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 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(s) 12 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "flying insects" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6-12, 14-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Quilici (US Pub. 2020/0221645 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Quilici discloses a system for determining pollination illumination patterns within a horticultural structure, the system comprising:
a first horticultural light source configured to illuminate a control plant or crop according to a control lighting scenario; a second horticultural light source configured to illuminate a test plant or crop according to a test lighting scenario (Abstract, lines 1-3: “A horticultural luminaire includes a first and second horticultural light sources to provide growth lighting to a plant at a first and second wavelengths”);
at least one sensor configured to monitor a pollination-related property of the test plant or crop and a pollination-related property of the control plant or crop (Abstract, lines 7-13: “A LiDAR sensor is connected to the lighting control unit to receive the first and second control signals, and having optics to detect reflected first and second growth lighting to determine the distance from plant to sensor and a biometric property of the plant from the received first and second control signals and detected first and second reflected second growth lighting”);
and at least one controller in data communication with the first horticultural light source, the second horticultural light source and said at least one sensor (Abstract, lines 3-7: “A control unit provides first lighting control signals to the first horticultural light source to modulate the first growth lighting and provides second lighting control signals to the second horticultural light source to modulate the second growth lighting”), said at least one controller being configured for:
defining a control zone within the horticultural structure, the control zone being associated with a first horticultural light source; defining a test zone within the horticultural structure, the test zone being associated with a second horticultural light source (Fig. 1, each horticultural light source 110 serves its own respective plants 114);
sending first illumination instructions to the first horticultural light source to irradiate the control plant or crop according to the control lighting scenario in the control zone; sending second illumination instructions to the second horticultural light source to irradiate the test plant or crop according to the test lighting scenario in the test zone (Pg. 1, [0004], lines 1-11: “In some implementations, a horticultural luminaire includes a horticultural luminaire that includes a first horticultural light source configured to provide first growth lighting to a plant at a first wavelength, a second horticultural light source configured to provide second growth lighting to the plant at a second wavelength, a lighting control unit configured to provide first lighting control signals to the first horticultural light source to modulate the first growth lighting and to provide second lighting control signals to the second horticultural light source to modulate the second growth lighting”);
and following a release of pollinators within the horticultural structure, determining whether the test lighting scenario impacts a pollination-related property of the test plant or crop with respect to a pollination-related property of the control plant or crop (Pg. 1, [0005], lines 1-6: “In some implementations, the processor is configured to determine the biometric property of the plant by determining phase shifts of modulations of the first growth lighting and modulations of the second growth lighting based on the received first and second control signals and detected first and second reflected second growth lighting”).
Regarding claim 7, Quilici discloses a first sensor associated with the control plant or crop to track the pollination-related property of the control plant or crops (Fig. 1, LiDAR sensors 116).
Regarding claim 8, Quilici discloses a second sensor associated with the test plant or crop to track the pollination-related property of the test plant or crop (Fig. 1, LiDAR sensors 116).
Regarding claim 9, Quilici discloses wherein at least one of the first sensor and the second sensor is a camera or a photodetector (LiDAR comprises a photodetector).
Regarding claim 10, Quilici discloses wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are each configured to detect characteristics associated with flying insects (Pg. 2, [0017], lines 11-16: “Factors such as mold growth, insects, and disease can reduce crop yield and quality. Early detection of a problem enables remedial action to be taken, for example to change growing conditions within the enclosed agricultural facility, to reduce the chance that the crop yield will be diminished”).
Regarding claim 11, Quilici discloses wherein the characteristics are at least one of a species of the flying insects, a sex of the flying insects, a physiological state of the flying insects and a relative position of the flying insects with respect to the first horticultural light source and/or the second horticultural source (LiDAR is known in the art to be capable of detecting the physiological state and relative position of a moving object).
Regarding claim 12, Quilici discloses wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are each configured to detect a presence or an absence of the flying insects (Pg. 2, [0017], lines 11-16: “Factors such as mold growth, insects, and disease can reduce crop yield and quality. Early detection of a problem enables remedial action to be taken, for example to change growing conditions within the enclosed agricultural facility, to reduce the chance that the crop yield will be diminished”).
Regarding claim 14, Quilici discloses wherein each one of the control zone and the test zone comprises one or more rows of plants or crops (Fig. 1, plants 114).
Regarding claim 15, Quilici discloses wherein the first horticultural source and the second horticultural source each comprise a dedicated controller (Fig. 1, management system 136).
Regarding claim 18, Quilici discloses a system for assisting pollination within a horticultural structure, the system comprising:
a first horticultural light source configured to illuminate a first group of plants or crops according to a lighting scenario, the lighting scenario having optical properties based on a targeted photosynthetic growth of the first group of plants or crops; a second horticultural light source configured to illuminate a second group of plants or crops according to a supplemented lighting scenario, the supplemented lighting scenario having at least one expected pollination-enhancing feature (Abstract, lines 1-3: “A horticultural luminaire includes a first and second horticultural light sources to provide growth lighting to a plant at a first and second wavelengths”. Each light source is capable of emitting a variety of patterns of light based on the signal received from the management system);
and at least one controller in data communication with the first horticultural light source (Abstract, lines 3-7: “A control unit provides first lighting control signals to the first horticultural light source to modulate the first growth lighting and provides second lighting control signals to the second horticultural light source to modulate the second growth lighting”), the second horticultural light source, said at least one controller being configured for:
defining a first zone within the horticultural structure, the first zone being associated with the first horticultural light source; and defining a second zone within the horticultural structure, the second zone being associated with the second horticultural light source (Fig. 1, each horticultural light source 110 serves its own respective plants 114).
Regarding claim 19, Quilici discloses at least one sensor configured to monitor a distribution of pollinators within the first zone and the second zone, wherein said at least one controller is further configured for determining whether said at least one expected pollination-enhancing feature of the supplemented lighting scenario affects the distribution of the pollinators within the second zone in comparison with the first zone, based on the monitoring carried out by said at least one sensor (Abstract, lines 7-13: “A LiDAR sensor is connected to the lighting control unit to receive the first and second control signals, and having optics to detect reflected first and second growth lighting to determine the distance from plant to sensor and a biometric property of the plant from the received first and second control signals and detected first and second reflected second growth lighting”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici (US Pub. 2020/0221645 A1) in view of Aikala (US Pub. 2017/0071044 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Quilici discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Aikala, similarly drawn to a method for providing horticultural light to a plant, a user interface allowing an end user to enter a pattern discovery strategy as a programming language or a visual programming interface (Pg. 2, [0041], lines 1-16: “According to another embodiment of the present invention, the method and system generates an artificial light spectrum at a particular time interval while growing a plant in a closed environment. The present system is user friendly, providing a user interface (UI) to input and based on the said input, the system executes a plurality of functions such as LED grid illumination as per the natural conditions of that plant. For example, the farmer might be operating the growth chamber in Finland, but in the winter, but he could be planting pineapple in the growth chamber. The farmer could then select Hawaiian summer natural outdoor light for his pineapples from the computer system. The farmer could also select the time of day for the simulated outdoor light, e.g. by selecting noon, the system would produce LED light that would correspond to the Hawaiian summer outdoor light at 12 o'clock noon.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Quilici to include the user interface of Aikala to allow for the user to manually input commands.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 16-17 are allowed. The prior art discloses some of the structure of the claimed invention but specifically fails to disclose the method of releasing pollinators into a testing area and collecting the subsequent relevant data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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 Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642