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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/05/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 17-18, 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20110313577 A1) in view of Baldwin (US 4195441 A) and Loessl (US 20190223391 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Anderson discloses a system for irrigating plants (Fig. 1), the system comprising: a sensor (capacity gauge 120); one or more memories (604) storing instructions; one or more processors (602), operatively coupled to the one or more memories (para 56), for executing the instructions to: determine a volume related measurement of water condensed from air in the indoor, environmentally-controlled grow room using a measurement from the sensor (para 21), wherein the irrigation volume is based on the volume-related measurement (para 21 describes increasing irrigation when container 112 is filled, but decreasing it when container 112 is empty).
Anderson fails to teach an indoor, environmentally-controlled grow room, a supply pump, a sensor comprising a flow meter or a humidity sensor, and control operation of the supply pump to pump an irrigation volume of nutrient solution to a medium of plants in the grow room.
However, Baldwin teaches an indoor, environmentally-controlled grow room (Fig. 1), a supply pump, and control operation of the supply pump (condensate pump 69) to pump an irrigation volume of nutrient solution to a medium of plants in the grow room (Col 5 lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the grow system as disclosed by Anderson with the indoor grow system as taught by Baldwin with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an indoor grow system with similar capabilities would achieve the predictable result of allowing for greater amount of control of environmental conditions therefore regulate the system to be optimal for vegetation growth.
Loessl teaches a sensor or a humidity sensor (humidity sensors (para 44-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the sensors as disclosed by Anderson with the humidity sensor as taught by Loessl with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a humidity sensor would achieve the predictable result of allowing for regulation and control of the humidity sensor so that the plants may be grown under desired conditions (Loessl paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 2: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein controlling irrigation comprises increasing irrigation in response to a relationship between the volume-related measurement of the condensed water and a threshold (Anderson, para 21 describes increasing irrigation when container 112 is filled, but decreasing it when container 112 is empty).
Regarding claim 17: Anderson discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media (604) storing one or more instructions for irrigating plants (Fig. 1), wherein the one or more instructions, when executed, cause one or more computing devices to: control evapotranspiration by controlling irrigation (via 116), determine a volume-related measurement of water condensed from air in the indoor, environmentally controlled grow room using a measurement from a sensor (via gauge 120, para 21); wherein the irrigation volume is based upon the volume-related measurement (para 21 describes increasing irrigation when container 112 is filled, but decreasing it when container 112 is empty).
Anderson fails to teach an indoor, environmentally-controlled grow room control evapotranspiration in the grow room by controlling temperature, and lighting in the grow room and control operation of a supply pump to pump an irrigation volume of nutrient solution to a medium of plants in the grow room, and a sensor comprising a flow meter or a humidity sensor.
Baldwin teaches an indoor, environmentally-controlled grow room (Fig. 1), and control operation of a supply pump to pump an irrigation volume of nutrient solution to a medium of plants in the grow room (Col 5 lines 18-21, condensate pump 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the grow system as disclosed by Anderson with the indoor grow system as taught by Baldwin with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an indoor grow system with similar capabilities would achieve the predictable result of allowing for greater amount of control of environmental conditions therefore regulate the system to be optimal for vegetation growth.
Loessl teaches controlling temperature (para 11) and lighting (para 53), and a sensor comprising a flow meter or a humidity sensor (paras 44-46 discuss humidity sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the grow system as disclosed by modified Anderson with the environmental condition regulation as taught by Loessl with a reasonable expectation of success because allowing for the system to have the capabilities to regulate the environmental conditions of the growth system would achieve the predictable result of optimal growth settings for plant growth.
Regarding claim 18: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further teaches wherein controlling irrigation comprises increasing irrigation in response to a relationship between the volume-related measurement of the condensed water and a threshold (Anderson, para 21 describes increasing irrigation when container 112 is filled, but decreasing it when container 112 is empty).
Regarding claim 25: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the volume-related measurement comprises a flow rate or a volume (Anderson, gauge 120 are known in the art to read volume of fluid).
