DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 31, and 33 have been amended, Claims 2, 18-20, 23, and 28-29 are canceled, Claims 5-10, 21-22, 24-27, 30, 32, and 34-36 remain as previously presented, and Claims 11-17 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 10/08/2025.
Response to Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 01/05/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 based upon Kagawa in view of Shubat as set forth in the last Office action because of the following reasons:
On Pgs. 2-3 Paragraphs 4-9, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Kagawa to add a hydrogen peroxide dosing unit of Shubat because hydrogen peroxide is not a suitable source of oxygen because the released O₂ is short-lived, localized, and limited
in total yield. Thus, the benefits are not substantial. Meanwhile, the oxidative effect can damage
nutrient components. Applicant provides Appendix B to support his claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the released O₂ is not short-lived, the requirement of a specific hydrogen peroxide level/concentration) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, hydrogen peroxide may be used to recirculated irrigation water systems to provide oxygen, and that despite the presence of radicals, hydrogen peroxide can still positively impact plant growth (Source: Lau, V., & Mattson, N. (2021). Effects of Hydrogen Peroxide on Organically Fertilized Hydroponic Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Horticulturae, 7(5), 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7050106).
On Pg. 3 Paragraphs 9-10, Applicant relies on Appendix B, which recommends that hydrogen peroxide is removed before the water reaches the plants. Therefore, the skilled person would understand that while H₂O₂ disinfection is fine upstream, one of skill would not let residual peroxide reach the plant zone (e.g., one would not consider moving the dosing unit in Kagawa downstream of the nutrient dosing unit).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Appendix B raises safety concerns surrounding hydrogen peroxide, other sources suggest that hydrogen peroxide can help keep plants oxygenated (Source: Waddington, Elizabeth. “10 Uses for Hydrogen Peroxide in the Garden.” Rural Sprout, 17 July 2020, www.ruralsprout.com/hydrogen-peroxide-garden/.). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could place the dosing unit in Kagawa downstream of the nutrient dosing unit to help plant oxygenation.
On Pgs. 3-4 Paragraphs 11-13, Applicant relies on Appendix C to argue that it would not be obvious to co-inject hydrogen peroxide and nutrients.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pg. 14 of Appendix C itself states that “You may use hydrogen peroxide for oxidation and disinfecting as often as you wish, for both continuous and localized injection.” Furthermore, Pg. 27 of Appendix C elaborates stating that “injecting hydrogen peroxide into irrigation water containing fertilizer is not hazardous”.
On Pgs. 4-5 Paragraphs 14-16, Applicant turns to Appendix D and argues that Appendix D teaches away from using hydrogen peroxide to improve root health. Applicant further argues that exposure to hydrogen peroxide in greenhouse conditions resulted in root damage.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It should first be noted that the study of Appendix D focused on the effect of hydrogen peroxide on a specific plant, the Vivaldi hybrid phalaenopsis orchid (See Abstract). The Abstract summarizes the result, which noted that as the concentration of hydrogen peroxide increased so did the root damage (See Abstract and Results). Based on the Results of this Study, the authors recommend that 3% be the maximum hydrogen peroxide concentration considered to avoid root failure in this orchid (See Conclusion). The authors also note that because the mode of action between hydrogen peroxide and the orchid roots is not well understood, they do not recommend using hydrogen peroxide as a home remedy for root day on phalaenopsis orchids (See Conclusion). This conclusion is limited to a specific type of plant, which is not recited in the claimed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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, 3, 10, 22, 24-25, and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (JP 5817526 B2) in view of Shubat et al. (US 20170305768 A1) and Klein et al. (US 20210084850 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kagawa teaches a horticulture facility (10; shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
A grow area (101) configured to grow plants (shown in Fig. 1. Grow area 101 grows plants 200.),
A water loop (circulation paths 11,12) configured to recycle water withdrawn from an outlet of the grow area to an inlet of the grow area (shown in Fig. 1. Circulation paths 11 and 12 recycle water withdrawn from an outlet of the grow area 101 [located on the right side of grow area 101] to an inlet of the grow area 101 [located on the left side of grow area 101].),
The water loop comprising a feed water channel (52), wherein the feed water channel comprises a feed water outlet connected to a feed water inlet of a nutrient dosing unit (102) configured to dose nutrients to a feed water, thereby providing an aqueous nutrient liquid (shown in Fig. 1; Feed water channel 52 comprises a feed water outlet which is connected to a feed water inlet 16 of nutrient dosing unit 102 which doses nutrient solution L into grow area 101 and thereby provides aqueous nutrient liquid L.),
A channel (49) configured to feed the aqueous nutrient liquid from the nutrient dosing unit to growing plants in the area (shown in Fig. 1; Channel 49 feeds the aqueous nutrient liquid L from the nutrient dosing unit 102 to growing plants 200 in the area 101.),
A withdrawal water channel (48) having a withdrawal water inlet in fluid communication with a withdrawal water outlet from the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; Withdrawal water channel 48 has an inlet in fluid communication with a withdrawal water outlet located on the right side of the grow area 101.) and
A recycle channel configured to return water to the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; A recycle channel located between switching valves 16 which returns water to grow area 101 directly into nutrient dosing unit 102.),
