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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 1/5/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 15 and 17-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed 10/7/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "etc. " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what other limitations are included or not included with the term etc. Claims 17-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 3, 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111096175 A, hereinafter Wang in view of WO 2020/035828 A2, hereinafter Nytek and United States Application Publication No. 2021/0277342, hereinafter Urban.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an arrangement for the cultivation of plants and for the utilization of biomass waste (abstract) comprising: a greenhouse (abstract); an energy storage unit associated with the modular greenhouse (abstract); a two-stage biogas plant (abstract) wherein the two-stage biogas plant are partly formed as tanks (abstract), comprising at least one fermentation tank (abstract); a further control and monitoring unit is associated with the modular two-stage biogas plant (pages 2-3, last paragraph to first paragraph).
Wang fails to teach the greenhouse is a module composed of a plurality of modules, internal and external sensors of the modular greenhouse, a local control and data acquisition unit associated with the modular greenhouse and in communication with the greenhouse and wherein data and parameters detected by internal sensors and external sensors of the modular greenhouse are provided, so that energy from the energy storage unit associated with the modular greenhouse and/or the energy storage unit of the two-stage biogas plant is supplied in the form of light and/or heat to the modular greenhouse.
Nytek teaches a modular greenhouse made from a plurality of modules so that the number of parts for the construction of the module can be decreased and reduces costs and production time for a module (Nytek, pages 2-3, last paragraph to first paragraph), appropriate sensors for automated management (page 5, paragraph 12) with a control and monitoring unit which is able to control pivotable slats and can change the incidence of light on the surface or shading (Nytek, page 4, paragraph 6) and storing of generated electricity so that plant lighting in the greenhouse can occur at night (page 4, paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the greenhouse a modular greenhouse with a plurality of modules as described in Nytek and added sensors with a control and monitor unit because it would reduce the number of parts for construction and reduce the cost and production time for a module (Nytek, pages 2-3, last paragraph to first paragraph) and would be able to control pivotable slats to change the incidence of light on the surface or shading (Nytek, page 4, paragraph 6). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the stored energy to light the green house because it would allow for lighting of the greenhouse at night.
Wang and Nytek fail to teach the biogas plant is modular with several modules and at least two hydrolysis tanks, gas storage and a control and monitoring unit is associated with the two-stage biogas plant.
Urban teaches a biogas facility which is modular and has two hydrolysis tanks (Urban, paragraph [0003]), gas storage (Urban, paragraph [0017]) and a monitoring and control unit for the system (Urban, abstract) which enables an automated monitoring and control of a plurality of modular biogas plants to thereby optimize operation of each plant and the efficiency of the generation of biogas in the individual biogas plants (Urban, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the biogas plant modular with several modules as described in Urban and at least two hydrolysis tanks, gas storage and a control and monitoring unit for the system because it would enable an automated monitoring and control of a plurality of modular biogas plants to thereby optimize operation of each plant and the efficiency of the generation of biogas in the individual biogas plants (Urban, paragraph [0025]).
Wang further teaches all of the components of the greenhouse and biogas plant are connected and therefore modified Wang teaches a communication link between the control and data acquisition unit of the modular greenhouse and the further control and monitoring unit of the modular, two-stage biogas plant (see supra).
Further, the examiner notes that the limitation wherein data and parameters detected by internal sensors and external sensors of the modular greenhouse are provided. so that energy from the energy storage unit associated with the modular greenhouse and/or the energy storage unit of the two-stage biogas plant is supplied in the form of light and/or heat to the modular greenhouse is limitations that are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Wang, Nytek and Urban and the apparatus of modified Wang is capable of the energy from the energy storage unit supplied as light or heat. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wang (see MPEP §2114). Further, these limitations are taught above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang teaches wherein each module of the greenhouse, has a roof with at least one transparent roof surface supporting at least one photovoltaic module which is at least partially transparent or adjustably transparent (Nytek, abstract), wherein the energy storage unit is a battery (abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches a system of at least one arrangement for the cultivation of plants and for the utilization of biomass waste (abstract), each arrangement comprising: a greenhouse (abstract); an energy storage unit which is associated to the modular greenhouse (abstract); a two-stage biogas plant (abstract), partly formed as tanks (abstract), configured by at least one fermentation tank (abstract); a further control and monitoring unit is associated with the modular two-stage biogas plant (pages 2-3, last paragraph to first paragraph).
Wang fails to teach the greenhouse is a module composed of a plurality of modules wherein each of the modules has a roof with a transparent roof surface, at least one photovoltaic module is mounted on the roof surface, wherein the photovoltaic module is designed to be partially transparent or adjustably transparent; a local control and data acquisition unit associated with the modular greenhouse and in communication with the greenhouse and wherein data and parameters detected by internal sensors and external sensors of the modular greenhouse are provided, so that energy from the energy storage unit associated with the modular greenhouse and/or the energy storage unit of the two-stage biogas plant is supplied in the form of light and/or heat to the modular greenhouse.
