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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 2, recites the limitation “the thereby control the spectral power.” Examiner recommends correction to “to thereby control the spectral power.”
Claim 11, line 1, recites the limitation “T(Currently Amended) he controller.” Examiner recommends correction to “(Currently Amended) The controller.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a white tip induction threshold of about 500 µmol/m2/s, does not reasonably provide enablement for a white tip induction threshold of about 500 mmol/m2/s. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. 2164.01(a)
Claim 2, lines 1 and 2, recites the limitation “wherein the white tip induction threshold is about 500 mmol/m2/s.” The specification discloses a white tip induction threshold in the µmol/m2/s range, but not the mmol/m2/s range. Therefore, the examiner’s interpretation of this limitation is that the breadth of this claim is inconsistent with the induction threshold disclosed in the specification.
The white tip induction threshold that is claimed, is recited in a way that makes the connection between the claimed method of providing light to a cannabis plant during a flowering stage and the claimed induction threshold indeterminate. page 2, line 34 – page 3, line 3 of the specification discloses the desired white tip induction threshold: “white tip appeared above a certain level of deep photons used in the spectrum of the horticulture light. Use of horticulture light comprising more than about 500-600 µmol/m2/s of deep photons and with a photoperiod of 12 hours, generally used in the flowering phase, triggered white tips after a week,” with the specification further reciting upper limits of light intensities at 1000-1500 µmol/m2/s (page 2), which is still below the claimed induction threshold. It is clear in the disclosure that the white tip induction threshold is intended to be in the µmol/m2/s range, therefore, the recitation of 500 mmol/m2/s as the induction threshold renders the scope of the claims unclear.
There exist recitations of white tip induction thresholds for cannabis plants found in the art, however none disclose white tip induction at a range of mmol/m2/s. For example, Nicole (US 20220295712 A1, previously disclosed by Applicant 07/24/2025) discloses an intermittent continuous light application for the increase of dry matter percentage in flower buds for cannabis plants where the plants are exposed to light with an intensity in the micromole range during a flowering phase. Additionally, Li et al. (US 20210345556 A1), hereinafter Li, discloses a spectrum for promoting growth of cannabis plants with plants similarly being exposed to light with an intensity in the micromole range during a flowering phase.
It would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cannabis lighting how providing light with an intensity in the mmol/m2/s range as opposed to the µmol/m2/s range would rest at a white tip induction threshold.
The application provides no examples in the disclosure wherein the white tip induction threshold is about 500 mmol/m2/s, with the amount of guidance needed in order to enable the invention being greater than that which is outlined in the disclosure.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected.
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 2, 6, 10, 11, and 15 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 2, lines 1 and 2, recites the limitation “wherein the white tip induction threshold is about 500 mmol/m2/s,” however neither the specification nor the drawings provide the relevant information required to understand the breadth of this claims consistent with the induction threshold disclosed in the specification. Examiner recommends revision to “wherein the white tip induction threshold is about 500 µmol/m2/s.” Claim 11 is similarly rejected.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the light intensity of the horticulture light is gradually increased” in line 3. The term “gradually” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner recommends revision to “the light intensity of the horticulture light is increased” Claim 10 is similarly rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “The horticultural lighting system” in line 1. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “A horticultural lighting system.”
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 1, 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20210345556 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of providing light to a cannabis plant during a flowering stage of the cannabis plant (¶ 0026, lines 10-21, “After the vegetative growth stage is finished, the plant is moved to the flower promotion stage for flower promotion treatment. The planting density of the plant in the flower promotion stage is 4 plants/m2. A distinguishment to the male and female flowers is required. The male flowers are removed, and the female plants is cultivated as before. The cultivation environment is set to have a day and night temperature at 24-26° C./21-22° C., humidity at 60-70%, CO2 concentration at 10000 ppm. Throughout the growth process, the LED light source is used to provide a light environment for the growth of the plant”), said method comprising;
providing a horticulture lighting device for illuminating the cannabis plant with horticulture light, the horticulture lighting device comprising at least one deep red light source configured to emit deep red photons in a wavelength range from 650 nm to 699 nm (¶ 0026, lines 26-32, “the red LED light source having peak wavelength at 630 nm, the red LED light source having peak wavelength at 710 nm, and the red LED light source having peak wavelength at 730 nm, respectively. Six experimental examples 1-6 are provided by using the red LED light source having peak wavelength at 655 nm, 660 nm, 670 nm, 680 nm, 685 nm, 690 nm, respectively;” A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]);
controlling a spectral power distribution and/or an intensity of the horticulture light such that an amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device is at or below a white tip induction threshold and thereafter controlling the spectral power distribution and/or intensity of the horticulture light such that the amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device changes towards levels of deep red above the white tip induction threshold (¶ 0025, lines 26-30, “As the plant height increases, the light intensity may reach 500-1000 μmol/m2 s in the late stage, and the photoperiod is 10-16 h/d. After 7-9 weeks of growth at the flowering stage, the accumulation of levels and yields of THC and CBD, the cannabinoid substances in plants, would be promoted;” ¶ 0026, lines 21-24, “An initial light intensity is set to 100 μmol/m2 s. As the plant height increases, the light intensity reaches 550 μmol/m2 s in the late stage, and the photoperiod is 12 h/d”); and
illuminating the cannabis plant with said horticulture light (¶ 0026, lines 10-21).
Li, however fails to specifically disclose an amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device is at or below a white tip induction threshold during at least a first couple of weeks of the flowering stage of the cannabis plant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to adjust the initial stage of Li such that an amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device is at or below a white tip induction threshold during at least a first couple of weeks of the flowering stage of the cannabis plant to reduce plant stress during the initial period of the flowering stage. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the method of claim 1.
Li discloses wherein the white tip induction threshold is about 500 µmol/m2/s (¶ 0025, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the method of claim 1, including wherein the amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light is at or below a white tip induction threshold during at least the first three weeks of the flowering stage (¶ 0025, lines 26-30; ¶ 0026, lines 21-24). Li, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light is at or below a white tip induction threshold during at least the first three weeks of the flowering stage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to adjust the initial stage of Li such that the amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light is at or below a white tip induction threshold during at least the first three weeks of the flowering stage to reduce plant stress during the initial period of the flowering stage. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the method of claim 1.
Li discloses further comprising the step of controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that the light intensity of the horticulture light is gradually increased during at least the first couple of weeks of the flowering stage (¶ 0025, lines 26-30; ¶ 0026, lines 21-24).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20210345556 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20220022381 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 4, Li ‘556 discloses the method of claim 1.
Li ‘556 discloses wherein the horticulture lighting device comprising at least one green light source configured to emit green photons in a wavelength range of 500 nm to 570 nm, and wherein the method comprises controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by green photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device; and/or
wherein the horticulture lighting device comprising at least one blue light source configured to emit blue photons in a wavelength range of 420 nm to 490 nm (¶ 0026, lines 24 and 25, “Four control examples 1-4 are provided by using the blue LED light source having peak wavelength at 450 nm;” A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]), and wherein the method comprises controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light (¶ 0025, lines 26-30; ¶ 0026, lines 21-24).
Li ‘556, however, fails to specifically disclose controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device.
Li ‘381 is in the field of plant lighting and teaches controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device (¶ 0130, “In some embodiments, the plant characteristic criteria includes a criterion which is met, e.g., when the plant 908 transitions from a vegetative stage to a reproductive or flowering stage, and wherein the controller 902 is configured to alter the light wavelength spectrum from, e.g., having a peak in red wavelength range of 625 nm to 700 nm to, e.g., having an increased amount of light in the blue wavelength range of 440 to 470 nm”).
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 method of Li ‘556 to include controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device, as taught by the spectral control of Li ‘381. The ability to control the light spectrum for different stages would allow for blue light to be utilized instead of excess red light. This would allow the user to further tailor the method to accommodate the spectral needs of the plant during individual growth stages. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Li ‘556 discloses the method of claim 1.
