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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1, line 12, recites the limitation “during with.” Examiner recommends correction to “during which.” Claims 3 and 10 are similarly objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicole et al. (US 20200253129 A1), hereinafter Nicole, in view of Browne et al. (US 8350490 B2), hereinafter Browne, and Yoshimura et al. (JP 2011212011 A), hereinafter Yoshimura.
Regarding claim 1, Nicole discloses a plant cultivation method comprising
performing irradiation with main light for photosynthesis (¶ 0041, lines 8-12, “Further the horticulture light for stimulating photosynthesis may be received by the plants from the sun [i.e. naturally] and/or may be provided by one or more lighting devices of the horticulture arrangement or the horticulture lighting system”) and additional light for accelerating photosynthesis of a plant by the main light in at least a part of a cultivation period from sowing to harvest (¶ 0069, lines 26-29, “The second horticulture light provided [or received] during the second period may especially be used for [stimulating] photosynthesis”), wherein
a light intensity of the main light is consistent and larger than a light intensity of the additional light, and a photosynthesis effective photon flux density [or PPFD] of the main light is larger than a light compensation point wherein the PPFD is defined as an amount of light radiation with which the plant is irradiated per unit area per second (¶ 0042, lines 19-23, “Especially, the intensity of the [second] horticulture light during the second period is smaller than the intensity of the [first] horticulture light during the pulse period, such as at maximum 75% of the light intensity [in μmol/m2/s] provided during the pulse period”),
the additional light includes additional signal light the additional signal light being pulsed, alternatively turning on and off at a predetermined signal period (¶ 0069, lines 15-29, “When e.g. based on the sensor signal the control system determines that the plant generates biomass faster than a predefined scheme, one or more lighting parameters of the pulse such as pulse duration [pulse width], pulse maximum intensity or pulse spectral distribution may be changed, especially such that less blue photons may be provided; likewise, the frequency with which the pulse is provided may optionally be decreased. In a similar way, lighting parameters of the second horticulture light during the second period may be kept constant, increased or decreased. In general, however, the number of lighting periods during a daily cycle may in embodiments be kept constant. The second horticulture light provided [or received] during the second period may especially be used for [stimulating] photosynthesis;” ¶ 0079, “As can be concluded from the above, the method may further also comprise providing the second horticulture light according to a predefined scheme wherein a high intensity period with more or increasing second horticulture light intensity alternates with a low intensity period with no, less or reducing second] horticulture light intensity, and wherein the method further comprises selecting the pulse within a time period of 0.5 h preceding and 0.5 h following a first time, defined as the time wherein a period with more or increasing second horticulture light intensity commences, wherein especially the high intensity period and low intensity period are each at least an hour, and wherein a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the low intensity period is at maximum 50%, such as at maximum 20%, of a time averaged intensity of the second horticulture light during the high intensity period”) and a wavelength of the additional signal light ranges from 600 nm to 710 nm to excite a red light receptor in the plant (¶ 0029, lines 1-13, “The term “horticulture light” especially refers to light having one more wavelengths in one or more of a first wavelength region of 400-475 nm and a second wavelength region of 625-675 nm. The relative energies [watt] of the light from these regions included in the horticulture light may depend upon the type of plant and/or the growth phase. Hence, a recipe may define the ratio, optionally as function of time, for one or more types of plants, of light in the first wavelength region of 400-475 nm versus light in the second wavelength region of 625-675 nm. Especially, the term ‘horticulture light’ may refer to light having wavelengths in the PAR region [the photosynthetically active region from 400-700 nm];” ¶ 0031, lines 4-9, “The second horticulture light may especially have light of one more wavelengths in one or more of a first wavelength region of 400-475 nm, a second wavelength region of 625-675 nm, and a third wavelength range of 700-850 nm, such as [at least] 700-800 nm”).
Nicole, however, fails to specifically disclose the light intensity of the pulsed additional signal light at the signal period forms a trapezoidal pattern that is composed with a rise time during which the light intensity increases, the peak time during which the light intensity is maintained with a maximum value, and a fall time during which the light intensity decreases, an additional relaxation light being wave light of which light intensity periodically fluctuates at a predetermined wave period such that the light intensity of the additional relaxation light gradually changes to form a wave pattern.
Browne is in the field of plant lighting and teaches the light intensity of the pulsed additional signal light at the signal period forms a trapezoidal pattern that is composed with a rise time during which the light intensity increases, the peak time during which the light intensity is maintained with a maximum value, and a fall time during which the light intensity (Col. 4, lines 26-30, “In FIG. 4, in a highly schematic manner, a possible periodic variation of the crop lighting intensity is represented. The dimmer devices are correspondingly controlled according to a predetermined program which corresponds to the desired variation of the crop lighting level”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole such that light intensity of the pulsed additional signal light at the signal period forms a trapezoidal pattern that is composed with a rise time during which the light intensity increases, the peak time during which the light intensity is maintained with a maximum value, and a fall time during which the light intensity, as taught by the lighting system of Browne. The offset trapezoidal patterns of light intensity would reduce the variation of the consumed electric power, which would improve overall power management for the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Yoshimura is in the field of plant lighting and teaches an additional relaxation light being wave light of which light intensity periodically fluctuates at a predetermined wave period such that the light intensity of the additional relaxation light gradually changes to form a wave pattern (¶ 0014, lines 2-8, “illumination is performed using a plurality of light sources, each of which emits light having an emission peak wavelength in the green to red region, and the emission intensity of each of the plurality of light sources changes independently in a pattern in which one cycle consists of a predetermined light period width and a dark period width whose time-average brightness is smaller than the light period width, and the pattern has a duty of 50% or less as shown in the following formula [1]: Duty [%] = Light Period Width / [Light Period Width + Dark Period Width] × 100,” ¶ 0150, “The light intensity change pattern [waveform] of the light source is not limited to the above waveform examples 1 to 6, and variations may be used that appropriately combine the above ideas of [1] not making the light amount zero during the relative dark period, [2] not making the light intensity constant during the relative dark period, and [3] inserting sub-pulses during the relative dark period, the relative light period, or both,” ¶ 0151, lines 1 and 2, “In particular, when a sub-pulse is used, the frequency of the sub-pulse is preferably four times or more the frequency of the main pulse”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole in view of Browne to include an additional relaxation light being wave light of which light intensity periodically fluctuates at a predetermined wave period such that the light intensity of the additional relaxation light gradually changes to form a wave pattern, as taught by the lighting system of Yoshimura. The variable intensities would aid in insect control, which would improve overall growth conditions for the plants. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to adjust the gradients of the methods of Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura such that a gradient of the light intensity of the additional relaxation light is smaller than a gradient of the light intensity either at the rise time or at the fall time of the additional signal light, in order to further isolate the effects of each light. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 3, Nicole discloses a plant cultivation device which is irradiated with main light for photosynthesis of a plant (¶ 0041, lines 8-12), the plant cultivation device comprising:
an additional light source configured to emit additional light for accelerating photosynthesis of a plant by the main light (¶ 0069, lines 26-29); and
an irradiation light control portion capable of driving and controlling the additional light source (¶ 0051, “As indicated above, the control system is configured to control the first, and optionally second, horticulture light. This may in embodiments [see also above] imply that the control system essentially only provides the wake up pulses, but may in other embodiments imply that the control system is configured to control essentially all lighting that is used to irradiate the plants, i.e. both the first and second horticulture lighting. Especially in plant factories, essentially all light received by the plants is artificial lighting, in which case the control system may control both the first and second horticulture light that is received by the plants”),
wherein the additional light source includes
an additional signal light source configured to emit additional signal light that is pulsed and alternatively turns on and off at a predetermined signal period (¶ 0069, lines 15-29; ¶ 0079), and
the wavelength of the additional signal light includes a light absorption wavelength band of a red light receptor in the plant (¶ 0031, lines 4-9).
Nicole, however, fails to specifically disclose the light intensity of the pulsed additional signal light at the signal period forms a trapezoidal pattern that is composed with a rise time during which the light intensity increases, a peak time during which the light intensity is maintained with a maximum value, and a fall time during which the light intensity decreases, and an additional relaxation light source configured to emit additional relaxation light of which light intensity periodically fluctuates at a predetermined wave period such that the light intensity of the additional relaxation light gradually changes to form a wave pattern and a gradient of the light intensity of the additional relaxation light is smaller than a gradient of the light intensity either at the rise time or at the fall time of the additional signal light.
Browne teaches the light intensity of the pulsed additional signal light at the signal period forms a trapezoidal pattern that is composed with a rise time during which the light intensity increases, the peak time during which the light intensity is maintained with a maximum value, and a fall time during which the light intensity (Col. 4, lines 26-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nicole such that light intensity of the pulsed additional signal light at the signal period forms a trapezoidal pattern that is composed with a rise time during which the light intensity increases, the peak time during which the light intensity is maintained with a maximum value, and a fall time during which the light intensity, as taught by the lighting system of Browne. The offset trapezoidal patterns of light intensity would reduce the variation of the consumed electric power, which would improve overall power management for the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Yoshimura teaches an additional relaxation light source configured to emit additional relaxation light of which light intensity periodically fluctuates at a predetermined wave period such that the light intensity of the additional relaxation light gradually changes to form a wave pattern (¶ 0014, lines 2-8, ¶ 0150, ¶ 0151, lines 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nicole in view of Browne to include an additional relaxation light source configured to emit additional relaxation light of which light intensity periodically fluctuates at a predetermined wave period such that the light intensity of the additional relaxation light gradually changes to form a wave pattern, as taught by the lighting system of Yoshimura. The variable intensities would aid in insect control, which would improve overall growth conditions for the plants. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to adjust the gradients of the device of Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura such that a gradient of the light intensity of the additional relaxation light is smaller than a gradient of the light intensity either at the rise time or at the fall time of the additional signal light, in order to further isolate the effects of each light. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 4, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 1.
Nicole discloses comprising: a first stage of performing cultivation with the additional light; and a second stage of performing cultivation with the additional light irradiation stopped (¶ 0075, lines 4-14, “there is disclosed a method of providing [first] horticulture light to plants in a horticulture arrangement, especially as defined herein, the method comprising providing—according to a predetermined time scheme and/or as function of a sensor signal—a light pulse of horticulture light in a spectral wavelength region at least comprising blue light during a light pulse period selected from a range of 1-60 min. Especially, the light pulse period precedes or at least partially overlaps a second period of second horticulture light, wherein the second period is longer than the light pulse period”).
Regarding claim 6, Nicole in view of view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 4.
Nicole discloses wherein a cultivation target is selected from the group consisting of seedlings, phytoplankton, and microalgae (¶ 0043, lines 1-3, “In use, the arrangement may include a plant support with a plant, or a plant support with a seed, or a plant support with a seedling”).
Regarding claim 7, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the device of claim 3.
Nicole discloses wherein the device is configured to emit the additional light at a first stage of performing cultivation with the additional light; and not to emit the additional light at a second stage of performing cultivation, which occurs following the first stage, so that only the main light is used in the second stage (¶ 0075, lines 4-14).
Regarding claim 10, Nicole discloses a method for producing a photosynthetic organism comprising
performing irradiation with main light for photosynthesis (¶ 0041, lines 8-12) and irradiation with additional light for accelerating photosynthesis of the photosynthetic organism by the main light in at least a part of a cultivation period from sowing to harvest (¶ 0069, lines 26-29), wherein
a light intensity of the main light is consistent and larger than a light intensity of the additional light, and a photosynthesis effective photon flux density [or PPFD] of the main light is larger than a light compensation point wherein the PPFD is defined as an amount of light radiation with which the plant is irradiated per unit area per second (¶ 0042, lines 19-23),
the additional light includes additional signal light the additional signal light being pulsed, alternatively turning on and off at a predetermined signal period (¶ 0069, lines 15-29; ¶ 0079) and a wavelength of the additional signal light ranges from 600 nm to 710 nm to excite a red light receptor in the plant (¶ 0029, lines 1-13; ¶ 0031, lines 4-9).
Nicole, however, fails to specifically disclose the light intensity of the pulsed additional signal light at the signal period forms a trapezoidal pattern that is composed with a rise time during which the light intensity increases, the peak time during which the light intensity is maintained with a maximum value, and a fall time during which the light intensity decreases, an additional relaxation light being wave light of which light intensity periodically fluctuates at a predetermined wave period such that the light intensity of the additional relaxation light gradually changes to form a wave pattern.
Browne teaches the light intensity of the pulsed additional signal light at the signal period forms a trapezoidal pattern that is composed with a rise time during which the light intensity increases, the peak time during which the light intensity is maintained with a maximum value, and a fall time during which the light intensity (Col. 4, lines 26-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole such that light intensity of the pulsed additional signal light at the signal period forms a trapezoidal pattern that is composed with a rise time during which the light intensity increases, the peak time during which the light intensity is maintained with a maximum value, and a fall time during which the light intensity, as taught by the lighting system of Browne. The offset trapezoidal patterns of light intensity would reduce the variation of the consumed electric power, which would improve overall power management for the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Yoshimura teaches an additional relaxation light being wave light of which light intensity periodically fluctuates at a predetermined wave period such that the light intensity of the additional relaxation light gradually changes to form a wave pattern (¶ 0014, lines 2-8; ¶ 0150; ¶ 0151, lines 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole in view of Browne to include an additional relaxation light being wave light of which light intensity periodically fluctuates at a predetermined wave period such that the light intensity of the additional relaxation light gradually changes to form a wave pattern, as taught by the lighting system of Yoshimura. The variable intensities would aid in insect control, which would improve overall growth conditions for the plants. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to adjust the gradients of the methods of Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura such that a gradient of the light intensity of the additional relaxation light is smaller than a gradient of the light intensity either at the rise time or at the fall time of the additional signal light, in order to further isolate the effects of each light. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 11, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 10.
Nicole discloses a seedling grown by the method for producing a photosynthetic organism (¶ 0043, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 10.
Nicole discloses a seed irradiated with the additional light by the method for producing a photosynthetic organism (¶ 0043, lines 1-3).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicole (US 20200253129 A1), in view of Browne (US 8350490 B2) and Yoshimura (JP 2011212011 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ishida et al. (US 20220394933 A1), hereinafter Ishida.
Regarding claim 2, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein a leaf or a bud of a plant is cut off from a root, a branch, or a stem, only the leaf or the bud is irradiated with the main light for a certain period of time, and then the leaf or the bud is held in a dark place for a certain period of time.
Ishida is in the field of plant lighting and teaches wherein a leaf or a bud of a plant is cut off from a root, a branch, or a stem, only the leaf or the bud is irradiated with the main light for a certain period of time (¶ 0149, lines 1-3, “Next, as for the nine cut leaves in each test plot, surfaces of leaf blades on the cut leaves were irradiated with the near-infrared light”), and then the leaf or the bud is held in a dark place for a certain period of time (¶ 0150, lines 1 and 2, “After all the prepared samples were stored in a dark place at 25° C. for three days”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura such that a leaf or a bud of a plant is cut off from a root, a branch, or a stem, only the leaf or the bud is irradiated with the main light for a certain period of time, and then the leaf or the bud is held in a dark place for a certain period of time, as taught by the lighting method of Ishida. The cutting of the leaves and exposure to light and dark, would allow the user to conduct testing with the method by using samples in controlled environments, which would give the user more visibility over the method through experimentation. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein a cultivation target region is irradiated with the additional light from a moving object.
Ishida teaches wherein a cultivation target region is irradiated with the additional light from a moving object (handcart-type device 1; Figs. 9 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura such that a cultivation target region is irradiated with the additional light from a moving object, as taught by the lighting method of Ishida. The irradiation being supplied from a moving object would add flexibility to the method, as the user could cover larger or specifically tailored areas of plants without using excess fixed lighting arrays. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicole (US 20200253129 A1), in view of Browne (US 8350490 B2) and Yoshimura (JP 2011212011 A) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Dam (US 20210259168 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 4, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the second stage is performed by moving a plant from a place where the first stage is performed to another place.
Dam is in the field of plant lighting and teaches wherein the second stage is performed by moving a plant from a place where the first stage is performed to another place (¶ 0053, lines 8-14, “Accordingly, as a plant trough 104 progresses along conveyor path 192, the plant trough 104 will move from one lighting region 264a, where it had been exposed to first lighting conditions from light supply modules 252a-b, to another lighting region 264b where it will be exposed to lighting conditions from subsequent light supply modules 252c-d, and so forth”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura such that the second stage is performed by moving a plant from a place where the first stage is performed to another place, as taught by the lighting method of Dam. This would allow for first and second lighting to be provided continuously, while moving plants through the system, which would improve overall efficiency of the method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicole (US 20200253129 A1), in view of Browne (US 8350490 B2) and Yoshimura (JP 2011212011 A) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Jovine (US 20130269244 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 10, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose phytoplankton grown by the method for producing a photosynthetic organism.
Jovine is in the field of plant lighting and cultivation and teaches phytoplankton grown by the method for producing a photosynthetic organism (¶ 0137, “Aggregation can be further encouraged by the addition of flocculants and coagulants such as alum and polymeric flocculants to further accelerate the formation of ‘marine snow’. Marine snow is used to describe the continuous shower of mostly organic detritus [including dead or dying marine animals and plants, plankton, protists [diatoms] fecal matter, and inorganic dust] falling from the upper layers of the water column in the deep ocean. In the context of the present invention, marine snow includes the waste products of the algae, and any other particulates or materials that result in aggregation of the algae”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting and cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura to include phytoplankton grown by the method for producing a photosynthetic organism, as taught by the cultivation method of Jovine. This would allow for more photosynthetic organisms to be grown, which would expand the use case of the overall method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 10, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose microalgae grown by the method for producing a photosynthetic organism.
Jovine is in the field of plant lighting and cultivation and teaches microalgae grown by the method for producing a photosynthetic organism (¶ 0136, lines 2-7, “algae are aggregated prior to being harvested since aggregates of the algae rapidly settle and can be much more easily harvested. Aggregation may occur naturally as the algae mature. E. huxleyi algae has a tendency to aggregate naturally when mature”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting and cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura to include microalgae grown by the method for producing a photosynthetic organism, as taught by the cultivation method of Jovine. This would allow for more photosynthetic organisms to be grown, which would expand the use case of the overall method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 10, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose a carbon dioxide absorbing device for performing the method for producing a photosynthetic organism.
Jovine teaches a carbon dioxide absorbing device for performing the method for producing a photosynthetic organism (¶ 0163, lines 7-16, “algal cells cycle the length of the raceway pond approximately 100 cycles/day without experiencing significant shear. At this flow rate, oxygen that is produced by the algae can readily equilibrate and prevent the build-up of reactive O.sub.2 species that contribute to photoinhibition [Falkowski et al, 1985]. Similarly, through this active atmospheric interference, the seawater within the raceway ponds can absorb and dissolve significant amounts of CO2, which lowers the CO2 input costs for these raceway ponds”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting and cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicole in view of Browne and Yoshimura to include a carbon dioxide absorbing device for performing the method for producing a photosynthetic organism, as taught by the cultivation method of Jovine. This would reduce CO2- input costs for raceway ponds, which would improve the efficiency of the overall method. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Dobrinsky et al., US 20170311553 A1, discusses an ultraviolet plant illumination system.
McCord, US 20180007838 A1, discusses multiple colors, and color palettes, of narrowband photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) time-staged over hours, days, and growing seasons yields superior plant growth.
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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642