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 .
Election/Restrictions
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 11/12/2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-8 and 10, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claim 9 is withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sub (US 2024/0263851).
Regarding claim 1, Sub discloses:
an integrated regulation and control device (fig. 1) for light, heat and water in a greenhouse,
(it is noted, it has been held that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II). In the instant case, the integrated regulation and control device of Sub is capable of being used for light, heat and water in a greenhouse, as recited in preamble of claim 1. Further, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the instant case, the prior art integrated regulation and control device of Sub is capable of being used for light, heat and water in a greenhouse)
comprising
a condensing plate heat exchanger (11/14) [par. 0026] arranged in a closed space (5) (fig. 1) [par. 0003];
a cavity (the cavity inside the exchanger 11/14 that receives/connects with the inlet 15a and outlet 15b pipes) is formed in condensing plate heat exchanger (11/14) (see annotated fig. 1-SUB, below);
the condensing plate heat exchanger (11/14) being further provided with a water inlet and a water outlet which are communicated to the cavity (see annotated fig. 1-SUB, below) [par. 0061-0062];
the regulation and control device (fig. 1) further comprises an energy supply system (7) and a heat dissipation device (2/4) (see annotated fig. 1-SUB, below) [par. 0005, 0011, 0023, 0052, 0060];
the energy supply system (7) is able to inject a cold source into the cavity (of condensing plate heat exchanger 11/14) through the water inlet (see annotated fig. 1-SUB, below) [par. 0052 and 0061-0062];
the cold source in the cavity (of condensing plate heat exchanger 11/14) returns to the energy supply system (7) through the water outlet to store heat to the energy supply system (7) (see annotated fig. 1-SUB, below) [par. 0052, 0060];
PNG
media_image1.png
495
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the energy supply system (7) is also able to transport part of the heat to the heat dissipation device (2/4) [par. 0052, 0060].
MPEP 2114 II clearly states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Because Claim 1 fails to further limit the apparatus in terms of structure, but rather only recite further functional limitations, regarding the “the “shading…plate,” the “arranged below a greenhouse roof” and the “the heat dissipation device is able to dissipate the heat into the greenhouse” limitations, the condensing plate (11/14) and the heat dissipation device (2/4), as taught by Sub, are deemed fully capable of performing such functions and to have the condensing plate (11/14) being arranged bellow a greenhouse roof to provide shade.
It is noted, per MPEP 2111.04.II, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. In the instant case, Sub discloses the structure (a shading and condensing plate 11/14) necessary for performing the functions of “water in the air being coagulated on a surface of the shading and condensing plate”, and “the cold source in the cavity returns to the energy supply system through the water outlet to store heat to the energy supply system” should the conditions of “when a surface temperature of the shading and condensing plate is less than a dew-point temperature of air in the greenhouse” and “after being heated by the sunlight” respectively occur.
Regarding claim 10, Sub discloses:
a closed space (5) comprising the integrated regulation and control device for light, heat and water in a greenhouse of claim 1, but does not disclose the closed space being a greenhouse.
(it is noted, it has been held that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II). In the instant case, the closed space (5) of Sub is capable of being used as a greenhouse, as recited in preamble of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763