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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/22/2026 has been entered.
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 8-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the modification". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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 1-3, 5, 12, 14-16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0065181) in view of Noh (KR 20230135824, as previously cited by the examiner in PTO-892 on 10/2/2025).
For claim 1, Hall et al. discloses an agricultural system (as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a core assembly (Figs. 4-6: 102) including a housing (Fig. 6: frame 112 shown with four openings) having a circumferential rim (as discussed in [0045]: “The movable frame 112 can include a generally rectangular outer frame”) that defines a main aperture (Figs. 4-6 shows the outermost circumferential surface of the frame 112 defines the rim and a main aperture for housing the four fans 164. It is noted that the Examiner broadly interprets the term ‘circumferential’ using the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition “encircling”. Applicant’s device is not entirely circular, thus the circumferential limitation does not appear exclusive to the circumference of a circle. Similar to the Applicant’s core assembly, the housing of the Hall et al. reference shows two straight sides and rounded corners of a frame that encircles a main aperture, which is readable as the claimed ‘circumferential rim’.); a light source (Figs. 5-6: 170) on the circumferential rim (Fig. 6 shows the lights 170 being attached on the outermost circumferential surface defining the rim); one or more air movers (Figs. 4-6: 164) directed toward the main aperture (Fig. 4 shows fans 164 mounted onto a back side of the housing and into one of the four openings within the boundary of the circumferential rim), wherein the main aperture defines an inlet (Fig. 4 at the four openings at the back of the housing) and an outlet (Fig. 6 at the four openings at the front of the housing) fluidically coupled by a flow passage formed by the housing, wherein the light source and the one or more air movers are configured to provide light and air in substantially a same direction (as shown in Figs. 4-5 and 8: downward onto a plant).
Hall et al. fails to disclose the light source is arranged circumferentially around the main aperture. Noh teaches a similar invention, an agricultural system comprising: a light source (Figs. 4-5: 300) arranged circumferentially around a main aperture (as shown in Fig. 5 interior to the frame 310) on the circumferential rim (Fig. 5: 310). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hall et al. to include the light source arranged circumferentially as taught by Noh for the advantage of emitting light to plants in a plurality of rows along the width direction of the light source.
For claim 2, Hall et al. as modified by Noh discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising an input configured to control an intensity of light emitted by the light source (Hall et al. as discussed in [0045]).
For claim 3, Hall et al. as modified by Noh discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising an input configured to control an intensity of airflow generated by the one or more air movers (Hall et al. as discussed in claim 13: “The system of claim 12, further comprising a controller configured to activate and deactivate individual air movers”).
For claim 5, Hall et al. as modified by Noh discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the circumferential rim (Hall et al. Figs. 4-6: frame 112) comprises a bottom portion, a mid portion, and a top portion (Hall Fig. 6: at the top near numeral 112 where the top of the light sources 170 are attached, at the middle cross section, and at the bottom of the rim where the bottom of the light sources 170 are attached).
For claim 12, Hall et al. as modified by Noh discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the light source comprises a plurality of the tunable LED emitters adapted to change a light spectrum based on at least one of a plant species or growth stage (Hall et al. as discussed in [0045]: “LED strips” and [0052]: “calibrated for different wavelengths”).
For claim 14, Hall as modified by Noh discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising: a base (Hall et el. Figs. 1-2: 110, 116) adapted to stably support the agricultural system on a support surface (Hall et al. as discussed in [0035]: “a fixed bracket 110 that is mounted to a ceiling or a frame or another non-moving structure over the plant”); and a support (Hall et al. Figs. 1-5: 114) coupled to the housing and the base.
For claim 15, Hall as modified by Noh discloses the agricultural system of claim 14, wherein the support comprises at least one of an elongated rod or a cord (Hall et al. as discussed in [0034]: one or more lines 114).
For claim 16, Hall as modified by Noh discloses the agricultural system of claim 14, wherein the support is adjustable in length (Hall et al. as discussed in [0034]: “The lines 114 can be extended or retracted to raise or lower the movable frame 112.”).
For claim 23, Hall et al. discloses an agricultural system (as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a core assembly (Figs. 4-6: 102) including a housing (Fig. 6: frame 112 shown with four openings) having a circumferential rim (as discussed in [0045]: “The movable frame 112 can include a generally rectangular outer frame”) that defines a main aperture (Figs. 4-6 shows the outermost circumferential surface of the frame 112 defines the rim and a main aperture for housing the four fans 164. It is noted that the Examiner broadly interprets the term ‘circumferential’ using the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition “encircling”. Applicant’s device is not entirely circular, thus the circumferential limitation does not appear exclusive to the circumference of a circle. Similar to the Applicant’s core assembly, the housing of the Hall et al. reference shows two straight sides and rounded corners of a frame that encircles a main aperture, which is readable as the claimed ‘circumferential rim’.); a light source (Figs. 5-6: 170) on the circumferential rim (Fig. 6 shows the lights 170 being attached on the outermost circumferential surface defining the rim); one or more air movers (Figs. 4-6: 164) directed toward the main aperture (Fig. 4 shows fans 164 mounted onto a back side of the housing and into one of the four openings within the boundary of the circumferential rim), wherein the main aperture defines an inlet (Fig. 4 at the four openings at the back of the housing) and an outlet (Fig. 6 at the four openings at the front of the housing) fluidically coupled by a flow passage formed by the housing, wherein the light source and the one or more air movers are configured to provide light and air in substantially a same direction (as shown in Figs. 4-5 and 8: downward onto a plant).
Hall et al. fails to disclose the light source is arranged circumferentially around the main aperture. Noh teaches a similar invention, an agricultural system comprising: a light source (Figs. 4-5: 300) arranged circumferentially around a main aperture (as shown in Fig. 5 interior to the frame 310) on a circumferential rim (Fig. 5: 310); wherein the light source is configured to provide light in a downward direction (as shown in Figs. 4, 5 and 7); wherein the main aperture defines an inlet (Fig. 5 above the rim 310) and an outlet (Fig. 7 below the rim 310) fluidically coupled by a flow passage (Fig. 5: through the interior to the frame 310); and an airflow from the flow passage is not impeded by the light source (Figs. 4, 5 and 7 show the light source arranged circumferentially around the main aperture, thus the flow passage is not impeded). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hall et al. to include the light source arranged circumferentially as taught by Noh for the advantage of emitting light to plants in a plurality of rows along the width direction of the light source.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0065181) in view of Noh (KR 20230135824, as previously cited by the examiner in PTO-892 on 10/2/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montagano (WO 2021/022373, as applied in the previous office action).
For claim 4, Hall et al. as modified by Noh discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show an input configured to control an operation time of the agricultural system. Montagano teaches an agricultural system (as discussed in [0002]) comprising: an input configured to control an operation time of the agricultural system (as discussed in [0075] and [0077]-[0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural system of Hall et al. and Noh to include controlling the operation time as taught by Montagano for the advantage of optimizing growth periods with timed application of light and air distribution for different types of plants.
For claim 13, Hall et al. as modified by Noh discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the air mover comprises a fan driven by a pulse-width-modulation signal, a DC signal, or an AC signal and configured to provide adjustable airflow based on at least one of a plant species or growth stage. Montagano teaches an agricultural system (as discussed in [0002]) comprising: one or more air movers (as discussed in [0046]-0048]: fan 410); wherein the air mover comprises a fan driven by a pulse-width-modulation signal, a DC signal, or an AC signal and configured to provide adjustable airflow based on at least one of a plant species or growth stage (as discussed in [0076] and [0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural system of Hall et al. and Noh to include a fan driven by a pulse-width-modulation signal, a DC signal, or an AC signal as taught by Montagano for the advantage of adjusting airflow to specific plants based on desired growth needs.
Claims 7-9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0065181) in view of Noh (KR 20230135824, as previously cited by the examiner in PTO-892 on 10/2/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montagano (CA 3003437, Montagano CA herein).
For claims 7-9, Hall et al. as modified by Noh discloses the light source can be modified (Hall et al. as discussed in [0052]), but fails to show the agricultural system further comprising a light modifier arranged about the main aperture and adapted to modify light provided by the light source. Montagano CA teaches an agricultural system (as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a light source (Figs. 3A-4A: 120), a light modifier (Figs. 3A-4A: 122) arranged about the main aperture (covering each light source) and adapted to modify light provided by the light source (as discussed in [0052] and [0056]), wherein the modification comprises at least one of collimating the light or diffusing the light; and wherein the light modifier comprises at least one of a Fresnel lens or a convex lens or a diffuser (as discussed in [0052] and [0056]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural system of Hall et al. and Noh to include the light modifier as taught by Montagano CA for the advantage of adjusting wavelengths of light for optimizing growth of different types of plants.
For claim 22, Hall et al. as modified by Noh discloses the light source can be modified (Hall et al. as discussed in [0052]), but fails to show the agricultural system further comprising a light modifier arranged about the main aperture and adapted to modify light provided by the light source, wherein the light modifier is in an ovular shape. Montagano CA teaches an agricultural system (as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a light source (Figs. 3A-4A: 120), a light modifier (Figs. 3A-4A: 122) arranged about the main aperture (covering each light source) and adapted to modify light provided by the light source (as discussed in [0052] and [0056]), wherein the light modifier is in an ovular shape (the ovular dome shape as shown in Fig. 3A: 122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural system of Hall et al. and Noh to include the light modifier as taught by Montagano CA for the advantage of adjusting wavelengths of light for optimizing growth of different types of plants.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0065181) in view of Noh (KR 20230135824, as previously cited by the examiner in PTO-892 on 10/2/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hur (KR 101935482, as applied in the previous office action).
For claims 17-21, Hall et al. as modified by Noh discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show further comprising at least one nacelle adapted to house at least one respective air mover of the one or more air movers. Hur teaches an agricultural system comprising: at least one nacelle (Figs. 1 and 4: shield for the blades of the fan 250) adapted to house at least one respective air mover of the one or more air movers, wherein the at least one nacelle is pivotable about at least one axis (Fig. 4: via 250a), wherein the at least one nacelle is pivotable about at least two axes (Fig. 4: via 250b, 250c), wherein the at least two axes are disposed at an angle with respect to one another (as shown in Fig. 4 at the angle diagram); and wherein the angle is 90° or less (as shown in Fig. 4 at the angle diagram). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agricultural system of Hall et al. and Noh to include the pivotable nacelle as taught by Hur for the advantage of controlling the airflow in a desired direction of the housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to show or render obvious an agricultural device comprising: “a front grille on the first side of the core assembly and a rear grille on a second side of the core assembly configured to prevent or reduce interference with the one or more air movers; one or more masks conforming to the shape of the circumferential rim and having one or more cowls formed therein, each cowl configured in a substantial shape of a circle or cylinder substantially aligned with a respective one or more air mover, surrounding a portion of an intake or an outlet of the air mover; a gasket located on the first side of the core assembly configured in a substantial shape conforming to the circumferential rim forming an interface between a mask of the one or more masks and the front grille; a gasket located on the second side of the core assembly configured in a substantial shape conforming to the rim forming an interface between a mask of the one or more masks and the rear grille”, all in addition to a light source, one or more air movers, and a light modifier arranged about the main aperture on the circumferential rim, as recited in claim 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter 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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights