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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 states “the plant’s consumption is expressed using at least one water related parameter of said plant.” However, there is no connection of the plant’s expression to any of the measurements or computers decisions in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is required of this step, as it is simply stating, for example, that there is water evaporation, or that there is water retention, which are natural functions of a plant.
Claim 6, and similarly claim 7, state “the one or more consumables include water.” However, claim 1 states “wherein causing the one or more climate control devices of the greenhouse to control the quantity of the one or more consumables fed to the plants includes causing at least one of a CO2 generator or an apparatus configured to control a CO2 concentration to control a CO2 concentration within the greenhouse or a light source or an apparatus configured to control an amount of light to control the amount of light provided to the plants.” It is unclear how a CO2 generator or a light source can create water as a consumable for the plant.
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.
Claim 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “having a computer determine a time delay between a given time of feeding consumables to the plants and a future point in time of consumption of said consumables by said plants in a greenhouse, the greenhouse including a housing which defines an interior space containing the plants.” Claim 1 now also defines the consumable as CO2 or light, and the timing of the real consumption based on measurements of the water transpiration and/or water uptake. The specification fails to describe how this time delay is measured when the consumable is CO2 or light. While the specification does explicitly state that CO2 or light can be a consumable (Page 3 lines 6-7) and that the time delay can be measured between feeding the consumable and when the plant consumes it (Page 4 lines 20-25), all of the examples for how the time delay is calculated using water transpiration and water uptake involve water being the consumable, not CO2 or light. There is not sufficient support for how one would calculate this time delay when the consumable is CO2 or light, and the indication of consumption is water transpiration or water uptake.
Similarly, Claim 1 states “having the computer determine a prediction of a capacity of consumption of said plants at the future point in time relative to the given time using a function of capacity of consumption for said plants that varies over time and based on the prediction of the change in the water uptake and/or the change in the water transpiration of the plants at the future point in time.” Again, while the specification does explain how the prediction of capacity of consumption is measured using water transpiration and water uptake when the consumable is water (Pages 3-4), there is no description for how the capacity of consumption is measured through water uptake or water transpiration when CO2 or light is the consumable.
Claims 3-7, 9-11, 13-14 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/25 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The arguments presented are rendered moot in light of the newly applied 112(a) rejection discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642