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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received November 24, 2025.
Claims 1-10 are canceled. Claims 11-18 are added. Claims 11-15 are elected by original presentation of a cannabis facility. Claims 16-18 are restricted by original presentation, see below.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 11-15, drawn to a cannabis production facility.
Group II, claim(s) 16-18, drawn to a method of cannabis cultivation.
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a production module and various rooms only defined by the actions performed in them (“trimming” “packaging”), this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Benvie, US PGPUB 20190323253 ("Benvie"), which teaches in par 023 and Fig 9 a Growth cultivation chamber (Item 102), which is paired with a drying chamber (Item 104, par 037). . These teach the “production module” wet hang room, drying room (see Fig 12, the plant material is hung wet in the room to dry). Then, trimming is taught in par 0107, hardening room in par 042, also is taught shared curing room “flower is transferred into another recipient… glass jars.” Then, packing is taught in par 0106, also in par 014, laboratory and storage. As the production module and rooms are taught by Benvie, see Figs 9 and 10, they are not special technical features.
Group I are elected by original presentation. Group II are restricted because there is no unity of invention
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
The amendment filed November 24, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
All paragraph numbers referred to are from the filing and not the PGPUB.
“Each production module comprises five substantially equal growing chambers.” Original paragraph 12 recites “five growth chambers of substantially equal size. The change in amended paragraph 11 changes the scope.
“Each production module comprises…a hardening room for rooting cuttings” Original par 12 only describes a hardening room in the Building Management System.
Likewise for the “wet-hang room for freshly harvested plants.”
“The GMP Processing area comprises a set of drying rooms, each dedicated to a single one of the production modules.” Note there is no support for each drying room dedicated to a single one of the production modules.
“A single trimming room.” Note there is no support for a single trimming room, only that it is performed in a common room (original specification par 11).
“A single curing room with dedicated curing bins for each one of the production modules” See original specification par 12, “a curing area” is what is disclosed. See par 045 a curing room is disclosed but not a single curing room.
“An environmental and building management system with sensors is provided in the hardening room, growth chamber, wet-hang room, and post-harvest GMP space area of each one of the production modules.” Sensors in the hardening room, growth chamber, wet hang room, and post harvest GMP space area of each one of the production modules is not supported by the original disclosure.
“A Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system is programmed to execute a sequential planting and harvesting schedule in which, within each one of the production modules, … and maintaining continuous utilization of all post-harvest GMP area.”
In the original disclosure, SCADA is taught here but not teaching these specific programmed steps:
All operations in a production facility will be captured in a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system designed to integrate Building Management Systems (BMS), Environmental Monitoring Systems (EMS), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and inventory tracking software. The design of the SCADA system mirrors the facility and process design and is intended to capture data relating to all essential activities in the facility.
Par 34.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Applicant is requested for any further amendments to the specification, to show the precise citation for support from the original disclosure.
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 11-15 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.
New Matter is found where there is not support for claims in the original disclosure. See MPEP 608.04(a): “If the new matter has been entered into the claims or affects the scope of the claims, the claims affected should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, on the ground that it recites elements without support in the original disclosure.” Therefore, support for the new claims must be found in the original disclosure.
The following lacks support:
Claim 11:
each one of the production modules comprising: five substantially equal growing chambers
Lacks support in the original disclosure where now deleted paragraph 12 described “Each production module comprises five substantially equal growing chambers.” This amendment broadens the scope from “five growth chambers of substantially equal size” (original claim 1). Further, it is based on amended paragraph 11 which does not have support for this scope broadening. Pars 025-026 which were referred to in the arguments discuss five growth chambers but not five “substantially equal” growth chambers. Likewise par 28 which describes equal rectangular areas, which supports substantially equal size. Therefore, it is new matter.
each one of the production modules comprising: a hardening room for rooting cuttings;
“Each production module comprises…a hardening room for rooting cuttings” Original par 12 only describes a hardening room in the Building Management System. Now orig par 12 has also been deleted, and amended par 011 does not provide support as the amendment does not have support in the original disclosure. Therefore, it is new matter.
Likewise for each one of the production modules comprising: a wet-hang room for freshly harvested plants.
There is no support in the original disclosure for: The GMP Processing area comprises a set of drying rooms, each dedicated to a single one of the production modules. Note there is no support for each drying room dedicated to a single one of the production modules. Amended claim 11 does not have support for this as that amendment is objected to for new matter.
There is no support in the original disclosure for: A single trimming room. Note there is no support for a single trimming room, only that it is performed in a common room (original specification par 11).
There is no support in the original disclosure for: A single curing room with dedicated curing bins for each one of the production modules See original specification par 12, “a curing area” is what is disclosed. See par 045 a curing room is disclosed but not a single curing room.
There is no support in the original disclosure for: An environmental and building management system with sensors is provided in the hardening room, growth chamber, wet-hang room, and post-harvest GMP space area of each one of the production modules. Sensors in the hardening room, growth chamber, wet hang room, and post harvest GMP space area of each one of the production modules is not supported by the original disclosure.
There is no support in the original disclosure for: a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system programmed to execute a sequential planting and harvesting schedule in which: within each one of the production modules, one growth chamber is planted with cuttings every minimum cycle time (MCT FP/5), where FP is the flowering period of the selected cannabis variety, wherein the sequential planting and harvesting schedule enforces that at any time plant material from only one of the production modules is present within the shared trimming, curing, and packing rooms of the GMP processing area, thereby preventing inter-module mix-ups and cross-contamination and maintaining continuous utilization of all post-harvest GMP area.
In the original disclosure, SCADA is taught here but not teaching these specific programmed steps:
All operations in a production facility will be captured in a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system designed to integrate Building Management Systems (BMS), Environmental Monitoring Systems (EMS), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and inventory tracking software. The design of the SCADA system mirrors the facility and process design and is intended to capture data relating to all essential activities in the facility.
Par 34.
Claim 12 recites new matter in that there is no support in the original disclosure for “at least four” production modules” and there is no support for
the SCADA system is programmed to execute a sequential planting and harvesting schedule across the production modules (N > 4), with plantings are staggered at intervals of MCT N, where N is the number of modules in operation.
Par 054 discussed in remarks was reviewed but there is no support for this specific SCADA limitation.
Claim 13 recites new matter in that while there is support for “controlled access systems for all doors and hallways, it is for the production facility see par 030 and not “to each of the production modules and all rooms of the post-harvest GMP processing area.” Likewise par 030 supports air locks but there is not support for “air locks between each of the production modules and all rooms of the post-harvest GMP processing area.” See par 030. Remarks consulted but they go beyond what par 030 describes. Attorney/Inventor arguments cannot substitute for support in original disclosure.
Claim 14 is rejected for being dependent on claim 11.
Claim 15 recites a plurality of dedicated mother rooms, each mother room having sensors and corresponding to a respective production module and configured to provide cuttings or plant material at defined intervals.
There is not support for a plurality of dedicated mother rooms. Nor is there support for having sensors, corresponding to a respective production module and configured to provide cuttings or plant material at defined intervals. There is support for “a” mother room, without the subsequent limitations recited:
Par 037: “A mother room (not shown) may be provided for cuttings removed from mother plants. One dedicated mother room is sufficient to supply one building module. Cuttings are taken from mother plants to supply growth chambers once per cycle. In the alternative, plant cuttings can be sourced from nurseries or from mother plants located off-site.”
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benvie, US PGPUB 20190323253 ("Benvie") in view of Reynolds, “Stacked Container Hydroponics for Vertical Farming : Blog 6 Part 1 – SCADA,” element14 [online] published September 17, 2015, available at: < https://community.element14.com/challenges-projects/design-challenges/vertical-farming/b/blog/posts/stacked-container-hydroponics-for-vertical-farming-blog-6-part-1---scada > (“Reynolds”).
Per claim 11, Benvie teaches A cannabis production facility comprising:a plurality of production modules, each one of the production modules comprising:five substantially equal growing chambers in Fig. 9, par 023, Growth cultivation chamber 102, Fig 9 shows 24 growth cultivation chambers of substantially equal size. Figure 9 shows 1-5 growth chambers. See par 023: “As it can be seen in FIGS. 9 and 10, each growth cultivation chamber 102 is attributed a unique address or identifier, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and etc. which corresponds (or mated) to drying chamber 104, which is attributed the same unique address or identifier, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and etc. so as to avoid any potential mix-ups in the production and tracking of unique batches or lots of controlled substances being grown and dried during the production and processing phases.”
Benvie then teaches a hardening room for rooting cuttings in par 42: “As for any other facility, the clone room 120 should be clean and sterile prior to use, and be provided with: (i) proper air filters and clean airflow so as to prevent airborne pathogens such as mould and fungus spores from infesting young cuttings; (ii) lighting, such as blue-white lights (“cool lights”) to stimulate vegetative growth; (iii) proper trays and lids that must be verified several times during the day so as to avoid issues of excessive humidity and be able to assess the general rate of rooting.” Here cuttings are being hardened in the clone room against mold and fungus.
Benvie then teaches and a wet-hang room for freshly harvested plants in par 107: “In a preferred embodiment and as it can be seen in FIG. 12, the flower portion of the plant is spread out onto one or more drying nets 202 and is dried with fans 208, 210 for approximately two to three days. In a preferred embodiment the drying room (or chamber) is totally blacked out. In order to extract the humidity of the room, at least one dehumidifier 200 can be used and any existent water in the drying chamber 104 can be drained through the drain 204.”
Benvie then teaches a post-harvest Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) processing area shared by the plurality of production modules, the GMP processing area comprising:a set of drying rooms, each drying room dedicated to a single one of the production modules in par 106 “In this connection, once the plant has been cut and is ready for drying, the facility's authorized personnel will be collect all of the plants from the growth chamber and transfer them to the drying chamber 104, which has been assigned with a corresponding unique address or identifier to the growth cultivating chamber 102. This facilitates the production, packaging, storage and tracking of each batch or lot of controlled substance associated to a given client or person and/or strain of controlled substance.”
Benvie then teaches a single trimming room in par 107: ”At this stage, the plants are trimmed and the leaves are separated from the flower.” See also Fig 12, "Dry room" See also par 0106: “This facilitates the production, packaging, storage and tracking of each batch or lot of controlled substance associated to a given client or person and/or strain of controlled substance.”
Benvie then teaches a single curing room with dedicated curing bins for each one of the production modules in par 107: “Once the flower (or bud) has been enclosed into the recipient it is “sweated out” so as to remove moisture from the flowers under controlled environmental conditions. This process can be repeated one or more times, and further repeated until the flower is cured; thereby providing much better product for multiple reasons. Once the flower (or bud) has been dried, it can be cured. Indeed, proper cannabis curing increases potency.” See also Fig 12
Benvie then teaches a grading and packing area in par 144: “must be produced, packaged, labelled and stored in accordance with standard operating procedures that are designed to ensure that those activities are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the law.”
Benvie then teaches and a vault in par 21: “storage chamber 110, which allows for the storage of controlled substances for clients or persons who require the controlled substance up to the shipment thereof; said storage chamber further comprising a vault 108.” See also par 031.
Benvie then teaches an environmental and building management system with sensors in the hardening room, growth chamber, wet-hang room, and post-harvest GMP area of each one of the production modules in par 71: “the growth cultivation chamber 102 according to the present invention, comprises of several components, including but not limited to: (i) a wireless camera 140, (ii) an exhaust inlet 142, (iii) power meter 144, see also pars 088, 089, ("air monitor"),par 096 ("each growth chamber"), par 0105, drying chamber.”
Benvie then teaches within each one of the production modules, one growth chamber is planted with cuttings every minimum cycle time (MCT FP/5), where FP is the flowering period of the selected cannabis variety,wherein the sequential planting and harvesting schedule enforces that at any time plant material from only one of the production modules is present within the shared trimming, curing, and packing rooms of the GMP processing area, thereby preventing inter-module mix-ups and cross-contamination and maintaining continuous utilization of all post-harvest GMP area in par 23: “Indeed, one of keys of the invention according to the present invention is the growth cultivation chamber 102 and at least one drying chamber 104 is that they are assigned with the same (or corresponding) unique address or identifier so as to allow licensed producers to produce, package, store, track each batch or lot of controlled substance to be grown and finally delivered to a given client or person. As it can be seen in FIGS. 9 and 10, each growth cultivation chamber 102 is attributed a unique address or identifier, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and etc. which corresponds (or mated) to drying chamber 104, which is attributed the same unique address or identifier, i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and etc. so as to avoid any potential mix-ups in the production and tracking of unique batches or lots of controlled substances being grown and dried during the production and processing phases; especially considering that each controlled substance may be contain a different strain of cannabis or different ratios of cannabidiol (also known as CBD) to (−)-trans-Δ.sup.9-tetrahydrocannabinol (also known as THC) are being sought.” See also par 0113: “In addition, by making use of the facility and growth chambers according to the present invention, plants may grow in a more efficient manner. In the initial phase, patients can choose a type of seed or strain of medical marihuana, which include Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica or hybrid strains. The benefit of using known or different strains of cannabis is that each their own unique properties, chemical configuration and medical benefits. However, the life-cycle of one strain may be very different from another strain; therefore affecting the grow cycle from 60 days to, for example 90 days.”
Benvie does not teach and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system programmed to execute a sequential planting and harvesting schedule in which (steps are performed).
Reynolds teaches using SCADA for vertical hydroponic farming. See page 1.
Reynolds teaches and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system programmed to execute a sequential planting and harvesting schedule in which (steps are performed) in pages 4-5 where nutrients, rotation, and lighting are performed by SCADA.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production module cannabis cultivation facility teaching of Benvie with the SCADA teaching of Reynolds because Reynolds teaches on page 1 that “Localized and centralized control and data monitoring; A centralized cloud-based IoT data logging system; Full functionality for a single or multiple cultivation unit(s).” are available by using SCADA. As these taught improvements would automate production reducing work hours required by people, one would be motivated to combine Benvie with Reynolds to facilitate and streamline cannabis growing. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Benvie with Reynolds.
Per claim 13, Benvie and Reynolds teach the limitations of claim 11, above. Benvie further teaches further comprising controlled access systems on all doors and hallways to each of the production modules and all rooms of the post-harvest GMP processing area to maintain separation therebetween in par 053: “The perimeter of the facility as well as the individual chambers and/or rooms contained therein can further be secured by means of an intrusion detection system that operates at all times and that allows for the detection of any attempted or actual unauthorized access to or movement in the site or tampering with the system. In a preferred embodiment, the intrusion detection system should be monitored at all times by personnel who must determine the appropriate steps to be taken in response to the detection of any occurrence referred to hereinabove. If any such occurrence is detected, the personnel should be able to make a record of: (a) the date and time of the occurrence; and (b) the measures taken in response to it and the date and time when they were taken.”
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benvie, US PGPUB 20190323253 ("Benvie") in view of Reynolds, “Stacked Container Hydroponics for Vertical Farming : Blog 6 Part 1 – SCADA,” element14 [online] published September 17, 2015, available at: < https://community.element14.com/challenges-projects/design-challenges/vertical-farming/b/blog/posts/stacked-container-hydroponics-for-vertical-farming-blog-6-part-1---scada > (“Reynolds”), further in view of RQS Blog, “Perpetual Cannabis Harvest,” [online], published on March 17, 2019, available at: < https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/us/blog-perpetual-harvest-method-ensure-multiple-harvests-of-ripe-buds-per-year-n1137 > (“RQS”).
Per claim 12, Benvie and Scada teach the limitations of claim 11, above. Benvie does not teach and the SCADA system is programmed to execute.
Reynolds teaches and the SCADA system is programmed to execute (steps are performed) in pages 4-5 where nutrients, rotation, and lighting are performed by SCADA.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production module cannabis cultivation facility teaching of Benvie with the SCADA teaching of Reynolds because Reynolds teaches on page 1 that “Localized and centralized control and data monitoring; A centralized cloud-based IoT data logging system; Full functionality for a single or multiple cultivation unit(s).” are available by using SCADA. As these taught improvements would automate production reducing work hours required by people, one would be motivated to combine Benvie with Reynolds to facilitate and streamline cannabis growing. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Benvie with Reynolds.
Benvie does not teach wherein the number of production modules is at least four, a sequential planting and harvesting schedule across the production modules (N > 4), with plantings are staggered at intervals of MCT N, where N is the number of modules in operation.
RQS teaches perpetual harvest, see page 1.
RQS teaches wherein the number of production modules is at least four, a sequential planting and harvesting schedule across the production modules (N > 4), with plantings are staggered at intervals of MCT N, where N is the number of modules in operation in page 6 where there are four production modules next to each other (1, 2, 3, 4) that have staggered plantings.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production module teaching of Benvie with the four production modules teaching of RQS because RQS teaches “Growing cannabis using the perpetual harvest method means a continuous supply of buds. Doing a perpetual harvest just requires a little more space, some extra gear, and some good timing. Once you get into the flow of things, you will realize just how easy having a steady supply of buds can be.” In page 1. This would motivate one to combine the references as one would be able to ensure near continuous supply which would normalize inventory. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Benvie with RQS.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benvie, US PGPUB 20190323253 ("Benvie") in view of Reynolds, “Stacked Container Hydroponics for Vertical Farming : Blog 6 Part 1 – SCADA,” element14 [online] published September 17, 2015, available at: < https://community.element14.com/challenges-projects/design-challenges/vertical-farming/b/blog/posts/stacked-container-hydroponics-for-vertical-farming-blog-6-part-1---scada > (“Reynolds”), further in view of PAC, “Why Every Cannabis Grow Room Design Should Incorporate an Air Shower,” PAC Blog [online], available at: < https://blog.gotopac.com/2019/03/26/why-every-cannabis-grow-room-design-should-incorporate-an-air-shower/ > published on March 26, 2019 (“PAC”).
Per claim 14, Benvie and Reynolds teach the limitations of claim 11, above. Benvie does not teach further comprising air locks between each of the production modules and all rooms of the post-harvest GMP processing area .
PAC teaches airlocks for grow rooms, see page 1.
PAC teaches further comprising air locks between each of the production modules and all rooms of the post-harvest GMP processing area in page 2, air lock entrances with interlocking doors.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production module teaching of Benvie with the airlock teaching of PAC because PAC teaches that HEPA filters can catch spores, bacteria, and pathogens at .3 micron or larger. Page 2. As this would prevent pathogens from entering a grow space one would be motivated to combine Benvie with PAC.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benvie, US PGPUB 20190323253 ("Benvie") in view of Reynolds, “Stacked Container Hydroponics for Vertical Farming : Blog 6 Part 1 – SCADA,” element14 [online] published September 17, 2015, available at: < https://community.element14.com/challenges-projects/design-challenges/vertical-farming/b/blog/posts/stacked-container-hydroponics-for-vertical-farming-blog-6-part-1---scada > (“Reynolds”), further in view of PAC, “Grow Room Design and Construction” PAC Blog [online], available at: < https://blog.gotopac.com/2018/04/05/cannabis-cleanroom-design-and-construction-components/ > published on April 5, 2018 (“MotherPAC”).
Per claim 15, Benvie and Reynolds teach the limitations of claim 11, above. Benvie further teaches each mother room having sensors and corresponding to a respective production module and configured to provide cuttings or plant material at defined intervals in par 042: “As it can be seen in FIG. 10, the plant cultivation facility 100 further comprises a cloning (or clone) room 120, as known to a person skilled in the art. An advantage of having such a clone room 120 in the plant cultivation facility 100 of the present invention is that it allows for the producers to maintain a genetic library of the controlled substances, such as marijuana. As for any other facility, the clone room 120 should be clean and sterile prior to use, and be provided with: (i) proper air filters and clean airflow so as to prevent airborne pathogens such as mould and fungus spores from infesting young cuttings; (ii) lighting, such as blue-white lights (“cool lights”) to stimulate vegetative growth; (iii) proper trays and lids that must be verified several times during the day so as to avoid issues of excessive humidity and be able to assess the general rate of rooting. It is also possible to make use of cloning kits in such rooms 120.”