Nytek teaches a modular greenhouse made from a plurality of modules so that the number of parts for the construction of the module can be decreased and reduces costs and production time for a module (Nytek, pages 2-3, last paragraph to first paragraph) with a transparent roof surface supporting at least one photovoltaic module (abstract), a control and monitoring unit which is able to control pivotable slats and can change the incidence of light on the surface or shading (Nytek, page 4, paragraph 6) and storing of generated electricity so that plant lighting in the greenhouse can occur at night (page 4, paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the greenhouse a modular greenhouse with a plurality of modules as described in Nytek and add a control and monitor unit because it would reduce the number of parts for construction and reduce the cost and production time for a module (Nytek, pages 2-3, last paragraph to first paragraph) and would be able to control pivotable slats to change the incidence of light on the surface or shading (Nytek, page 4, paragraph 6). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the stored energy to light the green house because it would allow for lighting of the greenhouse at night.
Wang and Nytek fail to teach the biogas plant is modular with several modules and at least two hydrolysis tanks, gas storage, a control and monitoring unit is associated with the two-stage biogas plant a cloud communicating with a central control and monitoring unit, wherein data and parameters of each respective arrangement, detected by internal sensors and external sensors, are supplied via the local control and data acquisition unit of the modular greenhouse and the control and monitoring unit of each modular, two-stage biogas plant to the cloud and the central control and monitoring unit, and wherein the central control and monitoring unit sends instructions, commands, messages etc. to the local control and data acquisition unit of each modular greenhouse and the control and monitoring unit of each modular, two-stage biogas plant.
Urban teaches a biogas facility which is modular and has two hydrolysis tanks (Urban, paragraph [0003]), gas storage (Urban, paragraph [0017]) and a central monitoring and control unit (cloud) for the system (Urban, abstract) and a firewall for each part (Urban, paragraph [0102]) and a user interface (Urban, paragraph [0026]) and enables an automated monitoring and control of a plurality of modular biogas plants to thereby optimize operation of each plant and the efficiency of the generation of biogas in the individual biogas plants (Urban, paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the biogas plant modular with several modules as described in Urban and at least two hydrolysis tanks, gas storage and a central control and monitoring unit (cloud) for the system because it would enable an automated monitoring and control of a plurality of modular biogas plants to thereby optimize operation of each plant and the efficiency of the generation of biogas in the individual biogas plants (Urban, paragraph [0025]).
Wang further teaches all of the components of the greenhouse and biogas plant are connected and therefore modified Wang teaches a communication link between the control and data acquisition unit of the modular greenhouse and the further control and monitoring unit of the modular, two-stage biogas plant (see supra).
Further, the examiner notes that the limitation wherein data and parameters detected by internal sensors and external sensors of the modular greenhouse are provided. so that energy from the energy storage unit associated with the modular greenhouse and/or the energy storage unit of the two-stage biogas plant is supplied in the form of light and/or heat to the modular greenhouse is limitations that are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Wang, Nytek and Urban and the apparatus of modified Wang is capable of the energy from the energy storage unit supplied as light or heat. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Wang (see MPEP §2114). Further, these limitations are taught above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Wang teaches wherein a firewall is assigned to each arrangement, and the local control and data acquisition unit of the modular greenhouse and the further local and the control and monitoring unit of the two-stage biogas plant communicate via the firewall with the cloud and the central control and monitoring unit (see supra).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wang teaches wherein the energy storage unit of the modular greenhouse, and the local control and data acquisition unit of the modular greenhouse is communicatively connected to the internal sensors, the external sensors and a plurality of actuators of the modular greenhouse (Nytek, abstract), wherein the central control and monitoring unit determines setting variables for the actuators of the modular greenhouse on the basis of the data from the internal sensors and external sensors and in conjunction with predefined setpoint values of the modular greenhouse and controls the actuators accordingly (Nytek, abstract).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wang teaches wherein a user interface is associated with at least one arrangement of the system and the user interface receives, the messages and/or alerts generated by the central control and monitoring unit and an operator is notified centrally whether a fault occurs in the respective modular greenhouse and/or the modular, two-stage biogas plant of the arrangement (see supra).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the link provides “data an parameters detected by internal sensors and external sensor of the modular greenhouse … so that energy from the energy storage unit … is supplied in the form of light and/or heat to the modular greenhouse, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the communication link is only a connection between control units or processors therefore a communication link is considered as wires or some other type of connection and a connection isn’t programable and therefore the limitations on what the communication link does, is the intended use of the communication link.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The fact that Wang, Nytek and Urban are all solving particular problems which are not the problem in the application is not found persuasive. When the references of Wang, Nytek and Urban are combined, as described above, they teach all of the limitations of claim 1 and therefore render the claim as obvious. The fact that none of the references specifically teach the particular problems addressed by the claimed invention, doesn’t change the ability for the references, when combined, to teach all of the limitations.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Urban teaches a central control system for a fleet of biogas plants and does not teach a structure capable of receiving data from or sending commands to a completely different type of facility, such as a greenhouse is not found persuasive. The primary reference of Wang discloses a greenhouse with a biogas system, based upon this reference of Wang, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked other device which have a greenhouse and/or biogas system. Therefore, one or ordinary skill would have looked to Urban for teachings on how to control the combined system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of utilizing a central control and processing system and would have applied it to the combined system of Wang. Combining Wang and Urban would have led one or ordinary skill to have added the central control of the system and arrived at the claimed invention.
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796