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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to due to recitations of legal phraseology including “said growth solutions” and “said growth bed.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: line 4 recites the limitation “determined said first electric power level.” Examiner recommends correction to “determine said first electric power level.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 13, 15-20, and 23 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 8 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more measurements are received continuously with the provision of the electrical power.” This limitation renders the scope of the claim indefinite, as it contains a recitation of positive method steps despite being of an apparatus claim. Examiner recommends revision to “wherein the one or more measurements are configured to be received continuously with the provision of the electrical power.” Claim 23 is similarly rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “substantially constant” in line 4. The limitation “substantially constant” is an approximate term that renders the scope of the claim indefinite, as the disclosure does not provide a definite standard for the meaning of “substantially constant” as it relates to the claims. Examiner recommends revision to “constant.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the humidity level” in lines 2 and 4. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a humidity level.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the vicinity” in lines 2-3. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a vicinity.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the power source” in line 5. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a power source,” or moving the limitation “a power source connected between the at least one solution electrode, and the drip irrigation system” above line 4.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the surface” in line 6. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a surface.”
Dependent claims 16-20 fail to remedy the deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13-18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oppitz (WO 8603372 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oppitz discloses a plant growing system in grow bed, comprising:
an electrode assembly (device 56; Fig. 5) comprising:
a power source (energy source 65; Fig. 5) connected between at least one solution electrode, being in electrical contact with a growth solution (anodes 66, 69, 70, 73; Fig. 5); and
an array of plant electrodes electrically isolated from said growth solution (electrodes 67; Fig. 5), each plant electrode is configured to be electrically connected to at least one plant, planted in said grow bed (page 16, lines 28-32, “The large-area electrodes 67, which are connected by net-like conductors or The networks that can be formed are usually arranged in a linear fashion, either directly adjacent to each other or, as shown schematically in the drawing, distributed at appropriate intervals across the area of soil to be irrigated, below the soil surface, preferably in the area of the roots 5 of the plants 1 to be irrigated”);
at least one sensor configured to measure an electric property of said growth solution (measuring devices 75, 79, 82, 84; Fig. 5); and
a controller (control device 75; Fig. 5; page 17, line 8, “a control device 75 is assigned to the energy source 65”) configured to:
[a] control said power source to provide a first electric power level to said at least one solution electrode and said plant electrodes; [b] receive from said at least one sensor one or more measurements of said electric property of said growth solution (page 18, lines 3-8, “Depending on the respective resistance or its reciprocal, the conductance, it is possible to determine the necessary voltage for a defined current consumption of the electric field, so that the electric field can be supplied with the corresponding energy via the voltage control device 80 to ensure sufficient transport of nutrients, liquids and/or ions. Of course, these measuring devices 82 can also be used to determine the current consumption and/or the voltages and/or other characteristic values of the electric field 59 or 61 or 74 or 60”);
[c] determine a second power level based on said one or more measurements; and [d] control said power source to provide said second electric power level (page 18, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 2, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1.
Oppitz discloses wherein said controller is configured to repeat steps [b]-[d] at least once (page 7, lines 12-14, “This makes it advantageously possible to fully automatically control the electric field based on the respective determined characteristic values;” page 18, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 6, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1.
Oppitz discloses wherein at least one of, the first electric power level and the second electric power level are between 0.1 mV to 24 V (Fig. 6; A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]).
Regarding claim 8, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1.
Oppitz discloses wherein the one or more measurements are received continuously with the provision of the electrical power (page 17, lines 18-21, “The difference value determined in this way is then used to control a voltage control device 80, with which the voltage is changed so that the actual current value determined with the current measuring device 79 in the respective electric field 59 or 61 or 74 corresponds to the set current value preset with the adjusting device 77;” page 18, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 9, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1.
Oppitz discloses wherein said electric property is a voltage of said growth solution, and wherein the controller is configured to determine the second electric power level such that a substantially constant voltage level is maintained (page 18, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 13, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1.
Oppitz discloses further comprising a humidity sensor for measuring the humidity level in the vicinity of said at least one plant and wherein said controller is further configured to determine said second power level based on the humidity level (measuring device 84; Fig. 5; page 18, lines 9-12, “It is also advantageous if moisture measuring devices 84 are arranged in the area of the roots 5 of the plants 1, i.e. in the vegetation area. These moisture measuring devices can also be connected to the control device 75, for example the comparator 78 or the voltage control device 80”).
Regarding claim 14, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1.
Oppitz discloses wherein the grow bed is selected from: hypophonic grow bed, a raised bed comprising grow soil and a flowerbed (layer 7; Fig. 5; page 16, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 15, Oppitz discloses a plant growing system in a grow bed, comprising:
at least one solution electrode, being in electrical contact with a growth solution (anode 93; Fig. 7; page 21, line 33 – page 22, line 1, “Fig. 7 shows another, particularly advantageous embodiment, which can also be used independently of the other features of the inventive method and device”);
a drip irrigation system (inflow line 95; Fig. 7) comprising an array of droppers (openings 98; Fig. 7) in electrical connection to the power source, wherein each dropper continuously pours the growth solution to a location above the surface of the growth solution at the grow bed, in proximity to at least one plant planted in said grow bed (page 22, lines 31-33, “Instead of or in addition to the electrode 94 forming the cathode, the inflow line 95 can be coated with a conductive coating 131, as schematically indicated. B. made of a conductive plastic, so that the inflow pipe itself forms the electrode acting as the cathode”);
a power source connected between the at least one solution electrode, and the drip irrigation system (energy source 65; Fig. 7);
at least one sensor configured to measure an electric property of said growth solution (measuring devices 75, 79, 82, 84; Fig. 5); and
a controller (control device 75; Fig. 5; page 17, line 8) configured to:
[a] control said power source to provide a first electric power level to said at least one solution electrode and said plant electrodes; [b] receive from said at least one sensor one or more measurements of said electric property of said growth solution; [c] determine a second power level based on said one or more measurements; and [d] control said power source to provide said second electric power level (page 18, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 16, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 15.
Oppitz discloses when the power source is connected to said drip irrigation system by one of: a conductive pipe or the growth solution poured by said drip irrigation system (page 22, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 17, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 15.
Oppitz discloses further comprising a grow bed comprising the growth solution (layer 7; Fig. 5; page 16, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 18, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 15.
Oppitz discloses wherein said controller is configured to repeat steps [b]-[d] at least once (page 7, lines 12-14; page 18, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 23, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 15.
Oppitz discloses wherein the one or more measurements are received continuously with the provision of the electrical power (page 17, lines 18-21; page 18, lines 3-8).
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppitz (WO 8603372 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 15, and further in view of Mirzakhani Nafchi (US 20160198637 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1, however, Oppitz fails to specifically disclose wherein controlling said power source to provide the first and second power level includes setting a first duration for the provision of said first electric power level and a second duration for the provision of said second electric power level.
Mirzakhani Nafchi is in the field of electrical plant treatment and teaches wherein controlling said power source to provide the first and second power level includes setting a first duration for the provision of said first electric power level and a second duration for the provision of said second electric power level (¶ 0053, “In one of the embodiments controller unit/s 128 is comprising but not limited to; possible switch relay/s, multiplexer/s, micro controller/s, programmable devices plus other electronic or mechanical components which aim to characteristics control and adjustment of the high voltage pulse/s like; voltage-amperage magnitude, duration, direction, frequency, and rhythm or timing the pulse/s, however, using of the said controller unit/s, is also for control and adjustment of the electromagnetic characteristics like; flux density, amplitude, duration, direction, frequency, and rhythm or timing of the pulse/s during the treatment;” ¶ 0057, “In some embodiments, the high voltage discharge between the discharge point/s 127 and the canopy discharge point/s 114 can last for a duration of about 1 ms or less to about 10 ms or more. However, the duration of the discharge will depend upon the timing of the electronic circuitry of the high voltage sparks and the controllers. The duration for voltage treatment can depend at least in part upon the timing of the pulsed current generated in the distribution unit 109. In some embodiments, the voltage treatment can be applied to the plant 103 for a pre-defined period of time of each day for a number of days, until a desired number of healthy new shoots and/or leaves have grown on the plant 103”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electrical plant treatment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Oppitz to include controlling said power source to provide the first and second power level includes setting a first duration for the provision of said first electric power level and a second duration for the provision of said second electric power level, as taught by the DC pulse duration and timing control of Mirzakhani Nafchi. The pulse duration control would increase the adjustability of the system, which would allow for fine tuning the pulses for optimal growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Oppitz in view of Mirzakhani Nafchi discloses the device of claim 4, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein controlling said power source to provide the first and second power level includes setting a pause between the provision of said first electric power level and the provision of said second electric power level (Mirzakhani Nafchi; ¶ 0053; ¶ 0057).
Regarding claim 7, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1, however, Oppitz fails to specifically disclose wherein at least one of, the first electric power level and the second electric power level are given as DC pulses.
Mirzakhani Nafchi teaches wherein at least one of, the first electric power level and the second electric power level are given as DC pulses (¶ 0046, lines 1-4, “The positive terminal of the DC voltage source 106 can be connected to the distribution unit 109 and the high voltage pulse/s generator via a conductor such as, but not limited to, a wire”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electrical plant treatment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Oppitz such that at least one of, the first electric power level and the second electric power level are given as DC pulses, as taught by the DC pulse duration and timing control of Mirzakhani Nafchi. The pulse duration control would increase the adjustability of the system, which would allow for fine tuning the pulses for optimal growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 15, however, Oppitz fails to specifically disclose wherein controlling said power source to provide the first and second power level includes setting a first duration for the provision of said first electric power level and a second duration for the provision of said second electric power level.
Mirzakhani Nafchi is in the field of electrical plant treatment and teaches wherein controlling said power source to provide the first and second power level includes setting a first duration for the provision of said first electric power level and a second duration for the provision of said second electric power level (¶ 0053; ¶ 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electrical plant treatment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Oppitz to include controlling said power source to provide the first and second power level includes setting a first duration for the provision of said first electric power level and a second duration for the provision of said second electric power level, as taught by the DC pulse duration and timing control of Mirzakhani Nafchi. The pulse duration control would increase the adjustability of the system, which would allow for fine tuning the pulses for optimal growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Oppitz in view of Mirzakhani Nafchi discloses the device of claim 19, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein controlling said power source to provide the first and second power level includes setting a pause between the provision of said first electric power level and the provision of said second electric power level (Mirzakhani Nafchi; ¶ 0053; ¶ 0057).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppitz (WO 8603372 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Georgel (FR 2618291 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1, however, Oppitz fails to specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a type of plant planted in said grow bed; and determined said first electric power level and said second electric power based on said type of plant.
Georgel is in the field of electrical plant treatment and teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a type of plant planted in said grow bed; and determined said first electric power level and said second electric power based on said type of plant (page 4, lines 16-22, “The two inlet and outlet electrodes 6,7 of the set of jars 2, as well as the two electrodes 16,17 of the reference jar 12, are connected to the current generator 30 via the switch 31. For simplicity, only one of these electrodes respectively 7,17 is represented, the other being assumed to be connected to the ground of circuit 3 [not shown in the drawing]. The switch 31 allows the electrodes 7,17 on the generator 30 to be switched alternately, so that the latter sends pulses to all the jars 2,12, and the electrodes 7,17 on the comparator 32, the electrodes then operating as emitters and not as receivers;” page 5, lines 3 and 4, “The microprocessor also controls the signals emitted by the current generator, these signals being able to vary in waveform, frequency, intensity, voltage and duty cycle;” claim 11, “the signal representing the plants [1] is analyzed using a microprocessor [34] or similar, in that it is compared by the latter to growth characteristics specific to each type of plant and stored in the latter, in that the microprocessor [34] determines from these data the needs of the plants and in that it controls according to these needs a lighting device [36], a heating device [37], a watering pump [38] or different signal forms from the current generator [30]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electrical plant treatment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Oppitz such that the controller is further configured to: receive a type of plant planted in said grow bed; and determined said first electric power level and said second electric power based on said type of plant, as taught by the plant-specific control of Georgel. The control would allow for fine tuning the pulse characteristics for optimal growth based on the type of plant within the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppitz (WO 8603372 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wilson (US 20140259920 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1, however, Oppitz fails to specifically disclose further comprising a pH sensor being in contact with said growth solution and wherein said controller is further configured to determine said second power level based on pH measurements received from said pH sensor.
Wilson is in the field of plant treatment and teaches further comprising a pH sensor being in contact with said growth solution and wherein said controller is further configured to determine said second power level based on pH measurements received from said pH sensor (¶ 0203, lines 1-15, “Referring now to FIG. 22, a PLC 95 may enable automatic control of all functions of the growing system, which may be a hydroponic growing system, using controllers, such as Air Controllers 97 [HVAC Control, Fan Control, CO.sub.2 Control, Evaporator Control], Nutrient Controllers 98 [Dosing Controller, pH Controller], Mechanical Controllers 99 [Pump Controller, Aerator Controller], Lighting Controllers 100 [Timer Control, Power Control], Limit Controllers 101 [Fire Suppression, Shutdown Controller], Pathogen Controllers 102 [UV Controller, Electric Controller], water flow controller, and the like. The controllers may obtain data from one or more sensors that assist in determining a control needed. The sensors may include Air Sensors 89 [Humidity, Temp, Airflow, Airspeed, CO.sub.2 Amount, CO.sub.2 Flow], Nutrient Sensors 90 [Elemental, pH, Temp, Total Alkalinity]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electrical plant treatment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Oppitz to include a pH sensor being in contact with said growth solution and wherein said controller is further configured to determine said second power level based on pH measurements received from said pH sensor, as taught by the sensors and control of Wilson. The sensors would improve system visibility and data collection, with the pH specific control also improving control capabilities, which would improve the overall operation of the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Oppitz discloses the device of claim 1, however, Oppitz fails to specifically disclose further comprising a thermometer in contact with said growth solution and wherein said controller is further configured to determine said second power level based on temperature measurements received from said thermometer.
Wilson teaches further comprising a thermometer in contact with said growth solution and wherein said controller is further configured to determine said second power level based on temperature measurements received from said thermometer (¶ 0203, lines 1-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electrical plant treatment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Oppitz to include a thermometer in contact with said growth solution and wherein said controller is further configured to determine said second power level based on temperature measurements received from said thermometer, as taught by the sensors and control of Wilson. The sensors would improve system visibility and data collection, with the temperature specific control also improving control capabilities, which would improve the overall operation of the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Burge et al., US 20190107509 A1, discusses a microbial sensor system for monitoring and imaging of an environment.
Harms, US 20170202156 A1, discusses a hydroponic electroculture system and methods of use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
