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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/4/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a human interface device operably connected to the a machine learning/artificial intelligence module” should read “a human interface device operably connected to the [[a]] machine learning/artificial intelligence module.”
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 1-6 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 states “a machine learning/artificial intelligence module.” It is unclear whether both of the options or only one of these options is required of the claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Artificial intelligence is a broad overarching term and machine learning is a subcategory of artificial intelligence. Since machine learning is more narrow than artificial intelligence, it is unclear what exactly the scope of the claim is.
Claim 3 states “wherein the images are still, motion, or a combination thereof.” It is unclear what is meant by “the images are motion” thus rendering the claim indefinite. An image cannot be in motion, or be a video, therefore it is unclear what is structurally required of the claim.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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)(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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanek et al. (WO 2021/067847).
Regarding Claim 1, Stanek discloses a system for growing food (“a crop farm, an orchard, an indoor farm, a hydroponic farm” Paragraph 0003]) comprising:
one or more actuators located on a location for growing a crop (“actuator arrays may consist of vents, heaters, fans, lights, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, other devices, or any combination thereof that can act on the environment or a subset of the environment (e.g. microclimate of a sub-location of the agricultural facility)” Paragraph [0040]);
one or more sensors configured to transmit one or more signals pertaining to a plant condition located on the location for growing the crop (“A series of sensors may be distributed at carefully chosen locations throughout the agricultural facility, collecting ongoing data on temperature, humidity, fertilizer content, fertilizer concentration, nutrient content, nutrient concentration, pH, light levels, light spectrums, air flow, air circulation, or any combination thereof.” Paragraph [0037]; “one or more remote devices 102 are configured to communicate with and/or receive instructions from the digital processing device 101, and may comprise any sensor, actuator, or camera as described herein. For example, in some cases, the remote device 102 is a temperature sensor that is configured to gather temperature data and send the data to the digital processing device 101 for analysis” Page 25; Paragraph [0007]);
a machine learning/artificial intelligence module operably connected to the one or more sensors to receive the one or more transmitted signals pertaining to a plant condition (“processors with built-in machine learning or Artificial Intelligence (AI) can utilize data from one or more sensors of a sensor array” Paragraph [0040]) and wherein the machine learning/artificial intelligence module is operably connected to the one or more actuators to transmit one or more signals to the one or more actuators to take an action to facilitate plant growth (“Processors with built-in machine learning or Artificial Intelligence (AI) can utilize data from one or more sensors of a sensor array and learn best how to use one or more actuators of an array of actuators to achieve an outcome in a specific environment.” Paragraph [0040]); and
a human interface device operably connected to the a machine learning/artificial intelligence module (user input device 145; Figure 1; Page 24 Paragraph [0002]) and configured to provide human on the loop feedback to the machine learning/artificial intelligence module (“A smart recipe may be a combination of an initial recipe provided by a user or database that may be additionally modified or updated by a trained algorithm…A smart recipe may be updated based on a user feedback,” Paragraph [0057]) and wherein the human interface device is operably connected to the one or more actuators and configured for a human operator to transmit one or more signals to the one or more actuators (“The second user portal will permit the agricultural grower to input, review or modify one or more operating parameters, outputs, data, recipes, or any combination thereof.” Paragraph [0166]).
Regarding Claim 2, Stanek discloses the system which further comprises a camera configured to collect images about the plant condition (“Camera arrays can capture data from a portion of a growing area or an entire growing area.” Paragraph [0041]) and transmitting the images to the machine learning/artificial intelligence module (“with cameras biofeedback may be incorporated so that the processor can adjust the operating parameters (such as environmental conditions) based on data (such as leaf orientation, color, reproductive status, plant health or any combination thereof).” Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 3, Stanek discloses the system of claim 2 wherein the images are still, motion, or a combination thereof (“a camera configured to provide a camera feed or imaging data to the digital processing device 101” Page 25 Paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claim 4, Stanek discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the one or more sensors configured to transmit one or more signals pertaining to a plant condition are selected from sensors configured to measure temperature, CO2 content, O2 content, pH, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, sulfur, iron, boron, chloride, sodium, or any combination thereof (“A series of sensors may be distributed at carefully chosen locations throughout the agricultural facility, collecting ongoing data on temperature, humidity, fertilizer content, fertilizer concentration, nutrient content, nutrient concentration, pH, light levels, light spectrums, air flow, air circulation, or any combination thereof.” Paragraph [0037]).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek et al. (WO 2021/067847) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ball et al. (WO 2022/164963).
Regarding Claim 5, Stanek discloses the system of claim 1.
Stanek fails to disclose the system wherein the location for growing a crop comprises a grow tower.
However, Ball teaches a similar growth system (“The cloud-based system 116 may input the captured sensor data 118 into a machine learned model and the model may output adaptations for use in lens, focus, shutters, and the like of the sensors. The cloud-based system 116 may also output settings or adjustable characteristics (such as lighting parameters, humidity or moisture parameters, dynamic sensor settings, and the like) which may be downloaded or applied to one or more of active enclosures 100” Paragraph [0071]) wherein the location for growing a crop comprises a grow tower (planting column 108; Figure 6).
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 system of Stanek, to be applied to a grow tower as taught by Ball, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for more customization of the growing environment for a smaller group of plants.
Regarding Claim 6, Stanek as modified teaches the system of claim 5. Stanek further discloses a component operably connected to the one or more actuators wherein the component is a motor, a pump, a waste digester, a water reservoir, a water sprayer, a lighting system, a temperature control system, or any combination thereof (“ An actuator may include a vent, a shutter, a louver, a sprayer, a pump, a valve, a mixer, a heater, a fan, a light, a humidifier, a dehumidifier, an air exchanger, a gas pump, a water source, a wind source, a food source, a fertilizer source, a pest control source, an evaporative cooler, a gas generator (such as a C02 generator) or any combination thereof.” Paragraph [0026]).
Stanek fails to disclose the grow tower comprises a component operably connected to the one or more actuators.
However, Ball teaches wherein the grow tower comprises a component operably connected to the one or more actuators and wherein the component is a motor, a pump, a waste digester, a water reservoir, a water sprayer, a lighting system, a temperature control system, or any combination thereof (“The cloud-based system 116 may also output settings or adjustable characteristics (such as lighting parameters, humidity or moisture parameters, dynamic sensor settings, and the like) which may be downloaded or applied to one or more of active enclosures 100” Paragraph [0071]; Figure 17).
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 system of Stanek, to be applied to a grow tower as taught by Ball, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for more customization of the growing environment for a smaller group of plants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Khwaja et al. (US 2021/0100173), Gionet JR et al. (US 2020/0110933), Humpston et al. (US 2022/0156921), and Pham (US 2022/0156610) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar plant growth systems using machine learning.
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 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights