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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxik (US 20130139437 A1) in view of Suneco (WO 2020036348 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Maxik discloses a method for growing a plant (para 44), comprising: providing a plant that has a known light control pattern for photosensory photoreceptors (paras 43, 80); providing lights having wavelength characteristics that match the light control pattern for photosensory photoreceptors of the plant (paras 43, 82) where such control pattern is selected to be an optimum cause of desired control behavior (Fig. 3, para 45);
changing at least one of an intensity, a duration, and a periodicity of the lights to achieve a desired metabolic response in the plant (paras 62, 82); an intensity that is above a lower bound required for the photoreceptors of the plant to be controlled (Fig. 5, para 52).
Maxik fails to teach preventing light outside of the light control pattern from making contact with the plant (para 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light control as disclosed by Mccord with the external light prevention as taught by Suneco with a reasonable expectation of success because blocking external light from being transmitted to the plant achieves the predictable result of having the plant grow within controlled environments, decreasing the probability of any undesired characteristics or growth from occurring.
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Suneco further teaches wherein preventing light includes placing the plant and lights into a confined space in which ambient light is substantially restricted from entry into the confined space (para 27, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Maxik further discloses wherein changing at least one of an intensity, a duration, and a periodicity of the lights (para 58) causes a signal pathway to exist such that the lights influence at least one of a primary and a secondary metabolic process in the plant (para 82, “By pulsing the LEDs in a synchronous or quasi-synchronous manner in relation to a plant's ability to absorb photon energy and use it for photosynthesis (or other plant metabolic activity)”).
Claims 2-3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxik in view of Suneco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mccord (US 20220361416 A1).
Regarding claim 2: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Maxik further discloses wherein providing lights includes providing at least one first light source (812) that has a center frequency and bandwidth consistent with inclusion in the control pattern (paras 59, 82, Fig. 3), and a second light source (812) that has a center frequency and bandwidth consistent with inclusion in the control pattern (paras 59, 82, Fig. 3), the second light source having a center frequency different from the center frequency of the first light source (Fig. 10, para 69 discusses lighting having different currents).
Maxik as modified fails to teach wherein the first light source is a narrowband light emitting diode having a wavelength range of 10 nanometers or less, and the second light source is a narrowband light emitting diode having a wavelength range of 10 nanometers or less.
However, Mccord teaches wherein the first light source is a narrowband light emitting diode having a wavelength range of 10 nanometers or less, and the second light source is a narrowband light emitting diode having a wavelength range of 10 nanometers or less (para 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lights as disclosed by modified Maxik with the wavelength range of 10 nanometers or less as taught by Mccord with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a narrow range achieves the predictable result of providing optimal growth conditions, as described in paragraph 29 of Mccord.
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Suneco further teaches wherein the lower bound is zero such that only light matching the control pattern is provided to the plant (para 27).
Maxik as modified fails to teach a continuous illuminating spectrum is not provided to the plant.
However, McCord teaches a continuous illuminating spectrum is not provided to the plant (para 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light recipe as disclosed by modified Maxik with the non-continuous illumination as taught by Mccord with a reasonable expectation of success because providing illumination of the wavelengths non-continuously can achieve the same growth benefits while saving cost of energy, as described in paragraph 69 of Mccord.
Regarding claim 9: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Maxik further teaches providing a controller (820) that includes a memory in which a plurality of light pattern recipes are stored (paras 59, 87), each of the recipes corresponding to a different desired metabolic response for the plant (paras 77-78).
Maxik as modified fails to teach operating the lights in accordance with one of the plurality of light pattern recipes such a that a plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength lights are incident upon the plant.
However, Mccord teaches operating the lights in accordance with one of the plurality of light pattern recipes such a that a plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength lights are incident upon the plant (para 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light method as disclosed by modified Maxik with the plurality of discrete narrowband wavelength lighting as taught by Mccord with a reasonable expectation of success because providing plurality of such wavelengths could optimize plant growth versus the cost of energy as described in paragraph 69 of Mccord.
Claims 6,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxik in view of Suneco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Repetti (US 20120131691 A1).
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Maxik further discloses wherein changing at least one of an intensity (para 58), a duration (para 62), and a periodicity of the lights (para 82).
Maxik fails to teach causing a desired gene expression in the plant.
However, Repetti teaches a desired gene expression in the plant (para 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light recipe as disclosed by modified Maxik with the causing desired gene expression as taught by Repetti with a reasonable expectation of success because causing desired gene expressions could allow for the plant to be grown in a desired manner to achieve desired characteristics which may be beneficial for the user growing or consuming the plant.
Regarding claim 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Maxik as modified by Suneco teaches wherein providing a plant includes providing a plant that has a known light control pattern for photosensory photoreceptors (Maxik paras 43, 80); and providing lights includes providing lights having wavelength characteristics that match the light control pattern for both photosynthesis and photosensory photoreceptors of the plant (Maxik paras 42-43, 82), and preventing light outside of the light control pattern from making contact with the plant includes preventing light with an intensity that is above the lower bound from making contact with the plant (Suneco para 27), the lower bound being an intensity required for the photoreceptors of the plant to change the desired metabolic response (Maxik paras 52, 82, Fig. 5).
Maxik as modified fails to teach mitigating an undesired response, or initiate an undesired process, or change any other process not directly part of the determined process.
However, Repetti teaches mitigating an undesired response, or initiate an undesired process, or change any other process not directly part of the determined process (para 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lighting as disclosed by modified Maxik with the undesired result prevention as taught by Repetti with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the lighting recipe with the ability to prevent undesired changes would achieve the predictable result of further optimizing plant growth and allowing the plant to grow in line with desired characteristics or traits.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxik in view of Suneco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mccord (US 20220361416 A1) and Repetti (US 20120131691 A1).
Regarding claim 7: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Maxik further discloses the lower bound defined by an intensity required for the photoreceptors of the plant to change the desired metabolic response of the plant to be controlled (Fig. 5, paras 62, 82), operating the narrowband light sources in a first combination of frequency and intensity to invoke a desired signaling pathway in the plant (para 82).
Maxik as modified fails to teach wherein the lights include a plurality of narrowband light sources that each have a bandwidth such that the intensities of the light from any combination of overlapping narrowband light sources added together, within their regions of spectral overlap, have a combined intensity that is below the lower bound, mitigating an undesired response or initiate an undesired process or change any other process not directly part of the desired metabolic response, and the method further includes; not operating in a second combination that invokes undesired signal pathways.
Mccord teaches wherein the lights include a plurality of narrowband light sources that each have a bandwidth (para 69) such that the intensities of the light from any combination of overlapping narrowband light sources added together, within their regions of spectral overlap, have a combined intensity that is below the lower bound (paras 70, 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light recipe as disclosed by modified Maxik with the non-overlapping wavelengths as taught by Mccord with a reasonable expectation of success because having wavelengths of light that do not overlap could result in energy savings and decrease the use of lighting which are either less effective or ineffective, as described in paragraph 117 of Mccord.
Repetti teaches mitigating an undesired response, or initiate an undesired process, or change any other process not directly part of the determined process (para 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lighting as disclosed by modified Maxik with the undesired result prevention as taught by Repetti with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the lighting recipe with the ability to prevent undesired changes would achieve the predictable result of further optimizing plant growth and allowing the plant to grow in line with desired characteristics or traits.
Claims 10-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccord (US 20220361416 A1) in view of Suneco (WO 2020036348 A1).
Regarding claim 10: Mccord discloses a method for growing a plant (abstract), comprising: providing a plurality of narrowband light emitting devices that each, during operation, emits light in a specific wavelength range that corresponds to a specific wavelength range that causes a predetermined process in the plant (paras 69-70), each specific wavelength range having a range of 20 nanometers or less (para 48); placing the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices into a space (para 32); operating the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices to cause only light within each specific wavelength range to be incident upon the plant (para 86).
Mccord fails to teach preventing ambient light from entering into the space.
However, Suneco teaches preventing ambient light from entering into the space (para 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light control as disclosed by Mccord with the external light prevention as taught by Suneco with a reasonable expectation of success because blocking external light from being transmitted to the plant achieves the predictable result of having the plant grow within controlled environments, decreasing the probability of any undesired characteristics or growth from occurring.
Regarding claim 11: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, and Mccord further teaches wherein the specific wavelength range is a wavelength range of 10 nanometers or less (para 48).
Regarding claim 12: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, Mccord further teaches wherein the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices includes a first narrowband light emitting device having a first wavelength range (para 40, light sources including 430 nanometers), a second narrowband light emitting device having a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range (para 40, light sources producing at 662 nanometers), and third narrowband light emitting device having a third wavelength range different from the first wavelength range and the second wavelength range (para 40, light sources with 452 nanometers), and each wavelength range is 10 nanometers or less and does not overlap with other wavelength ranges (paras 48, 117).
Regarding claim 13: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, Mccord further teaches wherein the plant is a tomato (para 6) and the first wavelength range, second wavelength range, and third wavelength range are each selected from the group consisting of: 365+/- 5 nm; 384+/- 5 nm; 415+/- 5 nm; 435+/-5 nm; 455+/-5 nm; 472+/-5 nm; 525+/-5 nm; 590+/-5 nm; 622+/-5 nm; 640+/- 5 nm; 650+/- 5 nm; 667+/- 5 nm; and, 730+/- 5 nm (paras 40-43).
Regarding claim 14: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, Mccord further teaches wherein the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices includes light emitting diodes that each emit light within a 10 nanometer bandwidth (para 48).
Regarding claim 16: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, and Mccord as modified by Suneco teaches wherein the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices includes at least one first narrowband light emitting device having a first wavelength pattern, at least one second narrowband light emitting device having a second wavelength pattern different from the first wavelength pattern, and at least one third narrowband light emitting device having a third wavelength pattern different from the first wavelength pattern and second wavelength pattern (Mccord para 40) such that intensities of the light from any combination of overlapping narrowband light sources within a wavelength pattern added together, within regions of spectral overlap, have a combined intensity that is below a lower bound required for photoreceptors of the plant to change a desired metabolic response of the plant to be controlled or cause an undesired response or initiate an undesired process or change any other process not directly part of the predetermined process (Mccord paras 70, 117); and preventing ambient light includes preventing light from entering into the space in an intensity greater than the intensity of the lower bound required for the photoreceptors of the plant to change the desired metabolic response of the plant to be controlled or cause an undesired response or initiate an undesired process or change any other process not directly part of the predetermined process (Suneco para 27).
Regarding claim 17: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, and further teaches wherein operating includes operating the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices in combination or in time series (para 70).
Regarding claim 18: Mccord discloses a method for controlling a plant, comprising: providing a plurality of narrowband light emitting devices that each, during operation, emits light in a specific wavelength range that corresponds to a specific wavelength range that causes a predetermined process in the plant (paras 70, 86), each specific wavelength range having a range such that intensities of the light from any combination of overlapping narrowband light sources added together, within their regions of spectral overlap, have a combined intensity that is below a lower bound required for the photoreceptors of the plant to change a desired metabolic response of the plant to be controlled or cause an undesired response or initiate an undesired process or change any other process not directly part of the predetermined process (paras 70, 117); placing the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices into a space (para 32); and operating the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices to cause a first pattern of light to be incident upon the plant (para 40), wherein the first pattern of light includes a plurality of lights each centered on a particular wavelength and having a narrowband wavelength range of 10 nanometers (para 48).
Mccord fails to teach preventing ambient light from entering into the space.
However, Suneco teaches preventing ambient light from entering into the space (para 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light control as disclosed by Mccord with the external light prevention as taught by Suneco with a reasonable expectation of success because blocking external light from being transmitted to the plant achieves the predictable result of having the plant grow within controlled environments, decreasing the probability of any undesired characteristics or growth from occurring.
Regarding claim 19: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 18 as shown above, Suneco further teaches preventing ambient light from entering into the space in intensities above the lower bound required for the photoreceptors of the plant to change the desired metabolic response or initiate an undesired process or change any other process not directly part of the desired process, from making contact with the plant (para 27).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccord in view of Suneco as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Repetti (US 20120131691 A1).
Regarding claim 15: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, Mccord as modified by Suneco teaches wherein the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices each, during operation, emits light in a specific wavelength range that in combination creates a first wavelength pattern that causes a predetermined process in the plant (Mccord paras 40, 70), each specific wavelength range having a bandwidth range such that intensities of the light from any combination of overlapping narrowband light sources added together, within their regions of spectral overlap, have a combined intensity that is below a lower bound required for photoreceptors of the plant to change a desired metabolic response of the plant to be controlled (Mccord paras 70, 117) preventing ambient light includes preventing ambient light from entering into the space in an intensity greater than the intensity of the lower bound required for the photoreceptors of the plant to change the desired metabolic response of the plant to be controlled or cause an undesired response or initiate an undesired process or change any other process not directly part of the predetermined process (Suneco para 27); operating the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices includes operating the plurality of narrowband light emitting devices to cause only light within each specific wavelength range to be incident upon the plant (Mccord para 86) in intensities above the lower bound required for the photoreceptors of the plant to change the desired metabolic response of the plant to be controlled (Mccord para 70).
Mccord as modified fails to teach mitigating an undesired response, or initiate an undesired process, or change any other process not directly part of the determined process.
However, Repetti teaches mitigating an undesired response, or initiate an undesired process, or change any other process not directly part of the determined process (para 65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lighting as disclosed by modified Mccord with the undesired result prevention as taught by Repetti with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the lighting recipe with the ability to prevent undesired changes would achieve the predictable result of further optimizing plant growth and allowing the plant to grow in line with desired characteristics or traits.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccord in view of Suneco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maxik (US 20130139437 A1).
Regarding claim 20: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 18 as shown above, Mccord further teaches providing a controller connected to the light emitting devices (Fig. 3, para 108), wherein the first pattern of light includes a plurality of lights each centered on a particular wavelength and having a narrowband wavelength range such that intensities of the light from any combination of overlapping narrowband light sources added together, within their regions of spectral overlap, have a combined intensity that is below a lower bound required for photoreceptors of the plant to change the predetermined process from occurring in the plant or cause an undesired response or initiate an undesired process or change any other process not directly part of the predetermined process (paras 70, 117, without overlapping there would be no undesired modification).
Mccord as modified fails to teach the controller configured to cause a first pattern of light to be emitted from the light emitting devices to initiate the predetermined process in the plant upon which the first pattern of light is incident, providing at least one spectral imaging sensor connected to the controller and configured to provide feedback information to the controller to confirm whether the predetermined process is occurring, wherein the controller includes a memory in which a plurality of light pattern recipes are stored, each of the recipes corresponding to a different predetermined process for the plant.
However, Maxik teaches the controller (82) configured to cause a first pattern of light to be emitted from the light emitting devices to initiate the predetermined process in the plant upon which the first pattern of light is incident (Fig. 8, paras 59, 87), providing at least one spectral imaging sensor (850, para 60) connected to the controller and configured to provide feedback information to the controller to confirm whether the predetermined process is occurring (para 60, Fig. 8), wherein the controller includes a memory (681) in which a plurality of light pattern recipes are stored, each of the recipes corresponding to a different predetermined process for the plant (Fig. 8, para 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lighting controls as disclosed by modified Mccord with the feedback control as taught by Maxik with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying the lighting method to have a sensor providing feedback to the controller would achieve the predictable result of allowing tailoring of the lighting to the type of horticultural growth as described in paragraph 60 of Maxik.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of lighting devices, recipes, or controls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642