Sensors for the facility which includes the clone room is taught in par 096: “In a preferred embodiment, both the grow cultivation chamber 102 and facility 100 are provided with at least one monitoring system in the form of wireless cameras 140, motion sensors, wireless devices, control panels 148 (i.e., iPads®, tablets and the like) to keep track of the plant growth stages, including growth cycle, feeding schedule, irrigation and etc., throughout production, as well as other monitors for the reasons set out in this application. In addition, the foregoing monitoring system and sensors can be used to ensure the security of the facility and/or growth chamber according to the present invention, as well as grow environment. For example, wireless security cameras 140 can be placed in front of each growth chamber as well as inside of each growth chamber so as to ensure a secure environment.”
Benvie does not teach further comprising a plurality of dedicated mother rooms, each mother room having sensors and corresponding to a respective production module and configured to provide cuttings or plant material at defined intervals.
MotherPAC teaches grow room design and construction. See page 1.
MotherPAC teaches further comprising a plurality of dedicated mother rooms, in page 2 where Mother Rooms plural are taught.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production module teaching of Benvie with the dedicated mother rooms teaching of MotherPAC because on page 5 is taught that positive pressure rooms can be provided which for mother and clone prevent microorganisms from surviving, which would contaminate the plants. As this would ensure a healthier vegetation and harvest one would be motivated to modify Benvie with MotherPAC.
Therefore, claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Affidavit.
The affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed November 24, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 11-15 based upon a specific reference from the 103 rejection as set forth in the last Office action because:
Affidavit filed by inventor has been fully considered and given appropriate weight. Applicant states in point 8 and then argues against Benvie in point 16 that exactly five .. flowering chambers are claimed but the claim language is different from what Applicant argues. First, as was previously explained (this is US Patent law and regulation), as the claims comprise in the preamble, they do not exclude more chambers. See page 7, Non Final, dated June 24, 2025. See also MPEP 2111.03 “comprising,” synonymous with including, containing, is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude.
Other considerations are:
Points 1-5
Statements of not making willful false statements, etc etc.
6-7: what the declaration is about
9: Discussion of related art and technical advantages. This is considered, but does not bear relevance on whether Benvie teaches the elements of the production facility claims.
17. The cadence rules were not claimed in claim 11, which incidentally is for a “production facility” a machine, and not a process.
18-22. explanations that autocad and other software used to make production plan diagrams.
From a practical standpoint, one could operate Benvie in the manner of having “exactly five” by simply grouping each growing room in a group of five. . Given that claims 11-15 are for the facility itself and not for a process claim, it is not clear how Applicant is attempting to distinguish the use of the facility from the facility itself.
Exhibits A and B are considered and are given proper weight. They are not in the original disclosure and cannot be used to describe the invention nor be used to write claims from. Nor can they be used to distinguish from the prior art by adding new material, which they attempt to do. Because the various charts and diagrams present facts outside of the original disclosure, they do not provide facts that overcome the rejection. Therefore they are incorrectly characterized as evidence and there is no probative value of putting charts, diagrams, etc that were not in the original disclosure. Please see MPEP 716.01(c) for examples of evidence. These submissions amount to arguments by Applicant And, considered as arguments, are unpersuasive as they a) do not argue the actual limitations claimed b) argue that prior art has to each “exactly” [a number] of [an element] which, as explained above is not the case in US Patent Law and Regulation. For these reasons though the affidavit has been considered it is not persuasive.
Further, Applicant’s production module limitations are examined but Applicant has attempted to claim multiple inventions without Unity, see above, and therefore only the production facility (Claims 11-15) are examined; claims 16-18 are withdrawn constructively.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant is arguing canceled claims.
Support for new claims: responded to in the above 112 rejection and specification objection, both of which must be addressed.
Any amendments must be clearly shown where the support for the amendments exists in the original disclosure.
35 USC 102.
Applicant argues Benvie does not teach SCADA, but this is moot as Applicant is arguing new claims which required further search and consideration applying new art. The arguments by the inventor in the 132 declaration were considered above. Because of further search and consideration, new art is applied.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619