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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s Election/Restriction response filed 2/20/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 2/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the pest illumination patterns” lacks antecedent basis. The pest management illumination patterns of the preamble of claim 1 does not equate to a pest illumination pattern. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim includes the term “sat at least one sensor”, however no sensor has been introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: monitoring an impact of said at least one test optical property on the undesirable organism and/or the natural predator in the corresponding test zone. Otherwise, claims 1 and 7 merely illuminate plants in different zones without any step that can be considered “determining”.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood. Any claims that depend upon claims rejected above are also considered rejected via dependency.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0000061).
Regarding claim 1, Shimoda discloses:
A method for determining pest management illumination patterns within a horticultural structure (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0101), the method comprising: defining a control zone within the horticultural structure, the control zone being associated with a first horticultural light source (see paragraph 0101 – one of the light zones is considered a control zone), the first horticultural light source being configured to illuminate a control plant or crop according to a control lighting scenario; in the control zone, illuminating the control plant or crop with the first horticultural light source according to the control lighting scenario; defining a plurality of test zones within the horticultural structure (the remaining 3 zones of paragraph 0101), each test zone being associated with a corresponding horticultural light source; for each test zone of the plurality of test zones: providing a natural predator to the undesirable organism in the horticultural structure (see paragraph 0101) to affect the presence of the undesirable organism in the test zone; and illuminating a respective test plant or crop according to a corresponding test lighting scenario with said corresponding horticultural light source (see paragraph 0101), the corresponding test lighting scenario having at least one test optical property affecting a behavior of the natural predator, said at least one test optical property being different from one test zone to another (see paragraph 0101).
Shimoda does not disclose:
identifying an undesirable organism in the test zone.
Although Shimoda focuses on the predator insects, paragraphs 0003-0005 describe the use of predator insects to control pest insects. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the distribution and presence of predator insects would directly affect any pest insects present. More predator insects results in more predation of pests and less predator insects results in less predation of pest insects.
Regarding claim 2, Shimoda as modified discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring an impact of said at least one test optical property on the undesirable organism and/or the natural predator in the corresponding test zone (see paragraph 0101).
Regarding claim 3, Shimoda as modified discloses:
The method of claim 2, further comprising comparing the impact of said at least one test optical property to determine the pest illumination patterns to be used to reduce or eliminate a population of the undesirable organisms (see at least paragraph 0101).
Regarding claim 4, Shimoda as modified discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein defining the control zone comprises creating the control zone, delimiting the limits of the control zone and/or adjusting the dimensions of the control zone (see at least paragraph 0101 – the zone is the area irradiated by the light).
Regarding claim 5, Shimoda as modified discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein defining the plurality of test zones comprises creating the plurality of test zones, delimiting the limits of plurality of test zones and/or adjusting the dimensions of the plurality of test zones zone (see at least paragraph 0101 – the zone is the area irradiated by the light).
Regarding claim 6, Shimoda as modified discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting the control lighting scenario and/or the corresponding test lighting scenario, based on a correlation between illumination conditions during the control lighting scenario and the corresponding test lighting scenario and impacts of the illumination conditions on the presence or absence of the undesirable organisms (the disclosed experiments lead to the preferential lighting of the claims of Shimoda).
Regarding claim 7, see the rejection of claim 1. Regarding the limitations of a controller, a human running the experiment(s) disclosed in at least paragraph 0101 is considered the controller).
Regarding claim 8, Shimoda as modified discloses:
The system of claim 7, further comprising at least one sensor configured to monitor an impact of said at least one test optical property on the undesirable organism and/or the natural predator in the corresponding test zone in the plurality of test zones (the eyes of the human(s) running the experiment(s)).
Regarding claim 9, Shimoda as modified discloses:
The system of claim 8, wherein said at least one controller is configured to compare the impact of said at least one test optical property to determine the pest illumination patterns to be used to reduce or eliminate a population of the undesirable organisms (human running the experiment).
Regarding claim 10, Shimoda as modified discloses:
The system of claim 7, further comprising one or more sensors configured to detect characteristics associated with the natural predators (human running the experiment).
Regarding claim 11, Shimoda as modified discloses:
The system of claim 10, wherein the characteristics comprise at least one of a species of the natural predator, a sex of the natural predator and a physiological state of the natural predator (see paragraph 0102).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm 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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644