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, 5, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, and similarly in claims 11 and 16, “the locomotion device moves at an operating speed in a range of 1 km/hr to 10 km/hour” should read “the locomotion device is configured to move at an operating speed in a range of 1 km/hr to 10 km/hour” to emphasize the functional nature of the limitation, given that this is an apparatus claim
Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 5, “The apparatus of claim 1, the locomotion device” should read “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the locomotion device” for clarity purposes.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a locomotion device” in claim 1. While the specification does list examples of structure for this placeholder in Paragraphs [0087-0094], the bounds of the structure are unclear and therefore the specification does not provide sufficient description.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1, and similarly claims 11 and 16, states “a reflector body extending therefrom to which is mounted a UV-C light source operatively positioned relative to a reflector and operatively temperature controlled by an on-board temperature control unit to form a panel.” It is unclear what part of this limitation is forming the panel, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, is the temperature control unit forming the panel? Or is the combination of the reflector and light source forming the panel? The specification does not further clarify this point. The specification lists in Paragraph [0096] examples of power sources, however it is unclear if only the battery and alternator are autonomous energy sources or if the solar panels, an electric, combustion, internal combustion or hybrid engine are also considered autonomous energy sources.
Claim 1, and similarly claims 11 and 16, states “wherein the UV-C light source is operatively controlled to administer a dose of UV-C light based on a duration of exposure of at most two seconds.” It is unclear all of the doses combined would be no more than 2 seconds or if each individual pulse would be at most 2 seconds, thus rendering the claim indefinite. The claim reads as if the total time of all doses can be nor more and 2 seconds, however the specification paragraph [0034] states “wherein the light pulses delivered to the said biological material are of identical or different wavelengths and/or durations but less than or equal to two seconds.” The Office recommends amending this limitation to clarify that each individual pulse of light has a duration of at most 2 seconds.
Claim 7, and similarly claims 12 and 17, state “wherein the locomotion device has an autonomous energy source.” It is unclear exactly what an autonomous source of energy is, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, is the energy autonomous in that it does not need to be connected to a power grid? Or that it does not require fuel such as gasoline to be powered? Or that it does not require the assistance of a human? The specification does not further clarify this point.
Claim 11 sates “the user moves at an operating speed in a range of 1km/hr to 5 km/hour.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant is claiming the user as part of the structure of the device or not, thus rendering the claim indefinite. The Office recommends removing this limitation, in order to prevent the user from being claimed in an apparatus claim pertaining to the storage space on the user’s back.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim limitation “a locomotion means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification states in Paragraphs [0087-0094] “The means of locomotion 4 is advantageously a traction or propulsion means… The means of locomotion 4 may or may not include driving wheels that can travel on any type of road or rail. Depending on the nature of the surface, it may refer to a traction device consisting of wheels and assisted or not by motor. Non-limiting examples include but are not limited to: a wheelbarrow or trolley; a locomotion device with wheels running on rails, for example in the form of a specialised treatment trolley; a tractor coupled to a straddle carrier 5 for the largest areas to be treated, or a storage space with straps to be carried on the back, such as a rucksack. Preferably, the means of locomotion 4 used is a traction or propulsion device consisting of wheels assisted by a thermal or electric motor.” While the specification does have several examples of what the structure could be, the use of “”may or may not” and “it may refer to” and “Non-limiting examples include but are not limited to” makes it unclear as to what the bounds of the structure are. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-4, 8-10, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaloski (US 5040329) in view of Urban et al. (WO 2017/046389), Adams et al. (US 2019/0191517), Limpert et al. (US 2019/0223386), and Aiking et al. (US 2009/0272029).
Regarding Claim 1, Michaloski discloses an apparatus comprising:
a locomotion device (towing vehicle Figures 1 and 2) and having a reflector body extending therefrom (array of left UV lamp/reflector assemblies 9 and array of right UV lamp/reflector assemblies 10; reflector 50 Figure 3) to which is mounted a UVC light source (UV lamp sources 7; Figures 3 and 4; “said ultraviolet radiation is in said germicidal band within the wavelength range of 240 to 280 nanometers” Claim 2; “As shown in FIGS. 5, 7, 8 and Table 1 below, laboratory experiments prove that UV energy in the germicidal band…” Col. 4 lines 9-11) operatively positioned relative to a reflector (reflector 50);
wherein the panel has an optical power density between 300 W/m2 and 3000 W/m2 (“The lamp voltage controller modulates the voltage output from generator 26 via electric lines 44 to maintain a predetermined micro-Watt- sec per cm squared level of dosage on the target area.” Col. 3 lines 59-60; Figures 7 and 8 show an effective rate at 1-100,000 uW/cm2 which is .01-1000 W/m2, so any number on the chart between 300-1000 W/m2 would teach this).
