IDETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365 (c) with PCT/EP2023/055284, which in turn claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with BE2022/5184. The certified copy of foreign priority has been filed with the Office on 09/16/2024. Accordingly, the earliest effective filing date was recognized as 03/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim 1-13 in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/13/2026.
The Examiner notes that the most currently filed claims (09/16/2024) do not explicitly indicate claims 14-18 as withdrawn.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On line 10, the claim cites “the elongated strips”; however, the limitation lacks antecedent basis because there is no citation of elongated strips in intervening claim 6 and independent claim 1. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Upon careful review of the claims, the Examiner found a plurality of parallel elongated light strips first cited on line 3 of claim 8. Accordingly, the Examiner has interpreted “claim 6” on line 2 as – claim [[6]]8 – in order to execute compact prosecution.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belgian publication BE 9016473 A (“D1”).
Re Claim 1:
The claim is an independent claim.
D1 discloses a plant illumination device (fixture 4, Fig 1) arranged to be positioned above a plant tray (tables 3) such as to illuminate plants (plants 2 illuminated by rays 7, Fig 1) in the plant tray (Fig 1), the device (4) comprising
a reflector (reflector system 5) and a light source (elongated 6),
wherein the light source (6) is arranged to emit light directed towards the reflector (arrangement shown in at least Figs 1 and 3; described in ¶ 0031 on PDF Page 14), and
wherein the light source (6) and the reflector (5) are positioned such that the light emitted by the light source is reflected by the reflector towards the plant tray (position shown in Fig 1 and described in ¶ 0031 on PDF Page 14),
wherein the reflector (5) and the light source (6) are both elongated along a length direction (elongation shown in Fig 2),
wherein the reflector (5) has a shape in a cross-sectional plane (plane shown in Fig 3) perpendicular to the length direction (Fig 2 transposed with Fig 3) wherein the shape comprises a central portion (portion of the two faceted reflective surfaces 12 and 13 that overlap an orthogonal projection of the two strongly curved reflectors 14 and 15; central portion) and two peripheral portions (remainder of 12 and 13; “peripheral portions”) adjacent to the central portion (Fig 2 transposed with Fig 3).
With further regard to the reflector (5), drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP § 2125. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (“PHOSITA”) to recognize D1 as at least suggesting the limitations below due to the configuration shown in Fig 3 of D1 with the Examiner’s annotations, below:
wherein the shape is symmetrical with respect to an axis of symmetry extending through the central portion along a height direction perpendicular to the length direction (shown in Fig 3 of D1, below),
wherein the central portion comprises a protrusion at the axis of symmetry wherein the protrusion protrudes downward along the height direction towards the light source (shown in Fig 3, below),
wherein the central portion of the reflector (5) is arranged to receive light from the light source (arrangement shown in Fig 3, below) and to reflect the received light towards the peripheral portions of the reflector (Fig 3, below), and
wherein the peripheral portions of the reflector are arranged to reflect the light received from the central portion towards the plant tray (Fig 3, below, transposed with Fig 1).
Figure 3 of D1 with the Examiner's annotations
PNG
media_image1.png
483
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
D1 further discloses wherein the protrusion divides the reflector into two adjacent concave elements (shown in Fig 3 of D1 with the Examiner’s annotations, above).
Re Claim 3:
The claim depends upon claim 2.
D1 further discloses wherein the central portion on one side of the axis of symmetry comprises an approximatively parabolic line which terminates on the axis of symmetry such as to form the protrusion of the central portion of the reflector (shown in Fig 3 of D1 with the Examiner’s annotations, above).
Re Claim 4:
The claim depends upon claim 3.
With further regard to the parabolic line, ), drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); see also MPEP § 2125. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the parabolic line of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. In the specific instance, both the claimed parabolic line and D1’s disclosed parabolic line are of a sufficient shape to redirect light emitted by the light source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting an equivalent parabolic line share to the claimed wherein the approximatively parabolic line is a piecewise linear approximation of a parabola, wherein the piecewise linear approximation comprises at least three linear sections for the purpose of redirecting light emitted by the light source.
Furthermore, upon careful review of Applicant’s disclosure, the claimed parabolic line (shown in Fig 8) is an obvious variant of the base embodiment shown in at least Figs 2a and 3. In particular, Applicant disclosed on Page 16 of the Specification that Figure 8 shows a shows a variant of the plant growing system of figure 3 where the central portion of the reflector 12 on each side of the symmetry axis is a piecewise linear approximation of a parabola. Each piecewise linear approximation of the parabola in particular comprises three linear sections 22a, 22b, 22c. Therefore, according to Applicant’s disclosure, there were no unexpected results or even benefits of the claimed embodiment represented by Fig 8 as compared to the base embodiment in Figs 2a-3.
Re Claim 5:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
D1 further discloses wherein the reflector comprises a width direction (the direction between 12 and 13; Figs 2-3) perpendicular to the height direction and the length direction (Fig 3 of D1 transposed with Fig 2), and wherein the central portion of the reflector is the portion of the reflector that is shaped such that with increasing distance from an apex of the protrusion along the width direction, the height along the height direction increases (Fig 3 of D1 transposed with Fig 2).
Re Claim 6:
The claim depends upon claim 5.
D1 further discloses wherein the peripheral portions of the reflector are the portions of the reflector that are substantially flat (substantially flat portions are shown at the outermost s of 12 and 13, Fig 3) or wherein the peripheral portions of the reflector are the portions of the reflector that are shaped such that with increasing distance from the apex of the protrusion along the width direction, the height along the height direction decreases (shown in Fig 3 of D1 with the Examiner’s annotations, below).
Re Claim 7:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
With further regard to the light source, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting wherein the light source (6) is arranged to emit PAR light due to the omission of IR light and UV light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-9 and 11-13 are 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.
Below is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Re Claim 8:
The closest prior art of record (D1) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of a plurality of parallel elongated light strips as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 9:
The claim contains allowable subject matter due to its dependence on intervening claim 8.
Re Claim 11:
The closest prior art of record (D1) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the diffuse reflectance of the peripheral portions is higher than the diffuse reflectance of the central portion as set forth in the claim.
Re Claims 12-13:
The claims contain allowable subject matter due to their dependence on intervening claim 11.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Below is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The claim contains allowable subject matter due to its interpreted dependence on intervening claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Keen (US 20090279303 A1) discloses in ¶ 0002 of the background that hydropic plant growing systems are well-known within the art with at least the description of (indoor) hydroponic and soil-based plant growing systems have become indispensable in the indoor horticultural industry. Each system includes and requires plant nutrient media and containers, climate control, lighting, and hydration. This disclosure is relevant to withdrawn claim 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights