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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386 (c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statements filed 11/4/2024 and 12/31/2024 have been considered and are included in the file.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the instant application is claiming a process, therefore, steps of the process should be listed in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Method of Growing Saffron Plants.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 2, “according to growth stage” should be changed to --according to a growth stage--.
In claim 4, line 2, “plants and of growing environment” should be changed to --plants and of the controlled environment--.
In claim 6, lines 2-3, “enabling inspection of health condition of said saffron plants and to monitor growing process” should be changed to --enabling inspection of health conditions of said saffron plants and to monitor a growing process--.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (CN 108990461 A, noted in IDS dated 11/4/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Mao et al. discloses a method of growing saffron plants indoor (paragraphs [0004] and [0041]-[0054] of the machine translation), the method comprising: allowing method corms of said saffron plans to flower so as to obtain flowering plants (paragraph [0053] of the machine translation); harvesting said flowering plants (paragraphs [0041]-[0043] of the machine translation); and subsequently exposing said mother corms to a temperature of 5 ºC so as to induce initiation of daughter corms (paragraph [0047] of the machine translation); inducing in said daughter corms vegetative growth at a temperature of 17 °C to obtain foliating plants (paragraph [0053] of the machine translation); inducing dormancy in said foliating plants at a temperature of 23-25 ºC and water deprivation so as to obtain dormant plants (paragraph [0050] of the machine translation); exposing said dormant plants to light and water deprivation, to induce curing and flower initiation of said daughter corms (paragraph [0051] of the machine translation).
Please note there are several embodiments mentioned within Mao et al., and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method Mao et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to include variations of embodiments that are taught by Mao et al. as obvious to try with a limited number of embodiments to choose from within the disclosure of Mao et al.
Mao et al. does not exactly disclose exposing said mother corms to a temperature of 8-12 ºC, inducing in said daughter corms vegetative growth at a temperature of 17-24 °C, inducing dormancy in said foliating plants at a temperature of 24-30 ºC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature ranges of exposing said mother corms to a temperature of 8-12 ºC, inducing in said daughter corms vegetative growth at a temperature of 17-24 °C, inducing dormancy in said foliating plants at a temperature of 24-30 ºC, as these ranges are either overlapping or close to a range that would provide the proper acceleration for the growth of the saffron plants. Further it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (CN 108990461 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fair (US 2016/0286733).
Regarding claim 2, Mao et al. teaches the method of claim 1, however, does not teach the method performed in an automatic system for indoor cultivation.
Fail teaches a method for growing plants indoors, wherein the method is performed in an automatic system for indoor cultivation (paragraph [0077] teaches that the method can be automated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mao et al. to become automated as taught by Fail, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce time and labor for increased productivity. Further, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 3, Mao et al. as modified by Fair teaches the method of claim 2, and teaches (references to Fair) wherein said automatic system features a plurality of units (paragraph [0025], “areas, for example individual rooms or structures”) each featuring a controlled environment according to growth stage of said saffron plants (paragraph [0025], “rooms… corresponding to various stages in the growth cycle of a plant”) and wherein transition of said saffron plants between said plurality of units is according to said growth stage of said saffron plants (paragraph [0025], “if one plant from the first room reaches the point of its growth cycle… that plant can be moved to the second room”) and wherein said growth stage of said saffron plants in each of said plurality of units is synchronized (the agricultural device (100) allows for the movement of one or more plants at a time through the different areas providing synchronicity).
Regarding claim 8, Mao et al. as modified by Fair teaches the method of claim 2, and teaches (references to Fair) wherein said saffron plants are planted in trays positioned on automatic moveable shelves (the agricultural device (100) provides shelves, and as noted in paragraph [0077] the movement can be fully automated).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (CN 108990461 A) in view of Fair (US 2016/0286733) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Maman (WO 2017/103922, noted in IDS dated 11/4/2024).
Regarding claim 4, Mao et al. as modified by Fair teaches the method of claim 3. However, Mao et al. as modified by Fair does not explicitly teach wherein at least one unit of said plurality of units comprises one or more sensors for obtaining data that represents a condition of the saffron plants and of growing environment.
Maman et al. teaches a method for growing plants wherein at least one unit () of said plurality of units comprises one or more sensors (22) for obtaining data that represents a condition of the saffron plants and of growing environment (section at the bottom of page 6 teaches the sensors are for data of the plant and growing environment of the unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mao et al. modified by Fair to include sensors for obtaining data representing the conditions of the saffron plants and the growing environment as taught by Maman et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the data for the decisions required in the automation of the process.
Regarding claim 5, Mao et al. as modified by Fair and Maman et al. teaches the method of claim 4, and teaches (references to Maman et al.) wherein said at least one unit comprises a heating and cooling system and a circulation system to enable at least the control of the temperature and humidity within an interior volume of said at least one unit (top of page 12 teaches the A/C system providing heating and cooling along with air circulation).
Regarding claim 6, Mao et al. as modified by Fair and Maman et al. teaches the method of claim 4, and teaches (references to Maman et al.) wherein said at least one unit comprises a camera for at least providing visual data of said saffron plants, thereby enabling inspection of health conditions of said saffron plants and to monitor growing process (bottom of page 12 – top of page 13 teaches a camera providing visual data of the plants allowing for monitoring, i.e. inspection).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (CN 108990461 A) in view of Fair (US 2016/0286733) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lert, JR. et al. (US 2019/0307077, hereinafter “Lert”).
Regarding claim 7, Mao et al. as modified by Fair teaches the method of claim 2, and teaches (references to Fair) the method comprising a robotic apparatus (paragraph [0046] teaches robotic-based machines for mobility), however, Mao et al. as modified by Fair does not explicitly teach the robotic apparatus for said harvesting.
Lert teaches an automated method of growing plants indoors, wherein a robotic apparatus is used for harvesting (paragraph [0026] teaches the use of robots for activities such as harvesting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mao et al. as modified by Fair to include a robotic apparatus for harvesting as taught by Lert, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to fully automate the process, and reduce labor and time required for completing the harvesting of the plants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Zhong (CN 111713317) teaches automation of growing plants indoors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643