Regarding claim 26: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the volume-related measurement represents a volume-related measurement of condensed water performed since a previous pumping of nutrient solution to the medium (Anderson, as gauge 120 is reading the amount of fluid that is in the container, this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 27: Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, control evapotranspiration in the grow room by controlling irrigation (as seen via 116).
Anderson fails to teach controlling temperature and lighting.
However, Loessl teaches controlling temperature (para 11) and lighting (para 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the grow system as disclosed by modified Anderson with the temperature and lighting regulation as taught by Loessl with a reasonable expectation of success because allowing for the system to have the capabilities to regulate temperature and lighting would achieve the predictable result of optimal growth settings for plant growth.
Regarding claim 28: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the volume-related measurement comprises a flow rate or a volume (Anderson, gauge 120 are known in the art to read volume of fluid).
Regarding claim 29: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the volume-related measurement represents a volume-related measurement of condensed water performed since a previous pumping of nutrient solution to the medium (Anderson, as gauge 120 is reading the amount of fluid that is in the container, this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 30: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more computing devices to control evapotranspiration in the grow room by controlling irrigation, temperature and lighting in the grow room (Anderson teaches irrigation via 116; Loessl para 11 teaches of temperature regulation and para 53 discusses actuating the illumination ).
Claims 4, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, Baldwin and Loessl as applied to claims 1, 17 above, and further in view of Kop (US 20180042186 A1).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Anderson fails to explicitly teach a dehumidifier for condensing water from air from the grow room to produce the condensed water.
However, Kop teaches a dehumidifier (139) for condensing water from air from the grow room to produce the condensed water (para 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the condenser as disclosed by Anderson with the dehumidifier as taught by Kop with a reasonable expectation of success because replacing the condenser to be a dehumidifier would have the dual effect of both condensing water within the area as well as manipulating the temperature to potentially achieve more preferable conditions related to plant growth.
Regarding claim 20: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above.
Anderson fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more instructions, when executed, cause the one or more computing devices to cause a dehumidifier to condense water from air from the grow room to produce the condensed water.
However, Kop teaches wherein the one or more instructions, when executed, cause the one or more computing devices to cause a dehumidifier (139) to condense water from air from the grow room to produce the condensed water (para 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the condenser as disclosed by Anderson with the dehumidifier as taught by Kop with a reasonable expectation of success because replacing the condenser to be a dehumidifier and sending commands to modify the dehumidifier’s mode of operation would have the dual effect of both condensing water within the area as well as manipulating the temperature to potentially achieve more preferable conditions related to plant growth.
Claims 5, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, Baldwin, and Loessl as applied to claims 1, 17 above, and further in view of Cully (US 20240147918 A1).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Anderson fails to teach wherein the condensed water results from evaporation and transpiration in the grow room.
However, Cully teaches wherein the condensed water results from evaporation and transpiration in the grow room.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the plant system as disclosed by Anderson with the transpiration collection and reuse as taught by Cully with a reasonable expectation of success because providing means for reusing water from transpiration would naturally decreased any evaporative losses and optimize the water use within the system.
Regarding claim 21: Modified Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above.
Anderson fails to teach wherein the condensed water results from evaporation and transpiration in the grow room.
However, Cully teaches wherein the condensed water results from evaporation and transpiration (218) in the grow room (paras 94-95, Fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the plant system as disclosed by Anderson with the transpiration collection and reuse as taught by Cully with a reasonable expectation of success because providing means for reusing water from transpiration would naturally decreased any evaporative losses and optimize the water use within the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant requested reconsideration of withdrawn claims 31-37 as the claims are directed to a compute-implemented method and cannot be practiced by hand. The Office disagrees as these are not the only distinct features from the claims. For example, the apparatus as claimed can practice another materially different process as the apparatus does not have to control the evapotranspiration the grow room. As a result, the method claims 31-37 are still withdrawn. The claims may be rejoindered at the end of prosecution if allowable subject matter can be determined.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the use of a flow meter or humidity sensor. The Office has relied upon the prior art of Loessl to teach this structure as described in paragraphs 0044-0046 of Loessl.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art of record are within Applicant’s related field of condensation collection and recycling for the purpose of irrigation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642