Michaloski fails to disclose wherein the UV-C light source is operatively controlled to administer a dose of UV-C light based on a duration of at most two seconds; the light source operatively temperature controlled by an on-board temperature control unit to form a panel; wherein the panel has a surface area of 0.01 m2 to 5 m2, and the panel is configured to administer the dose in a range of 100 J/m2 to 1600 J/m2, and the locomotion device moves at an operating speed in a range of 1 km/hr to 10 km/hour.
However, Urban teaches a similar lighting apparatus wherein the UV-C light source is operatively controlled to administer a dose of UV light (“The present invention has the advantage to expose the plant to very short UV-C radiations named flashes” Page 3 lines 4-5) based on a duration of exposure of at most two seconds (“The exposure duration is equal or less to 1 second.” Page 6 lines 11-15); and the panel is configured to administer the dose in a range of 100 J/m2 to 1600 J/m2 (“preferably, the dose is less than or equal to 1 kJ/m.sup.2” Page 7 lines 12-15)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light doses Michaloski, to be no more than 2 seconds long as taught by Urban, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent damage to the plant from extended periods of UV exposure.
Additionally, Adams teaches a plant light source, wherein the light source is operatively temperature controlled by an on-board temperature control unit to form a panel (“controller 802 may instead invoke other measures (e.g., increased air flow), which may then lower the temperature of horticulture light 804, thereby resulting in an increased intensity light distribution.” Paragraph [0080]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source panels of Michaloski, to be temperature controlled as taught by Adam, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the light remains a safe temperature, to help prevent heat damage to the plant leaves.
Additionally, Limpert teaches a similar UV light source with a surface area of 0.01 m2 to 5 m2 (“the present invention provides a 12″ by 24″ 2-mil polyethylene terephthalate (PET)/1-oz. copper flex circuit with 288 LEDs spaced uniformly at one-inch pitch in both the X and Y directions” Paragraph [0123]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source panels of Michaloski, to have a surface area of 0.01 m2 to 5 m2 as taught by Limpert, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant receives enough lighting to maintain healthy growth, while maintaining the device’s efficiency, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Additionally Aiking teaches a similar mobile apparatus for administering UVC light, wherein the locomotion device moves at an operating speed in a range of 1 km/hr to 10 km/hour (“A particularly suitable speed for tomatoes and green peppers in greenhouses in e.g. the Netherlands may be between 5 and 50 meter per minute.” Paragraph [0104]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locomotion device of Michalowski, to be operating at a speed of 1-10 kmh as taught by Aiking with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure each plant receives the proper amount of light while the apparatus moves through the plants, while maintaining the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the locomotion device is a wheeled locomotion device (Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Michaloski fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the locomotion device runs on rails.
However, Aiking teaches the apparatus, wherein the locomotion device runs on rails (“In FIG. 1 the transportation means 4 is a trolley. Heating pipes 6 in a greenhouse or tunnel could function as rails for the trolley.” Paragraph [0096]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locomotion device of Michalowski, to run on rails as taught by Aiking, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the locomotion device stays within a set boundary to help prevent damage to the plants.
Regarding Claim 4, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the locomotion device is a tractor (Figure 2), wheelbarrow, or trolley.
Regarding Claim 8, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the UV-C light source comprises a plurality of discharge lamps or light emitting diodes (UV lamp sources 7; Figures 3 and 4) and is configured to emit light simultaneously or sequentially of different (i) optical power density, (ii) time duration, or (iii) wavelength (“The preferred embodiment controls the plant irradiation dosage by varying the radiation output of the light source as a function of movement speed, but movement speed could be varied using a constant output light source or both speed and radiation source output could be varied” Col. 5 lines 39-44).
Regarding Claim 9, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 8. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the optical power density of the panel is adjustable (“The lamp voltage controller modulates the voltage output from generator 26 via electric lines 44 to maintain a predetermined micro-Watt- sec per cm squared level of dosage on the target area.” Col. 3 lines 59-60).
Regarding Claim 10, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the optical power density is adjustable to be in a range of 500 W/m2 to 2500 W/m2 (Figures 7 and 8 show an effective rate at 1-100,000 uW/cm2 which is .01-1000 W/m2, so any number on the chart between 500-1000 W/m2 would teach this).
Regarding Claim 16, Michaloski discloses an apparatus comprising:
a means of locomotion (towing vehicle Figures 1 and 2) having a reflector body extending therefrom (array of left UV lamp/reflector assemblies 9 and array of right UV lamp/reflector assemblies 10; reflector 50 Figure 3) to which is mounted a UV-C light source operatively positioned relative to a reflector (UV lamp sources 7; Figures 3 and 4; “said ultraviolet radiation is in said germicidal band within the wavelength range of 240 to 280 nanometers” Claim 2; “As shown in FIGS. 5, 7, 8 and Table 1 below, laboratory experiments prove that UV energy in the germicidal band” Col. 4 lines 9-11) and
wherein the panel has an optical power density between 300 W/m2 and 3000 W/m2 (“The lamp voltage controller modulates the voltage output from generator 26 via electric lines 44 to maintain a predetermined micro-Watt- sec per cm squared level of dosage on the target area.” Col. 3 lines 59-60; Figures 7 and 8 show an effective rate at 1-100,000 uW/cm2 which is .01-1000 W/m2, so any number on the chart between 300-1000 W/m2 would teach this).
Michaloski fails to disclose a trolley or wheelbarrow; the light source operatively temperature controlled by an on-board temperature control unit to form a panel; wherein the UV-C light source is operatively controlled to administer a dose of UV-C light based on a duration of at most two seconds; wherein the panel has a surface area of 0.01 m2 to 5 m2, the panel is configured to administer the dose in a range of 100 J/m2 to 1600 J/m2, and the trolley or wheelbarrow moves at an operating speed in a range of 1 km/hr to 5 km/hour.
However, Urban teaches a similar lighting apparatus wherein the UV-C light source is operatively controlled to administer a dose of UV light (“The present invention has the advantage to expose the plant to very short UV-C radiations named flashes” Page 3 lines 4-5) based on a duration of exposure of at most two seconds (“The exposure duration is equal or less to 1 second.” Page 6 lines 11-15); and the panel is configured to administer the dose in a range of 100 J/m2 to 1600 J/m2 (“preferably, the dose is less than or equal to 1 kJ/m.sup.2” Page 7 lines 12-15)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light doses Michaloski, to be no more than 2 seconds long as taught by Urban, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent damage to the plant from extended periods of UV exposure.
Additionally, Adams teaches a plant light source, wherein the light source is operatively temperature controlled by an on-board temperature control unit to form a panel (“controller 802 may instead invoke other measures (e.g., increased air flow), which may then lower the temperature of horticulture light 804, thereby resulting in an increased intensity light distribution.” Paragraph [0080]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source panels of Michaloski, to be temperature controlled as taught by Adam, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the light remains a safe temperature, to help prevent heat damage to the plant leaves.
Additionally, Limpert teaches a similar UV light source with a surface area of 0.01 m2 to 5 m2 (“the present invention provides a 12″ by 24″ 2-mil polyethylene terephthalate (PET)/1-oz. copper flex circuit with 288 LEDs spaced uniformly at one-inch pitch in both the X and Y directions” Paragraph [0123]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source panels of Michaloski, to have a surface area of 0.01 m2 to 5 m2 as taught by Limpert, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant receives enough lighting to maintain healthy growth, while maintaining the device’s efficiency, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Additionally Aiking teaches a similar apparatus for administering UVC light comprising: a trolley or wheelbarrow (“In FIG. 1 the transportation means 4 is a trolley. Heating pipes 6 in a greenhouse or tunnel could function as rails for the trolley.” Paragraph [0096]); wherein the trolley moves at an operating speed in a range of 1 km/hr to 10 km/hour (“A particularly suitable speed for tomatoes and green peppers in greenhouses in e.g. the Netherlands may be between 5 and 50 meter per minute.” Paragraph [0104]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locomotion device of Michalowski, to be a trolley as taught by Aiking, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the locomotion device stays within a set boundary to help prevent damage to the plants, and to be operating at a speed of 1-10 kmh as taught by Aiking with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure each plant receives the proper amount of light while the apparatus moves through the plants, while maintaining the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 18, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 16. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the UV-C light source comprises a plurality of discharge lamps or light emitting diodes (UV lamp sources 7; Figures 3 and 4) and is configured to emit light simultaneously or sequentially of different (i) optical power density, (ii) time duration, or (iii) wavelength (“The preferred embodiment controls the plant irradiation dosage by varying the radiation output of the light source as a function of movement speed, but movement speed could be varied using a constant output light source or both speed and radiation source output could be varied” Col. 5 lines 39-44).
Regarding Claim 19, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 18. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the optical power density of the panel is adjustable (“The lamp voltage controller modulates the voltage output from generator 26 via electric lines 44 to maintain a predetermined micro-Watt- sec per cm squared level of dosage on the target area.” Col. 3 lines 59-60).
