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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22211307.8, filed on 12/05/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 7, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomasovics (US 20190261574 A1, previously cited by Applicant 04/24/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Tomasovics discloses a non-integrated luminaire arranged in a horticultural environment (horticultural system; Fig. 1A), comprising:
one or more light sources configured to provide illumination and influence one or more environmental parameters of the horticultural environment based on one or more lighting properties (grow light 110; Fig. 1A; ¶ 0012, “The system may further employ a set of distributed temperature sensors [typically in the same casing as light or PPFD detectors], and the temperature sensors may be used to map the canopy temperature. Light intensity from a grow light may be changed [decreased] if the average temperature of plant foliage is out of [above] the optimal range”); and
a controller communicatively coupled to one or more sensors configured to measure the one or more environmental parameters (controller 170; Fig. 1A), the one or more sensors including at least one of an ambient temperature sensor configured to measure ambient temperature data or a plant temperature sensor configured to measure plant temperature data (¶ 0019, “Each of the distributed light sensor 130 may be configured to measure PPFD or light intensity in a specific wavelength band at a specific location, e.g., at the location of the sensor 130. Distributed sensors 130 may particularly sense the intensity of light having relevant wavelengths for photosynthesis. Sensors 130 may be implemented as using photodiodes with appropriate filters to measure the intensity of photosynthetically active light. For example, various photodiodes or phototransistors with or without optical filters may measure the average intensity of light with specific wavelengths at the locations of the photodiodes or phototransistors. Whether or not sensors 130 measure only photons that are useful for photosynthesis, each sensor 130 or another component of the feedback system, e.g., controller 170, may determine a PPFD measurement using an intensity measurement and a light intensity response curve that correlates the measured intensity with the density of photosynthetically active photons. In some configurations, each sensor 130 includes both a PPFD sensor and a temperature sensor”), the controller configured to:
generate an optimized lighting recipe based on the measured environmental parameters and an optimization model (¶ 0012; ¶ 0026, “Controller 170 operates grow light 110 and may control the power supplied to grow light 110 [and thereby the intensity of light emitted from grow light 110] in order to achieve or maintain a desired PPFD at plant canopy level 160. The actual PPFD at canopy level 160 generally depends on five variables, namely the brightness of grow light 110, the spatial distribution of the light from grow light 110, the distance between grow light 110 and plant canopy level 160, the area of the plant canopy, and the shape of the plant canopy. The power supply or brightness of grow light 110 is a variable that controller 170 as disclosed herein can set and change. The spatial distributions of light from grow light 110 at different distances may be known or determined through measurements, e.g., a calibration operation. The distance between grow light 110 and plant canopy level 160 is not constant because plants 140 grow, but the distance can be measured or determined as described further below. The area of the plant canopy may be known from the area of tray 150 on which plants 140 grow. For plants of the same age and type being grown together in a plant growth space, the shape of the plant canopy may be approximated as a horizontal flat plane, i.e., plant canopy level 160. Controller 170 may calculate or determine an actual or measured average PPFD in an area in plant canopy level 160 by combining the known light power distribution of grow light 110, with the grow light to plant canopy distance measurements from sensors 120, and/or the distributed PPFD measurements at known locations of sensors 130. Controller 170 may then automatically adjust the brightness of grow light 110 until the actual of measured PPFD at canopy level 160 is equal to the desired or target average PPFD at the canopy level 160 or until the actual average PPFD at canopy level is as close to the desired PPFD as possible while keeping the temperature of the plant canopy within a desired range”), wherein the optimization model is configured to compute a weighted average of differences in values of two or more of the measured environmental parameters recorded during modifications of the one or more lighting properties, wherein the weighted average of differences values are averaged according to weights preassigned to the respective measured environmental parameters (¶ 0027, “Controller 170 may determine or identify the distance from grow light 110 to plant canopy level 160 based on the measurements from distance sensors 120 and/or based on the intensity measurements from PPFD sensors 130. In general, the distance measurements from multiple distance sensors 120 may differ because the plant canopy is not a solid uniform surface, but an average of the distance measurements may provide a reliable measurement of the location of plant canopy level 160. Alternatively, the intensity measurements from sensors 130 may identify canopy level 160. In particular, an abrupt drop in intensity measured by one PPFD sensor 130 and a PPFD sensor 130 directly below may indicate that the plant canopy shades the lower PPFD sensor 130 but does not shade the upper PPFD sensor 130. Canopy level 160 may thus be identified as being between shaded and unshaped PPFD sensors 130. In one implementation, a processing module 172 in controller 170 determines distance 180 to canopy level 160 using an average, e.g., a weighted average, of the distance measurements from distance sensors 120. In a second configuration, processing module 172 determines distance 180 from grow light 110 to canopy level 160 based on a weighted average of both the distance measurements from distance sensors 120 and the inferred distances determined from intensity measurements from the multiple sets of vertically-arranged PPFD sensors 130. In a third embodiment, processing module 172 can determine distance 180 from grow light 110 to canopy level 160 solely from the intensity measurements of PPFD sensors 130, and distance sensors 120 may be omitted from system 100 or 200”); and
adjust the one or more lighting properties according to the optimized lighting recipe (¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 2, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 1.
Tomasovics discloses wherein at least one of the one or more light sources is a light emitting diode or a high-pressure sodium light (¶ 0015, lines 3-7, “Current grow light systems providing high energy efficiency often employ Light Emitting Diode [LED] lighting, and grow light 110 may, for example, include a flat LED panel, multiple LED panels, or a set of LED bars”).
Regarding claim 3, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 1.
Tomasovics discloses wherein the one or more lighting properties comprise a light spectrum, a light intensity, a spatial location, and/or a light direction (¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 4, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 3.
Tomasovics discloses wherein at least one of the one or more lighting properties is wavelength dependent (¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 7, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 1.
Tomasovics discloses wherein the one or more sensors includes a light sensor configured to measure spectral data (¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 9, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 1.
Tomasovics discloses wherein the controller is further configured to receive, via a wired or wireless connection, a second optimized lighting recipe from a second non-integrated luminaire (¶ 0031, “FIG. 4 shows another implementation of a horticultural system 400 containing multiple growth space modules 200A, 200B, and 200C having separate grow lights 110. For example, modules 200A, 200B, and 200C may be similar or identical to horticultural system 200 of FIG. 2A and may be arranged and connected together in a row with each module 200A, 200B, or 200C containing growth space for plants 140, grow lights 110, distance sensors 120, and distributed PPFD sensors 130 as described above. Each module 200A, 200B, or 200C may further include a hub 210 that communicates with sensors 120 and 130 in that module 200A, 200B, or 200C and communicates with a shared grow light controller 170. In general, modules 200A, 200B, and 200C may contain different types of plants or plants of different ages or heights. In the illustrated implementation, a single controller 170 may receive measurements from distance sensors 120 and PPFD sensors 130 in all of modules 200A, 200B, and 200C, may determine the locations of canopy levels 160A, 160B, and 160C and the average PPFDs respectively at the different canopy levels 160A, 160B, and 160C in respective modules 200A, 200B, and 200C. Shared controller 170 may adjust the brightness settings of grow lights 110 in modules 200A, 200B, and 200C, so that plant canopies 160A, 160B, and 160C respectively receive their desired average PPFDs. Shared controller 170 may further include or implement modules for operation of other horticultural systems in or for the connected modules 200A, 200B, and 200C. For example, in addition to grow lights 110, the controller may further control operation of watering, drainage, ventilation, heating, or cooling systems and systems for creating, mixing, measuring, or delivering nutrient solutions”).
Regarding claim 10, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 9.
Tomasovics discloses wherein the adjusting of the one or more lighting properties is further based on the second optimized lighting recipe (¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 11, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 9.
Tomasovics discloses wherein the controller is further configured to transmit, via the wired or wireless connection, the optimized lighting recipe to the second non-integrated luminaire (Fig. 4; ¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 12, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 1.
Tomasovics discloses wherein the non- integrated luminaire is a top light or a grid light (Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 15, Tomasovics discloses method of illuminating a horticultural environment, comprising: providing a non-integrated luminaire (horticultural system; Fig. 1A), wherein the non-integrated luminaire comprises:
one or more light sources to provide illumination and influence one or more environmental parameters of the horticultural environment based on one or more lighting properties (grow light 110; Fig. 1A; ¶ 0012); and
a controller communicatively coupled to one or more sensors configured to measure the one or more environmental parameters (controller 170; Fig. 1A), the one or more sensors including at least one of an ambient temperature sensor configured to measure ambient temperature data or a plant temperature sensor configured to measure plant temperature data (¶ 0019);
measuring, via the one or more sensors, the one or more environmental parameters of the horticultural environment (¶ 0019);
generating, via the controller, an optimized lighting recipe based on the measured environmental parameters and an optimization model (¶ 0012; ¶ 0026), wherein the optimization model is configured to compute a weighted average of differences in values of two or more of the measured environmental parameters recorded during modifications of the one or more lighting properties, wherein the weighted average of differences values are averaged according to weights preassigned to the respective measured environmental parameters (¶ 0027); and
adjusting, via the controller, the one or more lighting properties according to the optimized lighting recipe (¶ 0026).
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 5, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasovics (US 20190261574 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 7, and further in view of Bongartz et al. (US 20190259108 A1), hereinafter Bongartz.
Regarding claim 5, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 1, however, Tomasovics fails to specifically disclose wherein the plant temperature sensor is a thermal camera, single pixel thermopile sensor, or a multi-pixel thermopile array.
Bongartz is in the field of plant lighting and teaches wherein the plant temperature sensor is a thermal camera, single pixel thermopile sensor, or a multi-pixel thermopile array (¶ 1242, “Thus, the controlled agricultural system may also comprise sensors to detect the growth state of the plants, e.g. cameras, including thermal and hyperspectral cameras. If a certain growth state is detected, the computing device may switch the growth settings accordingly”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomasovics such that the plant temperature sensor is a thermal camera, single pixel thermopile sensor, or a multi-pixel thermopile array, as taught by the thermal cameras of Bongartz. The thermal cameras would allow for more effective temperature monitoring, which would improve overall monitoring capabilities. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 7, however, Tomasovics fails to specifically disclose wherein the light sensor is a multi-spectral camera or a photosynthetically active radiation sensor.
Bongartz teaches wherein the light sensor is a multi-spectral camera or a photosynthetically active radiation sensor (¶ 0740, lines 1-5, “In general, simple RGB cameras can be provided to create a general overview of the entire plant canopy. However, also multispectral or hyperspectral cameras can be used to measure e.g. the chlorophyll fluorescence or the fertilization status;” ¶ 2272, lines 4-12, “The agricultural light fixture 110 comprises light modules 212 and sensors, e.g. temperatures sensors for monitoring the temperature of the light modules 212. Supplemental sensors 150 for measuring plant growth and plant health, e.g. image sensors 252, PAR sensors 254, and sensors 160 for measuring environmental parameters, e.g. humidity sensors 262, temperature sensors 264, are also connected via the gateway 120 to the light control unit 130”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomasovics such that the light sensor is a multi-spectral camera or a photosynthetically active radiation sensor, as taught by the light sensors of Bongartz. The light sensors would allow for visibility over additional variables such as chlorophyll fluorescence, fertilization status, and PAR, which would improve overall monitoring capabilities. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 1, however, Tomasovics fails to specifically disclose wherein the one or more environmental parameters are provided to the controller according to a predetermined time interval.
Bongartz teaches wherein the one or more environmental parameters are provided to the controller according to a predetermined time interval (¶ 0863, “As mentioned above, measured local data [LTik] can be stored into a Data Bank [DB]. Likewise the actually applied lighting conditions [CLik] [either measured or per lighting program/sequence]. The measurement of the applied lighting conditions can contain a variety of parameters [DLI, spectral ratios, and so on, as explained above]. Measurements can be done e.g. at preselected time intervals [like seconds, minutes, hours], or irregularly. Once measured, such data can be fed into a computer system and proper lighting conditions can be calculated and applied [intermediate approach]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomasovics such that the one or more environmental parameters are provided to the controller according to a predetermined time interval, as taught by the control system of Bongartz. The control system would allow for variable measurement intervals dependent on user or application preference, which would improve overall monitoring capabilities. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 1, however, Tomasovics fails to specifically disclose wherein the optimized lighting recipe is generated further based on user feedback received by the controller.
Bongartz teaches wherein the optimized lighting recipe is generated further based on user feedback received by the controller (¶ 2886, “A light recipe can be stored as a data set or a program code and executed by a computer-implemented software program, by a user-defined or user-selected program code, or by a sensor trigger signal;” ¶ 2896, “A light recipe can be user defined, also interactively”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomasovics such that the optimized lighting recipe is generated further based on user feedback received by the controller, as taught by the light recipe generation of Bongartz. This would allow for the user to further tailor the light recipe to their specific use case, which would improve adjustability and flexibility of the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasovics (US 20190261574 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Greenberg et al. (US 20210304326 A1), hereinafter Greenberg.
Regarding claim 6, Tomasovics discloses the device of claim 1, however, Tomasovics fails to specifically disclose wherein the optimization model is a reinforcement learning model.
Greenberg is in the field of plant lighting and teaches wherein the optimization model is a reinforcement learning model (¶ 0035, lines 19-24, “the machine learning model may also, or alternately, utilize reinforcement learning techniques to generate diagnoses and recommendations. For example, the model may be trained using the input data and, based on grower feedback, the model may be rewarded based on its output”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant lighting before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomasovics such that the optimization model is a reinforcement learning model, as taught by the reinforcement learning model of Greenberg. The reinforcement learning model would result in further optimization of the system through the generation of diagnoses and recommendations. 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.
Thomas et al., US 20210080615 A1, discusses a method and system for predicting daily light integrals for crop growing.
Genga, Jr. et al., US 12041893 B1, discusses a grow light assembly with inspection mode and method of operating thereof.
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
Prosecution Insights