Wherein the facility comprises at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (60), configured to introduce a hydrogen peroxide solution into the water loop (Pg. 2 states that water purification unit 60 generates hydrogen peroxide and both Pg. 2 and Fig. 1 show that the hydrogen peroxide solution is introduced into the water loop via channel 52.);
At least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system (sensor 307) configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide concentration in the water loop (Pg. 6 states that sensor 307 determines the hydrogen peroxide concentration in the water loop 11,12 as water from the loop enters water storage portion 61 of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60.),
Wherein the horticulture facility comprises a controller unit (103) configured to control the hydrogen peroxide content (Pg. 6 states that controller unit 103 controls a discharge part 62 of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 which serves to control the hydrogen peroxide content.), and
Wherein the controller (103) is an automated controller unit adapted to receive hydrogen peroxide content related input data from the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system and the automated controller unit is adapted to generate an output signal to the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit to adjust a hydrogen peroxide dosing rate by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on said hydrogen peroxide content related input data (Pg. 6 states that controller unit 103 receives hydrogen peroxide content related input data from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system 307 and generate an output signal to a discharge part 62 of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 to adjust the hydrogen peroxide dosing rate by the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the input data.),
Wherein the channel (49) is configured to feed the aqueous nutrient liquid from the nutrient dosing unit (102) to growing plants in the grow area (101) is situated between the nutrient dosing unit and the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; Channel 49, which feeds the aqueous nutrient liquid L from the nutrient dosing unit 102 to growing plants 200 in the area 101, is situated between nutrient dosing unit 102 and the grow area 101.),
Wherein the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (60) is configured to dose hydrogen peroxide into the aqueous nutrient liquid inside the channel (49) configured to feed the aqueous nutrient liquid from the nutrient dosing unit to growing plants in the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; Hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 is capable of dosing hydrogen peroxide into the liquid inside channel 49, which feeds the aqueous nutrient liquid L from the nutrient dosing unit 102 to growing plants 200 in the area 101.).
The system of Kagawa teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit is downstream of the nutrient dosing unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to place the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit of the system of Kagawa downstream of the nutrient dosing unit because hydrogen peroxide adds oxygen to the soil and helps boost nutrient uptake, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
However, the system of Kagawa fails to explicitly state that the hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprising at least one sampling unit having at least one sampling point downstream of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, and that the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to withdraw discrete liquid samples from liquid in the water loop at the at least one sampling point configured to take samples from the water loop whilst a liquid flow through the water loop continues and wherein the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide content of the liquid in the water loop.
Shubat teaches a water treatment and distribution system (200; shown in Fig. 2) comprising a hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprising at least one sampling unit (250a; ¶43 states that water samples are drawn to measure the concentration of hydrogen peroxide residual with monitoring apparatus 250a.) having at least one sampling point downstream of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (Fig. 2 shows that sampling point of sampling unit 250a is downstream of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 225a. ¶8 states that the monitoring apparatus 250a and dosing apparatus 225a are located proximate to one another, and ¶51 states that monitoring apparatus 250a is separate to dosing apparatus 225a.), and that the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to withdraw discrete liquid samples from liquid in the water loop at the at least one sampling point configured to take samples from the water loop whilst a liquid flow through the water loop continues (¶43 states that water samples are drawn from a water loop at the sampling point of sample unit 250a on a continuous basis whilst liquid flow through the water loop continues.) and wherein the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide content of the liquid in the water loop (¶43 states that hydrogen peroxide measurement system determines the hydrogen peroxide concentration of a liquid in a water loop.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa to have the hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprise at least one sampling unit having at least one sampling point downstream of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, and to have the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to withdraw discrete liquid samples from liquid in the water loop at the at least one sampling point configured to take samples from the water loop whilst a liquid flow through the water loop may continue and wherein the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide content of the liquid in the water loop as taught by Shubat with reasonable expectation of success to maintain water integrity in the water loop (Shubat, ¶1).
