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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takashima et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,894,844).
For claim 1, Takashima et al. discloses an agricultural system (Col. 1, lines 58-62 and as shown in Fig. 1) comprising: a core assembly (Fig. 5: 44) including a housing (50) forming a main aperture (56); a light source (Col. 7, lines 9-10: 5) arranged circumferentially around the main aperture (Col. 3, lines 35-37); and one or more air movers (48) directed toward the main aperture (see airflow arrows in Fig. 5 and Col. 7, lines 34-36), wherein the main aperture defines an inlet and an outlet (Col. 7, lines 39-44) fluidically coupled by a flow passage (an interior volume) formed by the housing (50), wherein the light source and the one or more air movers are configured to provide light and air in substantially a same direction (Figs. 1, 4 and 5: downward toward the leaf lettuce 2).
For claim 2, Takashima et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising an input configured to control an intensity of light emitted by the light source (Col. 4, lines 12-16).
For claim 3, Takashima et al. 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 (Col. 4, lines 12-16).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 5, Takashima et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the housing (Fig. 5: 50) is formed from a circumferential rim comprising a bottom portion, a mid-portion, and a top portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
For claim 6, Takashima et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the core assembly (Fig. 5: 44) is configured to provide light and air in a substantially same direction (Figs. 1, 4 and 5: downward toward the leaf lettuce 2).
For claim 7, Takashima et al. discloses the agricultural system of claim 1, further comprising a light modifier arranged about the main aperture and adapted to modify light provided by the light source (Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, lines 6).
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 4, 8-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,894,844) in view of Montagano (WO 2021/022373).
For claim 4, Takashima et al. 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 Takashima et al. to include controlling the operation time as taught by Montagano for the advantage of optimizing growth periods for different types of plants.
For claims 8-9, Takashima et al. discloses the agricultural system substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the modification comprises at least one of collimating the light or diffusing the light. Montagano teaches an agricultural system (as discussed in [0002]) comprising: a light modifier (as discussed in [0072]-[0075]), wherein the modification comprises at least one of collimating the light or diffusing the light (as discussed in [0070]); and wherein the light modifier comprises a lens or a diffuser (as discussed in [0070]). 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 Takashima et al. to include the light modifier as taught by Montagano for the advantage of adjusting wavelengths for optimizing growth of different types of plants.
For claims 11-13, Takashima et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the light source comprises a plurality of tunable LED emitters. Montagano teaches an agricultural system (as discussed in [0002]) comprising: a light source (as discussed in [0048]: "positioning them right outside the dome facing the openings" and [0051]: light sources 200), wherein the light source comprises a plurality of tunable LED emitters (as discussed in [0062] and [0072]), wherein the tunable LED emitters are adapted to change a light spectrum based on at least one of a plant species or growth stage (as discussed in [0072]), and 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 Takashima et al. to include a plurality of tunable LED emitters as taught by Montagano for the advantage of directing specific LEDs to specific plants having desired illumination needs.
For claim 14, Takashima et al. as modified by Montagano discloses the agricultural system of claim 11, further comprising: a base (Takashima et al. Fig. 1: 28) adapted to stably support the agricultural system (Takashima et al. Fig. 1: 6) on a support surface; and a support (Takashima et al. Figs. 1 and 5: vertical rod extending from the top portion of housing 50) coupled to the housing (Takashima et al. 50) and the base (Takashima et al. 28).
For claim 15, Takashima et al. as modified by Montagano discloses the agricultural system of claim 14, wherein the support (Takashima et al. Figs. 1 and 5: vertical portion extending from the top portion of housing 50) comprises at least one of an elongated rod (Takashima et al. as shown in Figs. 1 and 5) or a cord.
For claim 16, Takashima et al. as modified by Montagano discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the support is adjustable in length. 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 Takashima et al. and Montagano to include an adjustable length support for the advantage of providing more room to accommodate additional housings for growing more plants.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. in view of Gomi (US 2018/0014475).
For claim 10, Takashima et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the light modifier comprises at least one of a Fresnel lens or a convex lens. Gomi teaches a plant growth apparatus comprising a light modifier (as discussed in [0026]: illumination unit 3), wherein the light modifier comprises at least one of a Fresnel lens or a convex lens (as discussed in [0026]). 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 Takashima et al. to include the convex lens as taught by Gomi for the advantage of adjusting the light emission of the light sources.
Claim 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. in view of Hur (KR 101935482 B1).
For claims 17-21, Takashima et al. 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 Takashima et al. to include the pivotable nacelle as taught by Hur for the advantage of controlling the airflow in a desired direction of the housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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