DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed Mar. 23, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
2. The claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “…to emit an initial illumination irradiating a plant…” should be “…to emit an initial illumination irradiating the plant…” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Dependent claims 12-20 are also objected to at least the same reason as objected independent claim 11 as stated above because the dependent claims 12-20 are depending on the objected independent claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 3-10, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation “…a controller mounted on the elongated body of the supplemental illumination assembly and configured to control the supplemental light emitters; …..wherein the emitter spectra of said supplemental light emitters is selected to enhance at least one plant growing feature.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the supplemental light emitters” should be “the one or more supplemental light emitters”;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the clam limitation “the emitter spectra” has insufficient antecedent basis; and
(iii). the third underlined portion of the clam limitation “said supplemental light emitters” should be “said one or more supplemental light emitters”.
Dependent claims 4-10 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 3 as stated above because the dependent claims 4-10 are depending on the rejected independent claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “…two of said supplemental emitters…according to the relative intensity between said two emitter spectra.” should be “…two of said supplemental light emitters… according to the relative intensity between the emitter spectra of two of said supplemental emitters.” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitation “…said one or more supplemental emitters.” should be “…said one or more supplemental light emitters.” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “…a target spectrum of the combined light from said supplemental light emitters and said initial illumination.” should be “…a target spectrum of the combined said supplemental light and said initial illumination.” (or) “…a target spectrum of a combined light from said one or more supplemental light emitters and said illuminating lamp.”.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitation “…said supplemental light emitters comprises at least one ultraviolet (UV) emitter, the emitter spectrum of each of said at least one solid-state emitter…” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “said supplemental light emitters” should be “said one or more supplemental light emitters” according to antecedent basis requirement; and
(ii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “said at least one solid-state emitter”; Is it supposed to be “said at least one UV emitter”?
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claim limitation “the control signals”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haggarty (2016/0192598) in view of Hirowatari (9,930,762).
Regarding claim 1, Haggarty discloses a network (Fig.7, 9A and 9B, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) for controlling light irradiating plants disposed in a plant growing area (please refer to at least Fig.7 and Abstract), the network comprising: a plurality of illuminating lamps (600s in Fig.7) positioned in the plant growing area (area where 750, 752 and 754 are placed), the plurality of illuminating lamps collectively producing the light irradiating the plants (Fig.7); and a wireless communication module (951, 953 and 955 in Fig.9B) operatively connected to at least one of the plurality of illuminating lamps (one of 600s in Fig.7, which is one of 957s in Fig.9A) and configured to wirelessly send control signals (control signals from 951, 953 and 955 in Fig.9B) to said at least one of the plurality of illuminating lamps (957s in Fig.9B, where a detailed of 957 is shown in Fig.9A); wherein at least one of the plurality of illuminating lamps is a supplemental illumination assembly (Fig.9A is one of 600s in Fig.7, which supplements the other 600s), the supplemental illumination assembly comprising: an elongated body (an elongated body of 600 shown in Fig.7 and also in Fig.8); a plurality of supplemental light emitters (915s and 921s in Fig.9A) mounted on the elongated body, each supplemental light emitter being configured to generate supplemental light, the supplemental light having an emitter spectrum complementary to at least another one of the plurality of illuminating lamps (please refer to at least Abstract and ¶ 8; and Fig.7 shows the 600s are placed very closed to each other); and a controller (905 in Fig.9A) configured to control the supplemental light emitters, the controller being operatively connected with the wireless communication module (via 901), such that, upon reception of the control signals (control signals received from 951, 953 and 955 in Fig.9B), the control signals cause an adjustment of at least one property of the light produced by the plurality of illuminating lamps (please refer to at least ¶ 4, 5, 7, 8, 34 and 43).
Haggarty doesn’t explicitly disclose the controller mounted on the elongated body.
However, according to Fig.9A, where the controller (905 in Fig.9A) is a part of a Grow Light Unit (see Fig.9A and 9B) and a Grow Light device 600 is shown in Fig.7 and Fig.8; thus, the controller (905 in Fig.9A) would have been mounted on the elongated body of the Grow Light device 600 shown in Fig.7 and Fig.8.
For supporting purpose, Hirowatari discloses a controller (32 in Fig.2) mounted on an elongated body (30 in Figs.1 and 2) and operatively connected with a wireless communication module (please refer to 27 and 31 in Fig.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize Haggarty or to modify Haggarty with the teaching of Hirowatari to provide the controller mounted on the elongated body. The suggestion/motivation would have been to recognize that the controller taught by Haggarty is mounted on the elongated body.
Regarding claim 2, Haggarty in view of Hirowatari is used to reject claim 1 above.
Haggarty discloses the emitter spectrum comprises non-visible wavelengths (¶ 34 states that “LEDs includes infrared LEDs, ultraviolet LEDs, etc.” (invisible wavelengths)”.
8. Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haggarty (2016/0192598) in view of Hirowatari (9,930,762) and Dupras et al. (2022/0046773) (hereinafter “Dupras”).
Regarding claim 3, Haggarty discloses a method (Figs.6, 8 and 9, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) for supplementing an initial illumination (illumination from 814 in Fig.8 (or) HID light of 626 in Fig.6; please consider both) of a plant growing area (Fig.7, please refer to at least Abstract and ¶ 8), the initial illumination originating from an illuminating lamp (formed by 808 and 814 in Fig.8 (or) HID light of 626 in Fig.6), the method comprising: providing a supplemental illumination assembly (810s in Fig.8 (or) 1s in Fig.6) comprising one or more supplemental light emitters (820 and 822 in Fig.8; part of each of 1s in Fig.6, each of which includes 921 in Fig.9A and 915 in Fig.9A; ¶ 41) mounted on an elongated body (elongated body of 810 in Fig.8 (or) elongated body of 1 in Figs.6 and 7) of the supplemental illumination assembly, each supplemental light emitter (820 and 822 in Fig.8; 1s in Figs.6 and 7, each of which includes 921 or 915 in Fig.9A; ¶ 41) being configured to emit supplemental light; and a controller (LED controller 925 or 913 in Fig.9A) configured to control the supplemental light emitters (Fig.9A); and combining the supplemental light with the initial illumination (please refer to Fig.8 and at least Abstract and ¶ 8); wherein the emitter spectra of said supplemental light emitters is selected to enhance at least one plant growing feature (please refer to at least Abstract and ¶ 8).
Haggarty doesn’t explicitly disclose the controller mounted on the elongated body of the supplemental illumination assembly.
However, according to Fig.9A, where the controller (LED controller 925 or 913 in Fig.9A) is a part of a Grow Light Unit (see Fig.9A and 9B) and a Grow Light assembly (600 in Figs.6 and 7; and also in Fig.8) comprises a main HID light structure (626 in Fig.6; similarly in Fig.8) and grow light devices (1s in Figs.6 and 7; similarly as 810s in Fig.8); thus, the controller (LED controller 925 or 913 in Fig.9A) would have been mounted on an elongated body (elongated body of 1 in Figs.6 and 7 (or) elongated body of 810 in Fig.8) of the Grow Light device since the controller (LED controller 925 or 913) is used to control the LED bar (921 or 915, respectively), which is a part of the grow light device (1 in Figs.6 and 7; similarly as 810 in Fig.8).
For supporting purpose, Hirowatari discloses an example of a light fixture (30 in Fig.2) with a wireless receiver (31 in Fig.2).
For supporting purpose, Dupras discloses an example of a controller (24 in Fig.5) mounted on a lamp (11 in Fig.5, ¶ 139) of the supplemental illumination assembly (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize Haggarty or to modify Haggarty with the teaching of Hirowatari to provide the controller on the grow light assembly and further with the teaching of Dupras to provide the controller mounted on the elongated body of the supplemental illumination assembly. The suggestion/motivation would have been to place the LED controller close to the LEDs.
Regarding claim 4, Haggarty in view of Hirowatari and Dupras is used to reject claim 3 above.
Haggarty discloses the at least one plant growing feature comprises cleaning and disinfecting plants, and the corresponding emitter spectra comprise wavelength in the UV-C range (¶ 34 states that “LEDs includes ultraviolet LEDs”).
Regarding claim 5, Haggarty in view of Hirowatari and Dupras is used to reject claim 3 above.
Haggarty discloses the at least one plant growing feature comprises pollination stimulation, and the corresponding emitter spectra comprise wavelength in the UV-A and/or UV-B range (¶ 34 states that “LEDs includes ultraviolet LEDs”).
Regarding claim 6, Haggarty in view of Hirowatari and Dupras is used to reject claim 3 above.
Haggarty discloses the at least one plant growing feature comprises stimulating plants growth and/or quality, and the corresponding emitter spectra comprise wavelength in the far-red and/or infrared range (please refer to at least Abstract and ¶ 8 and 34).
Regarding claim 7, Haggarty in view of Hirowatari and Dupras is used to reject claim 3 above.
Haggarty discloses determining a relative intensity between the emitter spectra of two of said supplemental emitters (please refer to at least ¶ 49, 50, 53 and 54); and controlling said one or more supplemental light emitters to adjust an intensity level of the supplemental light therefrom according to the relative intensity between said two emitter spectra (please refer to at least ¶ 49, 50, 53 and 54, which states “varying degrees of lumens” and setting different wavelengths at different time (Sunrise or Sunset)).
Regarding claim 8, Haggarty in view of Hirowatari and Dupras is used to reject claim 3 above.
Haggarty discloses determining a relative intensity between an emitter spectrum of one of said supplemental emitters and a spectral band of the initial illumination; and controlling said one or more supplemental light emitters to adjust an intensity level of the supplemental light according to the relative intensity between the emitter spectrum of said one of said supplemental emitters and the spectral band of the initial illumination (please refer to at least ¶ 53-60).
Regarding claim 9, Haggarty in view of Hirowatari and Dupras is used to reject claim 3 above.
Haggarty discloses independently adjusting an intensity level of the light (light of 915s is controlled by 913 and light of 921s is controlled by 925 in Fig.9A) from each of said one or more supplemental emitters (915s and 921s).
Regarding claim 10, Haggarty in view of Hirowatari and Dupras is used to reject claim 3 above.
Haggarty discloses controlling said one or more supplemental light emitters (using 913 and 925 in Fig.9A) in view of a target spectrum of the combined light from said supplemental light emitters (915s and 921s in Fig.9A) and said initial illumination (911 in Fig.9A; please refer to at least ¶ 53-60).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 11-15 and 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations.
10. Claims 16 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. 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.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2836
Prosecution Insights