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that at least one sampling point of the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is provided downstream of the aqueous nutrient dosing unit yet upstream of the grow area. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide a second sampling point of the hydrogen peroxide measurement system downstream of the nutrient dosing unit yet upstream of the grow area, preferably at or near the outlet of the channel for feeding the nutrient liquid of the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat to draw more reliable inference for the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the water loop as whole, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the controller is a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller unit. Klein teaches an irrigation system (10) comprising a proportional-integral-derivative controller (See ¶85). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the controller from the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat with a proportional-integral-derivative controller as taught by Klein with reasonable expectation of success to provide superior precision, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3, Kagawa teaches a horticulture facility (10; shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
A grow area (101) configured to grow plants (shown in Fig. 1. Grow area 101 grows plants 200.),
A water loop (circulation paths 11,12) configured to recycle water withdrawn from an outlet of the grow area to an inlet of the grow area (shown in Fig. 1. Circulation paths 11 and 12 recycle water withdrawn from an outlet of the grow area 101 [located on the right side of grow area 101] to an inlet of the grow area 101 [located on the left side of grow area 101].),
The water loop comprising a feed water channel (52), wherein the feed water channel comprises a feed water outlet connected to a feed water inlet of a nutrient dosing unit (102) configured to dose nutrients to a feed water, thereby providing an aqueous nutrient liquid (shown in Fig. 1; Feed water channel 52 comprises a feed water outlet which is connected to a feed water inlet 16 of nutrient dosing unit 102 which doses nutrient solution L into grow area 101 and thereby provides aqueous nutrient liquid L.),
A channel (49) configured to feed the aqueous nutrient liquid from the nutrient dosing unit to growing plants in the area (shown in Fig. 1; Channel 49 feeds the aqueous nutrient liquid L from the nutrient dosing unit 102 to growing plants 200 in the area 101.),
A withdrawal water channel (48) having a withdrawal water inlet in fluid communication with a withdrawal water outlet from the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; Withdrawal water channel 48 has an inlet in fluid communication with a withdrawal water outlet located on the right side of the grow area 101.) and
A recycle channel configured to return water to the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; A recycle channel located between switching valves 16 which returns water to grow area 101 directly into nutrient dosing unit 102.),
Wherein the horticulture facility comprises:
At least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (60), configured to introduce a hydrogen peroxide solution into the water loop (Pg. 2 states that water purification unit 60 generates hydrogen peroxide and both Pg. 2 and Fig. 1 show that the hydrogen peroxide solution is introduced into the water loop via channel 52.);
At least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system (sensor 307) configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide concentration in the water loop (Pg. 6 states that sensor 307 determines the hydrogen peroxide concentration in the water loop 11,12 as water from the loop enters water storage portion 61 of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60.); and
Wherein the horticulture facility comprises a controller unit (103) configured to control the hydrogen peroxide content (Pg. 6 states that controller unit 103 controls a discharge part 62 of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 which serves to control the hydrogen peroxide content.),
Wherein the controller (103) is an automated controller unit adapted to receive hydrogen peroxide content related input data from the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system and the automated controller unit is adapted to generate an output signal to the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit to adjust the hydrogen peroxide dosing rate by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on said hydrogen peroxide content related input data (Pg. 6 states that controller unit 103 receives hydrogen peroxide content related input data from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system 307 and generate an output signal to a discharge part 62 of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 to adjust the hydrogen peroxide dosing rate by the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the input.),
Wherein the channel (49) is configured to feed the aqueous nutrient liquid from the nutrient dosing unit (102) to growing plants in the grow area (101) is situated between the nutrient dosing unit and the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; Channel 49, which feeds the aqueous nutrient liquid L from the nutrient dosing unit 102 to growing plants 200 in the area 101, is situated between nutrient dosing unit 102 and the grow area 101.),
Wherein the grow area, water loop, and at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit are configured such that plants may be grown in the grow area while at least a portion of the water loop is cleaned by hydrogen peroxide provided by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (Fig. 1 shows that grow area 101, water loop 11,12 and hydrogen peroxide unit 60 allow plants 200 to grow in grow area 101 while a water loop 11,12 is cleaned by the hydrogen peroxide provided by the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60.), and
Wherein the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (60) is configured to dose hydrogen peroxide into the withdrawal water channel (d) having a withdrawal water inlet in fluid communication with a withdrawal water outlet from the grow area (Fig. 1 shows that hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 doses hydrogen peroxide into withdrawal water channel 48 via pump 102, channel 49, and grow area 101. Fig. 1 also shows that water flows from grow area 101 through withdrawal water channel 48. Therefore, withdrawal water channel 48 has a withdrawal water inlet that is in fluid connection with a withdrawal water outlet from grow area 101.).
However, the system of Kagawa fails to explicitly state that the hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprising at least one sampling unit having at least one sampling point downstream of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, and that the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to withdraw discrete liquid samples from liquid in the water loop at the at least one sampling point configured to take samples from the water loop whilst a liquid flow through the water loop may continue and wherein the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide content of the liquid in the water loop.
Shubat teaches a water treatment and distribution system (200; shown in Fig. 2) comprising a hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprising at least one sampling unit (250a; ¶43 states that water samples are drawn to measure the concentration of hydrogen peroxide residual with monitoring apparatus 250a.) having at least one sampling point downstream of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (Fig. 2 shows that sampling point of sampling unit 250a is downstream of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 225a. ¶8 states that the monitoring apparatus 250a and dosing apparatus 225a are located proximate to one another, and ¶51 states that monitoring apparatus 250a is separate to dosing apparatus 225a.), and that the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to withdraw discrete liquid samples from liquid in the water loop at the at least one sampling point configured to take samples from the water loop whilst a liquid flow through the water loop continues (¶43 states that water samples are drawn from a water loop at the sampling point of sample unit 250a on a continuous basis whilst liquid flow through the water loop continues.) and wherein the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide content of the liquid in the water loop (¶43 states that hydrogen peroxide measurement system determines the hydrogen peroxide concentration of a liquid in a water loop.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa to have the hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprise at least one sampling unit having at least one sampling point downstream of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, and to have the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to withdraw discrete liquid samples from liquid in the water loop at the at least one sampling point configured to take samples from the water loop whilst a liquid flow through the water loop continues and wherein the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide content of the liquid in the water loop as taught by Shubat with reasonable expectation of success to maintain water integrity in the water loop (Shubat, ¶1).
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that at least one sampling point of the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system is provided downstream of the aqueous nutrient dosing unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide a second sampling point of the hydrogen peroxide measurement system downstream of the nutrient dosing unit of the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat to draw more reliable inference for the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the water loop as whole, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the controller is a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller unit. Klein teaches an irrigation system (10) comprising a proportional-integral-derivative controller (See ¶85). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the controller from the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat with a proportional-integral-derivative controller as taught by Klein with reasonable expectation of success to provide superior precision, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Kagawa further teaches that the grow area is indoors (Pg. 2 states that horticultural facility 10 can be a vinyl house and uses artificial light in closed environment.).
Regarding Claim 22, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Kagawa further teaches that the recycle channel is configured to return water to said grow area via a recycle water channel outlet into the feed water channel upstream of the nutrient dosing unit or directly into the nutrient dosing unit (Fig. 1 shows a recycle channel located between switching valves 16 which returns water to grow area 101 directly into nutrient dosing unit 102.).
Regarding Claim 24, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein further teaches that said at least one sampling point of the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system provided downstream of the aqueous nutrient dosing unit yet upstream of the grow area is at or near the outlet of the channel for feeding the nutrient liquid (Due to the modification described in Claim 1, at least one sampling point would be provided downstream of the aqueous nutrient dosing unit 102 yet upstream of the grow area 101. Looking at Fig. 1, this means that the at least one sampling point would lie in either at or near the outlet of channel 49 which is configured for feeding the nutrient liquid into grow area 101.).
Regarding Claim 25, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein further teaches that said at least one sampling point of the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system provided downstream of the aqueous nutrient dosing unit is at or near an outlet of the channel for feeding the nutrient liquid (Due to the modification described in Claim 3, at least one sampling point would be provided downstream of the aqueous nutrient dosing unit 102. Looking at Fig. 1, this means that the at least one sampling point would lie in either at or near the outlet of channel 49 which is configured for feeding the nutrient liquid into grow area 101.).
Regarding Claim 30, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit is provided at the inlet of the withdrawal water conduit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to place the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit of the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein at the inlet of the withdrawal water conduit to clean and purify plant withdrawal water for recycling, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 31, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein further teaches (references to Shubat) that sampling at least one sampling point of at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system is adapted to provide data about the hydrogen peroxide concentration, on the basis of which the hydrogen peroxide dosing rate is regulated (See ¶45-46; The sampling point of hydrogen peroxide measurement system 250a provides data surrounding the hydrogen peroxide concentration and on the basis of that data, the hydrogen peroxide dosing rate is regulated.).
Regarding Claim 32, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein fails to explicitly state that the horticulture facility comprises a disinfection unit.
Shubat further teaches a water treatment and distribution system (200; shown in Fig. 2) comprising a disinfection unit (120) configured to receive withdrawal water from the area to a treatment with UV light (Fig. 2 shows that UV units 120 are capable of receiving withdrawal water from a pre-treatment area 110 and treat it with UV light.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein to include a disinfection unit configured to receive withdrawal water from the area to a treatment with UV light as taught by Shubat with reasonable expectation of success to eliminate harmful microorganisms from the water loop in an environmentally friendly way.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein further teaches that a sampling point is provided downstream of the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit and upstream of the withdrawal water inlet of the disinfection unit (Fig. 2 of Shubat shows that the sampling unit 250a where samples are drawn according to ¶34 is provided downstream of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 225a. Due to the modification by Shubat described in above, the disinfection unit 120 of Shubat would be placed in the withdrawal channel 48 of Kagawa. Since the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 is upstream of the withdrawal channel 48, the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 would be upstream of the withdrawal water inlet of the disinfection unit 120.).
Regarding Claim 33, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 32.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein further teaches that a further sampling point is provided downstream of the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit at the outlet for decontaminated water of the disinfection unit or downstream of the disinfection unit yet upstream of a water discharge channel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide a second sampling point downstream of the disinfection unit yet upstream of a water discharge channel of the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein to draw more reliable inference for the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the water loop as whole, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 34, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein fails to explicitly state the automated controller is adapted to compare measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values and to regulate the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting a rate or amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the outcome of said comparison.
Shubat further teaches a water treatment and distribution system (200; shown in Fig. 2) comprising an automated controller (300) is adapted to compare measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values (See ¶116; Controller 300 compares measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system 250a regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values.) and to regulate the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting a rate or amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the outcome of said comparison (See ¶116; Controller 300 regulates the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting the amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 225a, dependent on the outcome of said comparison.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein to have the automated controller be adapted to compare measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values and to regulate the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting a rate or amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the outcome of said comparison as taught by Shubat with reasonable expectation of success to keep the concentration of hydrogen peroxide stable (Shubat, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 35, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein fails to explicitly state the automated controller is adapted to compare measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values and to regulate the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting a rate or amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the outcome of said comparison.
Shubat further teaches a water treatment and distribution system (200; shown in Fig. 2) comprising an automated controller (300) is adapted to compare measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values (See ¶116; Controller 300 compares measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system 250a regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values.) and to regulate the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting a rate or amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the outcome of said comparison (See ¶116; Controller 300 regulates the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting the amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 225a, dependent on the outcome of said comparison.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein to have the automated controller be adapted to compare measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values and to regulate the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting a rate or amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the outcome of said comparison as taught by Shubat with reasonable expectation of success to keep the concentration of hydrogen peroxide stable (Shubat, ¶9).
Claims 4-6 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (JP 5817526 B2) in view of Shubat et al. (US 20170305768 A1), Zhao et al. (CN 205682105 U), and Klein et al. (US 20210084850 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kagawa teaches a horticulture facility (10; shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
A grow area (101) configured to grow plants (shown in Fig. 1. Grow area 101 grows plants 200.),
A water loop (circulation paths 11,12) configured to recycle water withdrawn from an outlet of the grow area to an inlet of the grow area (shown in Fig. 1. Circulation paths 11 and 12 recycle water withdrawn from an outlet of the grow area 101 [located on the right side of grow area 101] to an inlet of the grow area 101 [located on the left side of grow area 101].),
The water loop comprising a feed water channel (52), wherein the feed water channel comprises a feed water outlet connected to a feed water inlet of a nutrient dosing unit (102) configured to dose nutrients to a feed water, thereby providing an aqueous nutrient liquid (shown in Fig. 1; Feed water channel 52 comprises a feed water outlet which is connected to a feed water inlet 16 of nutrient dosing unit 102 which doses nutrient solution L into grow area 101 and thereby provides aqueous nutrient liquid L.),
A channel (49) configured to feed the aqueous nutrient liquid from the nutrient dosing unit to growing plants in the area (shown in Fig. 1; Channel 49 feeds the aqueous nutrient liquid L from the nutrient dosing unit 102 to growing plants 200 in the area 101.),
A withdrawal water channel (48) having a withdrawal water inlet in fluid communication with a withdrawal water outlet from the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; Withdrawal water channel 48 has an inlet in fluid communication with a withdrawal water outlet located on the right side of the grow area 101.) and
A recycle channel configured to return water to the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; A recycle channel located between switching valves 16 which returns water to grow area 101 directly into nutrient dosing unit 102.),
Wherein the horticulture facility comprises:
At least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (60), configured to introduce a hydrogen peroxide solution into the water loop (Pg. 2 states that water purification unit 60 generates hydrogen peroxide and both Pg. 2 and Fig. 1 show that the hydrogen peroxide solution is introduced into the water loop via channel 52.);
At least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system (sensor 307) configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide concentration in the water loop (Pg. 6 states that sensor 307 determines the hydrogen peroxide concentration in the water loop 11,12 as water from the loop enters water storage portion 61 of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60.); and
Wherein the horticulture facility comprises a controller unit (103) configured to control the hydrogen peroxide content (Pg. 6 states that controller unit 103 controls a discharge part 62 of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 which serves to control the hydrogen peroxide content.),
Wherein the controller (103) is an automated controller unit adapted to receive hydrogen peroxide content related input data from the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system and the automated controller unit is adapted to generate an output signal to the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit to adjust the hydrogen peroxide dosing rate by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on said hydrogen peroxide content related input data (Pg. 6 states that controller unit 103 receives hydrogen peroxide content related input data from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system 307 and generate an output signal to a discharge part 62 of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 to adjust the hydrogen peroxide dosing rate by the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the input.),
Wherein the channel (49) is configured to feed the aqueous nutrient liquid from the nutrient dosing unit (102) to growing plants in the grow area (101) is situated between the nutrient dosing unit and the grow area (shown in Fig. 1; Channel 49, which feeds the aqueous nutrient liquid L from the nutrient dosing unit 102 to growing plants 200 in the area 101, is situated between nutrient dosing unit 102 and the grow area 101.),
Wherein the grow area, water loop, and hydrogen peroxide dosing unit are configured such that plants may be grown in the grow area while at least a portion of the water loop is cleaned by hydrogen peroxide provided by the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (Fig. 1 shows that grow area 101, water loop 11,12 and hydrogen peroxide unit 60 allow plants 200 to grow in grow area 101 while a water loop 11,12 is cleaned by the hydrogen peroxide provided by the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60.).
However, the system of Kagawa fails to explicitly state that the hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprising at least one sampling unit having at least one sampling point downstream of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, and that the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to withdraw discrete liquid samples from liquid in the water loop at the at least one sampling point configured to take samples from the water loop whilst a liquid flow through the water loop continues and wherein the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide content of the liquid in the water loop. The system of Kagawa also fails to explicitly state that the horticulture facility comprises a disinfection unit configured to receive withdrawal water from the grow area to a treatment with UV-C light.
Shubat teaches a water treatment and distribution system (200; shown in Fig. 2) comprising a hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprising at least one sampling unit (250a; ¶43 states that water samples are drawn to measure the concentration of hydrogen peroxide residual with monitoring apparatus 250a.) having at least one sampling point downstream of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit (Fig. 2 shows that sampling point of sampling unit 250a is downstream of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 225a. ¶8 states that the monitoring apparatus 250a and dosing apparatus 225a are located proximate to one another, and ¶51 states that monitoring apparatus 250a is separate to dosing apparatus 225a.), and that the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to withdraw discrete liquid samples from liquid in the water loop at the at least one sampling point configured to take samples from the water loop whilst a liquid flow through the water loop continues (¶43 states that water samples are drawn from a water loop at the sampling point of sample unit 250a on a continuous basis whilst liquid flow through the water loop continues.) and wherein the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide content of the liquid in the water loop (¶43 states that hydrogen peroxide measurement system determines the hydrogen peroxide concentration of a liquid in a water loop.). Shubat further teaches a water treatment and distribution system (200; shown in Fig. 2) comprising a disinfection unit (120) configured to receive withdrawal water from the area to a treatment with UV light (Fig. 2 shows that UV units 120 are capable of receiving withdrawal water from a pre-treatment area 110 and treat it with UV light.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa to have the hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprise at least one sampling unit having at least one sampling point downstream of the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, to have the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to withdraw discrete liquid samples from liquid in the water loop at the at least one sampling point configured to take samples from the water loop whilst a liquid flow through the water loop continues and wherein the hydrogen peroxide measurement system is configured to determine a hydrogen peroxide content of the liquid in the water loop, and to include a disinfection unit configured to receive withdrawal water from the area to a treatment with UV light as taught by Shubat with reasonable expectation of success to maintain water integrity in the water loop (Shubat, ¶1) and to eliminate harmful microorganisms from the water loop in an environmentally friendly way.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the disinfection unit is configured to receive withdrawal water from the area to a treatment with UV-C light. Zhao teaches that UV-C is a form of ultraviolet disinfecting (see Pg. 2). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the UV treatment of the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat with UV-C treatment as taught by Zhao with reasonable expectation of success to provide the most effective sterilizing effect (Zhao, Pg. 2), since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Zhao further teaches that the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit is present upstream of the disinfection unit (Due to the modification by Shubat, the disinfection unit 120 of Shubat would be placed in the withdrawal channel 48 of Kagawa. Since the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 is upstream of the withdrawal channel 48, the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 would be upstream of the disinfection unit 120.).
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Zhao further teaches (references to Shubat) that downstream of the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit one or more of the at least one sampling point are provided (Fig. 2 shows that the sampling unit 250a where samples are drawn according to ¶34 is provided downstream of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 225a).
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Zhao teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the controller is a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller unit. Klein teaches an irrigation system (10) comprising a proportional-integral-derivative controller (See ¶85). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the controller from the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Zhao with a proportional-integral-derivative controller as taught by Klein with reasonable expectation of success to provide superior precision, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein further teaches that the at least one sampling point is provided downstream of the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, present upstream of the disinfection unit, and wherein said at least one sampling point is upstream of the withdrawal water inlet of the disinfection unit or at the water inlet of the disinfection unit (Fig. 2 of Shubat shows that the sampling unit 250a where samples are drawn according to ¶34 is provided downstream of hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 225a. Due to the modification by Shubat described in Claim 4, the disinfection unit 120 of Shubat would be placed in the withdrawal channel 48 of Kagawa. Since the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 is upstream of the withdrawal channel 48, the hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 60 would be upstream of the withdrawal water inlet of the disinfection unit 120.).
Regarding Claim 6, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the at least one sampling point is provided downstream of the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, present upstream of the disinfection unit, and at the outlet for the disinfected water of the disinfection unit or downstream of the disinfection unit yet upstream of a water discharge channel (f) in the withdrawal water channel, upstream of the recycle channel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide a second sampling point downstream the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, present upstream of the disinfection unit, and at the outlet for the disinfected water of the disinfection unit of the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein to draw more reliable inference for the concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the water loop as whole, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 36, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein fails to explicitly state the automated controller is adapted to compare measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values and to regulate the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting a rate or amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the outcome of said comparison.
Shubat further teaches a water treatment and distribution system (200; shown in Fig. 2) comprising an automated controller (300) is adapted to compare measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values (See ¶116; Controller 300 compares measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system 250a regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values.) and to regulate the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting a rate or amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the outcome of said comparison (See ¶116; Controller 300 regulates the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting the amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit 225a, dependent on the outcome of said comparison.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein to have the automated controller be adapted to compare measured data obtained from the hydrogen peroxide measurement system regarding the hydrogen peroxide content with one or more set-point values or threshold values and to regulate the hydrogen peroxide content at the at least one sampling point by adjusting a rate or amount of hydrogen peroxide added to the water by the at least one hydrogen peroxide dosing unit, dependent on the outcome of said comparison as taught by Shubat with reasonable expectation of success to keep the concentration of hydrogen peroxide stable (Shubat, ¶9).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (JP 5817526 B2) as modified by Shubat et al. (US 20170305768 A1) and Klein et al. (US 20210084850 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (CN 1160201 A).
Regarding Claim 7, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Shubat further teaches that the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system (250a) comprising a spectrophotometer (400; ¶74 states that colorimetric apparatus detects the reaction product of hydrogen peroxide with the substrate reagent spectrophotometrically.).
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein fails to explicitly state that the spectrophotometer is a UV/VIS spectrophotometer.
Yamaguchi teaches a measuring instrument for measuring hydrogen peroxide (shown in Fig. 1) comprising a UV-VIS spectrophotometer or a fluorescence spectrometer (Pg. 5 states that the measuring device shown in Fig. 1 comprises an ultraviolet/visible spectrophotometer.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein to have the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprise a UV/VIS spectrophotometer or a fluorescence spectrometer as taught by Yamaguchi with reasonable expectation of success to allow for non-destructive analysis.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (JP 5817526 B2) as modified by Shubat et al. (US 20170305768 A1), Klein et al. (US 20210084850 A1), and Yamaguchi et al. (CN 1160201 A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Itzhaky et al. (US 6767717 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Klein, and Yamaguchi, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
The system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Klein, and Yamaguchi further teaches (references to Shubat) that the UV-VIS spectrophotometer or fluorescence spectrometer (400; modified by Yamaguchi as shown above) comprises a sample test area (measurement cell 15; ¶68 states that a sample of water is directed from buffer jar 10 to measurement cell 15 where the determination of hydrogen concentration is made.), the test area comprising a colorimetric reagent system for detection of a presence of hydrogen peroxide in a sample taken from the at least one sampling point (¶68 states that reagent from the a reagent vial 40 is provided to sample test area 15 capable of determining hydrogen peroxide concentration from a sample taken from the at least one sampling point.), the colorimetric reagent system comprising a chromogen responsive to hydrogen peroxide (¶75 states that the reagent mixture comprises potassium bis (oxalato) oxotitanate (IV) which produces a yellow to orange colored complex when it reacts with hydrogen peroxide to form a reaction product adapted to absorb light at 470 nm proportional to the amount of hydrogen peroxide in the sample [see ¶62].). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Klein, and Yamaguchi to have the UV-VIS spectrophotometer comprise a sample test area, the test area comprising a colorimetric reagent system for detection of a presence of hydrogen peroxide in a sample taken from the at least one sampling point, and to have the colorimetric reagent system comprise a chromogen responsive to hydrogen peroxide as taught by Shubat with reasonable expectation of success to provide a relatively low cost system wherein the concentration of hydrogen peroxide can be qualitatively observed with the naked eye.
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Klein, and Yamaguchi fails to explicitly state that the colorimetric reagent system further comprises a catalyst having peroxidase activity.
Itzhaky teaches a colorimetric reagent system (Column 2 Lines 45-50 state that the invention is drawn to a kit for using the method of the invention wherein a peroxide-based explosive is decomposed to release hydrogen peroxide, the latter is contacted with a peroxidase and substrate to produce a pronounced change in the substrate’s color or color intensity [see Claims 1-2].), the colorimetric reagent system further comprises a catalyst having peroxidase activity (Claims 1 and 10 state that the method comprises a horseradish peroxidase enzyme.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Klein, and Yamaguchi to have the colorimetric reagent system further comprise a catalyst having peroxidase activity as taught by Itzhaky with reasonable expectation of success to provide high sensitivity and fast results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (JP 5817526 B2) as modified by Shubat et al. (US 20170305768 A1) and Klein et al. (US 20210084850 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harttig et al. (US 20060233663 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Shubat further teaches that the at least one sampling unit (250a; ¶43 states that water samples are drawn to measure the concentration of hydrogen peroxide residual with monitoring apparatus 250a [which can be a colorimetric monitoring apparatus 400, as stated in ¶59].) is configured to contact samples at or taken from the sampling point to sample test areas (¶43 states that water samples are drawn to measure the concentration of hydrogen peroxide residual with monitoring apparatus 250a and ¶66 states that apparatus 400 comprises a measurement cell 15 where the water samples are tested to determine the hydrogen concentration [see ¶68].). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein to have the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprise the at least one sampling unit configured to contact samples at or taken from the sampling point to sample test areas as taught by Shubat with reasonable expectation of success to help maintain water integrity in the water loop (Shubat, ¶1).
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein fails to explicitly state that the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprises a fluid-tightly sealed housing comprising a spindle for accommodating a support having sample test areas; an actuator for rotating the spindle; an aperture in the fluid-tightly sealed housing for contact of at least one of the test areas with the samples; an optical detector unit configured to measure an optical property of at least one of the test areas after or during passing the aperture; and a detection data transmitter, configured to transmit detection data to the controller unit.
Harttig teaches a handheld test device (shown in Figs. 1-5) comprises a fluid-tightly sealed housing (10; Figs. 1-5 show that housing 10 is fluid-tightly sealed.) comprising a spindle (spools 62,64) for accommodating a support (12) having sample test areas (Figs. 4-5 and ¶39 show that spindles 62 and 64 accommodate support 12 which contains test tape 14 where a sample is placed [see ¶34].); an actuator (66) for rotating the spindle (¶39 states that tape drive 66 drives the winding of spools 62 and 64.); an aperture (42) in the fluid-tightly sealed housing (¶33 states that opening 42 is located in housing 10.) for contact of at least one of the having sample test areas with the samples (Figs. 4-5 show that the aperture 42 is in contact with sample test area 14.); an optical detector unit (16; ¶30 states that detection unit 16 operates optically.) configured to measure an optical property of at least one of the test areas after or during passing the aperture (: Figs. 4-5 show that optical detector unit 16 is capable of measuring an optical property [via optical system 46 of detector unit 16] of the sample test area 14 during passing the aperture 42.); and a detection data transmitter, configured to transmit detection data to the controller unit (¶39 states that the resulting measurements from optical detector unit 16 are analyzed and the results displayed in display 70. This implies a detection data transmitter which is capable of transmitting detection data to a controller.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein to have the at least one hydrogen peroxide measurement system comprise a fluid-tightly sealed housing comprising a spindle for accommodating a support having sample test areas; an actuator for rotating the spindle; an aperture in the fluid-tightly sealed housing for contact of at least one of the test areas with the samples; an optical detector unit configured to measure an optical property of at least one of the test areas after or during passing the aperture; and a detection data transmitter, configured to transmit detection data to the controller unit as taught by Harttig with reasonable expectation of success to provide a robust system that operates reliably (Harttig, ¶6).
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (JP 5817526 B2) as modified by Shubat et al. (US 20170305768 A1) and Klein et al. (US 20210084850 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Kagawa et al. (JP 2013138649 A), hereinafter referred to as Kagawa (1).
Regarding Claim 21, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein fails to explicitly state that the grow area is in a greenhouse.
Kagawa (1) teaches a horticulture facility (10) comprising a grow area which is in a greenhouse (Fig. 1 shows that the horticulture facility 10 comprises a grow area with plants 14 which is in a greenhouse [as stated in Pg. 2]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein to have the grow area be in a greenhouse as taught by Kagawa (1) with reasonable expectation of success to provide a horticulture facility with higher yields and higher environmental sustainability.
Regarding Claim 26, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein fails to explicitly state that the grow area is in a greenhouse.
Kagawa (1) teaches a horticulture facility (10) comprising a grow area which is in a greenhouse (Fig. 1 shows that the horticulture facility 10 comprises a grow area with plants 14 which is in a greenhouse [as stated in Pg. 2]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat and Klein to have the grow area be in a greenhouse as taught by Kagawa (1) with reasonable expectation of success to provide a horticulture facility with higher yields and higher environmental sustainability.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (JP 5817526 B2) as modified by Shubat et al. (US 20170305768 A1), Zhao et al. (CN 205682105 U), and Klein et al. (US 20210084850 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kagawa et al. (JP 2013138649 A), hereinafter referred to as Kagawa (1).
Regarding Claim 27, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
However, the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein fails to explicitly state that the grow area is in a greenhouse.
Kagawa (1) teaches a horticulture facility (10) comprising a grow area which is in a greenhouse (Fig. 1 shows that the horticulture facility 10 comprises a grow area with plants 14 which is in a greenhouse [as stated in Pg. 2]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kagawa as modified by Shubat, Zhao, and Klein to have the grow area be in a greenhouse as taught by Kagawa (1) with reasonable expectation of success to provide a horticulture facility with higher yields and higher environmental sustainability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 4 surrounding the new limitation of a PID controller have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the “Response to Declaration” section to see Examiner’s Answer to Declarant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Marder-Eppstein et al. (US 20210259170 A1) teaches a hydroponic farming system and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights