines 65-67 and col 3, lines 1-9 and col 5, lines 45-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the sum of the light and dark periods with the first schedule having more light than the second schedule has darkness as taught by Ovadya with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for variations in light requirements for different plants or different life stages to optimize the planting environment for plant health and growth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bostdorff is not combinable with Song, and the combination would render Song unsatisfactory for its purpose. The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Bostdorff promotes plant growth and therefore teaches away from Song and the purpose of the claimed invention. However, the claimed invention pertains to the lighting schedule itself, which is clearly taught by Bostdorff. Further, while Applicant’s plant preservation mode is suggested to produce less growth than their plant growing mode, it does not produce negative growth, and therefore some amount of growth would still occur under the plant preservation mode. Additionally, as Bostdorff does meet the lighting cycle schedule requirements of claim 1, it is unclear how Applicant’s invention produces different results.
Applicant argues over the rejection of claim 41. The Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, as seen above, claim 41 is unclear and not enabled to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant does not provide details as to how one would find or calculate the stomatal closing response. Further, the scope of this claim is unclear and indefinite as the claim does not discuss the type or age of plant, and therefore stomatal closing time is a moving value which is not provided with a clear range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 26, while watering and lighting systems with reduced growth or vacation modes are known in the art (see rejection with Song), these systems function by providing lower intensity of light to the plants to reduce water consumption and therefore slow or reduce growth while the user is absent for an extended period of time. Conversely, the claimed invention of claim 26 functions by providing a higher-than-average intensity of light during plant preservation mode but for a shorter duration to reduce plant growth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