Li ‘556 discloses wherein the horticulture lighting device comprising at least one light red light source configured to emit light red photons in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 649 nm, and wherein the method comprises controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by light red photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device; and/or
wherein the horticulture lighting device comprising at least one light blue light source configured to emit blue photons in a wavelength range of 460 nm to 490 nm (¶ 0026, lines 24 and 25;” A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]), and wherein the method comprises controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light (¶ 0025, lines 26-30; ¶ 0026, lines 21-24).
Li ‘556, however, fails to specifically disclose controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device.
Li ‘381 teaches controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device (¶ 0130).
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 method of Li ‘556 to include controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device, as taught by the spectral control of Li ‘381. The ability to control the light spectrum for different stages would allow for blue light to be utilized instead of excess red light. This would allow the user to further tailor the method to accommodate the spectral needs of the plant during individual growth stages. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20210345556 A1) in view of Limpert (US 20190223386 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses controlling a horticulture lighting device for emitting horticulture light to a cannabis plant during a flowering stage of the cannabis plant, (¶ 0026, lines 10-21), the horticulture lighting device comprising;
at least one deep red light source configured to emit deep red photons in a wavelength range from 650 nm to 699 nm (¶ 0026, lines 26-32; A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]);
wherein the at least one deep red light source of the horticulture lighting device is controlled such that an amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device is at or below a white tip induction threshold and thereafter control the at least one deep red light source of the horticulture lighting device such that the amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device changes towards levels of deep red above the white tip induction threshold (¶ 0025, lines 26-30; ¶ 0026, lines 21-24, “An initial light intensity is set to 100 μmol/m2 s. As the plant height increases, the light intensity reaches 550 μmol/m2 s in the late stage, and the photoperiod is 12 h/d”).
Li, however fails to specifically disclose a controller, wherein the controller as adapted to control the at least one deep red light source of the horticulture lighting device, and an amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device is at or below a white tip induction threshold during at least a first week of the flowering stage of the cannabis plant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to adjust the initial stage of Li such that an amount of deep red photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device is at or below a white tip induction threshold during at least a first week of the flowering stage of the cannabis plant to reduce plant stress during the initial period of the flowering stage. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Limpert is in the field of plant lighting and teaches a controller, wherein the controller as adapted to control the at least one deep red light source of the horticulture lighting device (¶ 0105, lines 7-22, “system 202 further includes individual conductors 261, 262, and 263 that are individually connected to their own respective sheet [e.g., in some embodiments, conductor 261 is connected to sheet 103A, conductor 262 is connected to sheet 103B, and conductor 263 is connected to sheet 103C] with power supply 270 under control of controller 195 in order to provide sheet-specific control of amount of current, pulse-width modulation, and/or other suitable signal control, in order to control brightness [amount of light] and/or color spectrum [which wavelengths and how much of each wavelengths are emitted] and/or time-of-day or time-of week or season to use for each spectrum and/or brightness”).
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 Li to include a controller, wherein the controller as adapted to control the at least one deep red light source of the horticulture lighting device, as taught by the controller of Limpert. The controller would allow the user to modify aspects of the lighting such as brightness, color, and timing, which would improve the overall control the user has over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Limpert discloses the device of claim 7.
Li discloses adapted to control the light sources of the horticulture lighting device the thereby control the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that the light intensity of the horticulture light is gradually increased during at least the first three weeks of the flowering stage (¶ 0025, lines 26-30; ¶ 0026, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Limpert discloses the device of claim 7.
Li discloses wherein the white tip induction threshold is about 500 µmol/m2/s (¶ 0025, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Limpert discloses a horticulture lighting system comprising the controller of claim 7, and furthermore, the modified reference discloses a horticulture lighting device comprising at least one deep red light source configured to emit deep red photons in a wavelength range from 650 nm to 699 nm (Li; ¶ 0026, lines 26-32; A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]).
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Limpert discloses a horticulture lighting system comprising the controller of claim 7, and furthermore, the modified reference discloses wherein the horticulture lighting device further comprises;
at least one green light source configured to emit green photons in a wavelength range of 500 nm to 570 nm (Li; ¶ 0014, “In some embodiments, the blue light has a peak wavelength at 440-460 nm, the red light has a peak wavelength at 660-685 nm, and the green light has a peak wavelength at 505-526 nm;” A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]);
at least one blue light source configured to emit blue photons in a wavelength range of 420 nm to 490 nm (Li ‘556; ¶ 0026, lines 24 and 25; A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]);
at least one light red light source configured to emit light red photons in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 649 nm (Li ‘556; ¶ 0026, lines 24 and 25; A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]); and
at least one light blue light source configured to emit blue photons in a wavelength range of 460 nm to 490 nm (Li ‘556; ¶ 0026, lines 24 and 25; A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20210345556 A1) in view of Limpert (US 20190223386 A1), as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20220022381 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 8, Li ‘556 in view of Limpert discloses the device of claim 7, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the horticulture lighting device further comprises at least one green light source configured to emit green photons in a wavelength range of 500 nm to 570 nm, and/or at least one blue light source configured to emit blue photons in a wavelength range of 420 nm to 490 nm (Li ‘556; ¶ 0026, lines 24 and 25; A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]), and wherein the controller (Limpert; controller 195) is further adapted to control the at least one green light source and/or the least one blue light source of the horticulture lighting device to thereby control the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light (Li ‘556; ¶ 0025, lines 26-30; ¶ 0026, lines 21-24).
The modified reference however, fails to specifically disclose controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by green photons and/or blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device.
Li ‘381 is in the field of plant lighting and teaches controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by green photons and/or blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device (¶ 0130).
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 Li ‘556 in view of Limpert to include controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by green photons and/or blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device, as taught by the spectral control of Li ‘381. The ability to control the light spectrum for different stages would allow for blue light to be utilized instead of excess red light. This would allow the user to further tailor the method to accommodate the spectral needs of the plant during individual growth stages. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Li ‘556 in view of Limpert discloses the device of claim 7, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the horticulture lighting device further comprises at least one light red light source configured to emit light red photons in a wavelength range of 600 nm to 649 nm, and/or at least one light blue light source configured to emit light blue photons in a wavelength range of 460 nm to 490 nm (Li ‘556; ¶ 0026, lines 24 and 25; A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range [MPEP 2131.03]), and wherein the controller (Limpert; controller 195) is further adapted to control the at least one light red light source and/or the least one light blue light source of the horticulture lighting device to thereby control the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light (Li ‘556; ¶ 0025, lines 26-30; ¶ 0026, lines 21-24).
The modified reference however, fails to specifically disclose controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by light red photons and/or light blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device.
Li ‘381 is in the field of plant lighting and teaches controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by light red photons and/or light blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device (¶ 0130).
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 Li ‘556 in view of Limpert to include controlling the spectral power distribution and/or the intensity of the horticulture light such that an excess of deep red photons above the white tip induction threshold is replaced by light red photons and/or light blue photons in the horticulture light emitted by the horticulture lighting device, as taught by the spectral control of Li ‘381. The ability to control the light spectrum for different stages would allow for blue light to be utilized instead of excess red light. This would allow the user to further tailor the method to accommodate the spectral needs of the plant during individual growth stages. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20210345556 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Suntych (US 20230037527 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the method of claim 1, however, Li fails to specifically disclose a computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the instructions are executed by a controller, causes the controller to perform the method of claim 1.
Suntych is in the field of plant lighting and teaches a computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the instructions are executed by a controller, causes the controller to perform a method of providing light to a cannabis plant (¶ 0010, lines 1-9, “An embodiment of the present invention provides computer readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more of the processors of a system comprising at least one master controller and two or more light emitting devices, LED, cause the system to: provide a time of a master clock within said at least one master controller; generate a signal to transmit the time of said master clock within said signal; receive the signal at the two or more LEDs;” cannabis, ¶ 0070).
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 method of Li to include a computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the instructions are executed by a controller, causes the controller to perform a method of providing light to a cannabis plant, as taught by the computer readable medium comprising instructions of Suntych. The computer readable medium comprising instructions would further improve the lighting control of the method. 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.
Finley et al., US 20180344661 A1, discusses cannabis oil compositions and methods for preparation thereof.
Burden, US 20190380278 A1, discusses automated pruning or harvesting for complex morphology foliage.
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