Regarding Claim 20, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 19. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the optical power density is adjustable to be in a range of 500 W/m2 to 2500 W/m2.2 (Figures 7 and 8 show an effective rate at 1-100,000 uW/cm2 which is .01-1000 W/m2, so any number on the chart between 500-1000 W/m2 would teach this).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaloski in view of Adams, Limpert, and Aiking as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rajala et al. (FI 124137).
Regarding Claim 5, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Michaloski fails to disclose the apparatus, the locomotion device comprises a thermal or electric motor.
However, Rajala teaches a similar apparatus (Figure 2), the locomotion device comprises a thermal or electric motor (“The carriage 15 can be adapted to move, for example, by means of an electric motor 11,” Page 5 Paragraph 6 of translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locomotion device of Michalowski, to have an electric motor as taught by Rajala, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the amount of harmful fumes around the plants.
Claims 6, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaloski in view of Adams, Limpert, and Aiking as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Santa Cruz et al. (US 2001/0035468).
Regarding Claim 6, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Michaloski fails to explicitly teach the apparatus, wherein the locomotion device comprises an on-board energy source selected from the group consisting of a battery, alternator, solar panels, electric engine, combustion engine, internal combustion engine, hybrid engine, or a combination thereof.
However, Santa Cruz teaches a similar mobile lighting apparatus wherein the locomotion device comprises an on-board energy source selected from the group consisting of a battery, alternator, solar panels, electric engine, combustion engine, internal combustion engine, hybrid engine, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0010]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locomotion device of Michalowski, to have an solar power or battery power as taught by Santa Cruz, in order to help increase to automation of the device, and decrease the amount of required user intervention.
Regarding Claim 7, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Michaloski fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the locomotion device has an autonomous energy source.
However, Santa Cruz teaches a similar mobile lighting apparatus (Figure 1), wherein the locomotion device has an autonomous energy source (Paragraph [0010]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locomotion device of Michalowski, to have an autonomous energy source as taught by Santa Cruz, in order to help increase to automation of the device, and decrease the amount of required user intervention.
Regarding Claim 17, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 16. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus wherein the locomotion device is configured for operation within a greenhouse (tractor in Figure 2 would be “configured” for operation in a greenhouse).
Michaloski fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the trolley or wheelbarrow comprises an autonomous energy source.
However, Santa Cruz teaches a similar mobile lighting apparatus (Figure 1), wherein the locomotion device comprises an autonomous energy source (Paragraph [0010]) and is configured for operation within a greenhouse (Paragraph [0007]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locomotion device of Michalowski, to have an autonomous energy source as taught by Santa Cruz, in order to help increase to automation of the device, and decrease the amount of required user intervention, and to have modified the locomotion device of Michalowski, to be configured for indoor use as taught by Santa Cruz, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to use the apparatus across a broader scope of types of plants.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaloski (US 5040329) in view of Hu et al. (CN 105766418), Adams et al. (US 2019/0191517), and Limpert et al. (US 2019/0223386).
Regarding Claim 11, Michaloski discloses an apparatus comprising:
a means of locomotion (towing vehicle Figures 1 and 2) and having a reflector body extending therefrom (array of left UV lamp/reflector assemblies 9 and array of right UV lamp/reflector assemblies 10; reflector 50 Figure 3) to which is mounted a UV-C light source operatively positioned relative to a reflector (UV lamp sources 7; Figures 3 and 4; “said ultraviolet radiation is in said germicidal band within the wavelength range of 240 to 280 nanometers” Claim 2; “As shown in FIGS. 5, 7, 8 and Table 1 below, laboratory experiments prove that UV energy in the germicidal band” Col. 4 lines 9-11) and
wherein the panel has an optical power density between 300 W/m2 and 3000 W/m2 (“The lamp voltage controller modulates the voltage output from generator 26 via electric lines 44 to maintain a predetermined micro-Watt- sec per cm squared level of dosage on the target area.” Col. 3 lines 59-60; Figures 7 and 8 show an effective rate at 1-100,000 uW/cm2 which is .01-1000 W/m2, so any number on the chart between 300-1000 W/m2 would teach this).
Michaloski fails to disclose a storage space with straps configured to be carried on a user's back, the light source operatively temperature controlled by an on-board temperature control unit to form a panel; wherein the UV-C light source is operatively controlled to administer a dose of UV-C light based on a duration of at most two seconds; wherein the panel has a surface area of 0.01 m2 to 5 m2, the panel is configured to administer the dose in a range of 100 J/m2 to 1600 J/m2, and the user moves at an operating speed in a range of 1km/hr to 5 km/hour.
