Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 16, 2025 have been fully considered. The arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth below; and the argument for claim 7 is moot because Examiner now relies on a new combination for this claim, in light of the amendment made to claim 7.
Re Bucove fails to teach a separate far-red light: (Remarks p. 2) Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument seems to revolve around the idea that the “grow light” and “far-red light” must be two separate devices. Examiner reads a “grow light” as light whose frequencies falls outside of a “far-red light,” the latter being between 730nm to 780nm; similarly, the “far-red light” falling between 730nm to 780nm. Indeed, the claim only recites one device, “a far-red light device.” And nothing in the claim forbids the far-red light device from emitting two separate sets of light: a grow light, and a far-red light.
Viewed thusly, Bucove clearly reads on claim 1. The frequencies in ¶¶33-37 constitute a “grow light,” and the frequency in ¶38 (i.e., 730nm) is the far-red light. Moreover, in Figure 2 Bucove shows two lighting devices, either one of which can output the grow or far-red light. Also, paragraph 39 of Bucove clearly states the “afterglow” of 730nm is turned on for an hour right after the lights are turned off for each cycle, implying the other frequencies that constitute the “grow light” are not emitting.
To overcome this, applicant could amend the claim to specify that the grow light is emitted by a grow light device, and the far-red light by the far-red light device.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bucove et al. US 20130298459 (“Bucove”).
Re 1: Bucove teaches:
activating a grow light (¶33-39; Fig. 2)
setting a timer coupled to a far-red light device (¶39, 41);
deactivating a grow light (¶39); and
activating before a dark period and after deactivating the grow light (¶39), a far-red light having a wavelength from 730nm to 780nm that is controlled by the far-red light device in response to the timer for a predetermined time (¶39).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucove in view of Song et al. US 20200344965 (“Song”).
Re 2-3: Bucove does not explicitly teach:
Claim 2: includes determining the dark period approaches with a light sensor, and signaling for activation of the far-red light.
Claim 3: wherein setting the timer is in response to the light sensor.
Song teaches (¶111):
Claim 2: includes determining the dark period approaches with a light sensor, and signaling for activation of the far-red light.
Claim 3: wherein setting the timer is in response to the light sensor.
Bucove teaches that each plant has a unique growing profile with its own unique light emission profile. This is a recognition that plants thrive under different lighting conditions, which are in-part attuned to the time of day.
Song teaches that lights can be adapted to many variables including ambient light, in order to optimize the growing pattern of the plant. In short, Song teaches that ambient light is a result-effective variable. And, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, ambient light is a result-effective variable that helps optimize the plants growth. Thus, it is an obvious modification of the prior art. See id.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify Bucove with Song’s teachings in order to optimize the plant’s growth and provide for automatic adjustment of the light based on dynamic conditions to optimize the plant’s growth.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucove in view of Li et al. US 20220022381 (“Li”).
Re 4-5: Bucove does not explicitly teach:
Claim 4: includes determining a location of the far-red light device with a location receiver; and identifying sunset based upon the location of the far-red light device.
Claim 5: detecting the dark period is identifying sunset.
Li teaches (¶116):
Claim 4: includes determining a location of the far-red light device with a location receiver; and identifying sunset based upon the location of the far-red light device.
Claim 5: detecting the dark period is identifying sunset.
Li teaches that: “the microcontroller can be controlled and/or programmed remotely to change the set period and the set time at which the transition between high blue content state and a high red/yellow content state is to occur, e.g., based on syncing the clock of the microcontroller with a central server, changing a set time based on local sunrise/sunset times, or signals from one or more sensor modules that sense one or more parameters relating to plant health/growth.” Li explicitly recognizes that the natural sunlight periods, including transition to sunset, is a variable that can help optimize a plant’s growth. Indeed, Li teaches that transitioning the lighting profile to one high a “high red/yellow content,” which mimics the transition to sunset, can help plant growth. This is consonant with Bucove’s teachings of an “afterglow” period when the grow lights are deactivated.
And, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, the determination of sunset is a result-effective variable that helps optimize the plants growth. Thus, it is an obvious modification of the prior art. See id.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify Bucove with Li’s teachings in order to optimize the plant’s growth and provide for automatic adjustment of the light based on dynamic conditions to optimize the plant’s growth.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucove in view of Haggarty et al. US 20160192598 (“Haggarty”).
Bucove does not explicitly teach where the far-red light is a light-emitting diode.
However, Bucove teaches that LEDs may be used in the lighting system (¶24).
Song teaches (¶33) where the far-red light is a light-emitting diode.
There are two primary ways to produce red light with an LED: either have an LED that emits in the desired wavelength, or combine an excitation LED with a phosphor. While Bucove is silent as to which of these two primary ways it uses, Song teaches using a far-red LED. Using a far-red LED removes the need for a phosphor and ensures a higher proportion of the emitted light is outputted since it does not need to be absorbed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify Bucove with Song’s teachings in order to produce far-red light in a known manner and one which maximizes the light energy throughput from the emitting device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucove in view of Rossi US 20180359946 (“Rossi,” newly cited by Examiner).
Bucove does not explicitly teach where the far-red light includes a moonlight portion.
Rossi teaches/discloses (¶101) where the far-red light includes a moonlight portion.
Rossi teaches that simulating moonlight can positively influence the germination process of certain seeds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify Bucove with Rossi’s teachings in order to positively influence the germination of certain seeds, thereby optimizing the device for use with particular plants.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucove in view of Bongartz US 20200107504 (“Bongartz”).
Re 8-9: Bucove does not explicitly teach:
Claim 8: where a drone carries the far-red light.
Claim 9: where a robot carries the far-red light.
Bongartz teaches (Fig. 1; ¶¶59-61, 65):
Claim 8: where a drone 8 carries the far-red light.
Claim 9: where a robot 8 or 4 carries the far-red light.
Using a drone or robot allows for autonomous irradiation and broad care of plants, allowing for vast areas or distances to be covered without the need of humans, thereby simplifying the care and reducing the stress and energy of the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to modify Bucove in view of Bongartz in order to automate the care of the plants and simplify the process for the user.
Conclusion
Relevant prior art considered: US 20050135104 teaching a marine LED lighting system that employs moonlight.
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 GERALD J SUFLETA II whose telephone number is (571)272-4279. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EDT/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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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.
GERALD J. SUFLETA II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/GERALD J SUFLETA II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875