However, Urban teaches a similar lighting apparatus wherein the UV-C light source is operatively controlled to administer a dose of UV light (“The present invention has the advantage to expose the plant to very short UV-C radiations named flashes” Page 3 lines 4-5) based on a duration of exposure of at most two seconds (“The exposure duration is equal or less to 1 second.” Page 6 lines 11-15); and the panel is configured to administer the dose in a range of 100 J/m2 to 1600 J/m2 (“preferably, the dose is less than or equal to 1 kJ/m.sup.2” Page 7 lines 12-15)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light doses Michaloski, to be no more than 2 seconds long as taught by Urban, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent damage to the plant from extended periods of UV exposure.
Additionally, Hu teaches a similar lighting apparatus comprising a storage space with straps configured to be carried on a user's back (“Further, the artificial light device is specifically: during the nighttime from 22 o'clock to 24 o'clock, the dual-purpose nuclear sterile line is carried out by carrying the mobile power source by the worker and holding the telescopic rod with the LED light strip in the field. Blocked in the dark phase. Further, the worker carries the mobile power source in a single-person manner, carrying a backpack-type battery, holding the middle of the telescopic rod with both hands, and walking in the field for dark period blocking.” Page 2 Paragraphs 6-7 of translation), and the user moves at an operating speed in a range of 1km/hr to 5 km/hour (Page 2 Paragraph 7 of translation, worker is walking; see 112b above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locomotion device of Michaloski, to be a storage device configured to be carried as taught by Hu, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help the user ensure every individual plant receives the proper amount of lighting, by allowing customization in where the lighting device can travel.
Additionally, Adams teaches a plant light source, wherein the light source is operatively temperature controlled by an on-board temperature control unit to form a panel (“controller 802 may instead invoke other measures (e.g., increased air flow), which may then lower the temperature of horticulture light 804, thereby resulting in an increased intensity light distribution.” Paragraph [0080]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source panels of Michaloski, to be temperature controlled as taught by Adam, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the light remains a safe temperature, to help prevent heat damage to the plant leaves.
Additionally, Limpert teaches a similar UV light source with a surface area of 0.01 m2 to 5 m2 (“the present invention provides a 12″ by 24″ 2-mil polyethylene terephthalate (PET)/1-oz. copper flex circuit with 288 LEDs spaced uniformly at one-inch pitch in both the X and Y directions” Paragraph [0123]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source panels of Michaloski, to have a surface area of 0.01 m2 to 5 m2 as taught by Limpert, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant receives enough lighting to maintain healthy growth, while maintaining the device’s efficiency, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 12, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Michaloski fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the storage space comprises an autonomous energy source.
However, Hu teaches the apparatus, wherein the storage space comprises an autonomous energy source (“Further, the worker carries the mobile power source in a single-person manner, carrying a backpack-type battery, holding the middle of the telescopic rod with both hands, and walking in the field for dark period blocking.” Page 2 Paragraph 7 of translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locomotion device of Michalowski, to have an autonomous energy source as taught by Hu, in order to help increase to automation of the device, and decrease the amount of required user intervention for maintaining power.
Regarding Claim 13, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the UV-C light source comprises a plurality of discharge lamps or light emitting diodes (UV lamp sources 7; Figures 3 and 4) and is configured to emit light simultaneously or sequentially of different (i) optical power density, (ii) time duration, or (iii) wavelength (“The preferred embodiment controls the plant irradiation dosage by varying the radiation output of the light source as a function of movement speed, but movement speed could be varied using a constant output light source or both speed and radiation source output could be varied” Col. 5 lines 39-44).
Regarding Claim 14, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the optical power density of the panel is adjustable (“The lamp voltage controller modulates the voltage output from generator 26 via electric lines 44 to maintain a predetermined micro-Watt- sec per cm squared level of dosage on the target area.” Col. 3 lines 59-60).
Regarding Claim 15, Michaloski as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 11. Michaloski further discloses the apparatus, wherein the optical power density is adjustable to be in a range of 500 W/m2 to 2500 W/m2.2 (Figures 7 and 8 show an effective rate at 1-100,000 uW/cm2 which is .01-1000 W/m2, so any number on the chart between 500-1000 W/m2 would teach this).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Setton (US 2019/0281771), Singh et al. (US 10231385), Ogata et al. (US 10228115), Janisiewicz et al. (US 2015/0283276), and Karpinski et al. (US 2013/0255150) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar mobile lighting apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642