Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/274,577

CULTIVATION GREENHOUSE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner
VALENTI, ANDREA M
Art Unit
3643
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
42%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 42% of resolved cases
42%
Career Allow Rate
312 granted / 736 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +58% interview lift
Without
With
+58.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
779
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.9%
+12.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 736 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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. Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 14, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2004201630 to Shintani et al in view of Japanese Patent JP H05308857 to Nakanishi, Japanese Patent JP 2008224571 to Takakura, and China Patent CN 109788734 to Taomoto et al. Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Shintani teaches a cultivation greenhouse comprising: an outer linings (Shintani Fig. 1 #1) and a circulation device (Shintani Fig. 1 #9); two light-shielding sheets disposed one above another (Shintani Fig. 1 #20, #21, #22; paragraph English translation [0025]-[0027]) below the outer lining; and a light-shielding control unit (Shintani #8) that switches a light-shielding state of each light-shielding sheet between a covered state of covering at least part of a ceiling part of the inner lining or a ceiling part of the outer lining and an open state of not covering the ceiling part of the inner lining or the ceiling part of the outer lining, and the light-shielding control unit sets target values as an upper limit value and a lower limit value of the intensity of solar radiation based on a target yield of the plant, and controls the light-shielding state of each light-shielding sheet so that the intensity of solar radiation is equal to or lower than the upper limit value and equal to or higher than the lower limit value (Shintani #16 and paragraph [0041]-[0042], [0049], [0055]-[0057], [0067], [0073], use of a CPU). Shintani is silent on an inner lining. However, Nakanishi teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an inner lining (Nakanishi Fig. 1 #11) that forms a housing space for housing a plant (Nakanishi Fig. 1 element P) to be a cultivation target, the inner lining tightly sealing the housing space; an outer lining (Nakanishi Fig. 1 #12) that is disposed on an outer side of the inner lining to house the inner lining, the outer lining forming, with the inner lining, a circulation space (Nakanishi Fig. 1 element A) for flowing outside air; a circulation device (Nakanishi Fig. 1 #15) that circulates air outside the outer lining into the circulation space and discharges the air to outside of the outer lining; wherein the inner lining and the outer lining are provided such that the circulation space is formed between a ceiling part of the inner lining and a ceiling part of the outer lining. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Shintani with the teachings of Nakanishi before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a stable growth environment for optimal cultivation as taught by Nakanishi. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Shintani as modified by Nakanishi will produce in the claimed results/function each light-shielding sheet decreasing an intensity of solar radiation incident on the housing space by covering at least part of the inner lining. Shintani as modified by Nakanishi teaches the two light shielding sheets disposed one above another between a ceiling part of the inner lining and a ceiling part of the outer lining (Shintani Fig. 1 #1, #20, #21, #22; Nakanishi Fig. 1 #11). Shintani as modified by Nakanishi teaches the known use of a solar detection sensor (Nakanishi #13 in the housing space; Shintani #16 outside housing space), but is silent on explicitly teaching a pyranometer disposed in the housing space that measures an intensity of solar radiation incident on the housing space. However, Takakura teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a pyranometer disposed in the housing space that measures an intensity of solar radiation incident on the housing space (Takakura Fig. 2 #1 and Fig. 5#5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Shintani with the teachings of Takakura before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for accurate measurements. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or merely shifting a known element performing the same intended function for precise environmental control [In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950)]. Shintani as modified by Nakanishi teaches the use of circulation fans (Shintani Fig. 1 #9; Nakanishi Fig. 1 #15), but is silent on explicitly teaching the circulation device includes an air intake unit that draws air outside the outer lining into the circulation space, and air discharge unit that discharges air inside the circulation space to outside, and the air intake unit and the air discharge unit are each positioned vertically between the ceiling part of the inner lining and the ceiling part of the outer lining. However, Taomoto teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide the circulation device includes an air intake unit that draws air outside the outer lining into the circulation space (Taomoto Fig. 8 #31b), and air discharge unit that discharges air inside the circulation space to outside (Taomoto Fig. 8 #32b), and the air intake unit and the air discharge unit are each positioned vertically between the ceiling part of the inner lining and the ceiling part of the outer lining (Taomoto Fig. 10A/10B #31a, #32b and 11A/11B, #31a and #32a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Shintani with the teachings of Taomoto before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to exhaust the greenhouse as taught by Taomoto. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding Claim 4, Shintani as modified teaches a cooling device (Shintani paragraph [0002], element #12; Nakanishi Fig. 1 #14) that cools the air circulating in the circulation space. Regarding Claim 14, Shintani as modified teaches at least one of the light-shielding sheets is set such that transmittance of a wavelength corresponding to infrared light is set to be smaller than transmittance of other range of wavelengths (Shintani paragraph [0027], transparent, silver, black). Regarding Claim 16, Shintani as modified teaches a moisture supply unit that supplies moisture to the housing space in accordance with a detection result of the humidity detection unit (Nakanishi teaches a humidifier in English translation), a humidity detection unit that detects a humidity in the housing space (Shintani #11 paragraph [0004]). Regarding Claim 17, Shintani as modified teaches the light-shielding sheets include a first light-shielding sheet disposed on the outer lining side and a second light-shielding sheet disposed on the inner lining side, the second light-shielding sheet having a light-shielding rate higher than the first light-shielding sheet (Shintani Fig. 1 #21, #21, #22; paragraph [0027]), and the first light-shielding sheet and the second light-shielding sheet are independently controlled by the light-shielding control unit to be in the open state or in the covered state based on the intensity of solar radiation and the upper limit value and the lower limit value set by the light shielding control unit (Shintani #24, #25, #26 operated by #8; paragraph [0025], capable of the claimed function). Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2004201630 to Shintani et al in view of Japanese Patent JP H05308857 to Nakanishi, Japanese Patent JP 2008224571 to Takakura, and China Patent CN 109788734 to Taomoto et al as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent JP 2014-103856 to Inada et al. Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Shintani as modified is silent on the cooling device supplies water on a path where the air circulates and the cooling device controls a supply amount of the water in accordance with a temperature in the inner lining or the housing space. However, Inada teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a cooling device that supplies water on a path where the air circulates and the cooling device controls a supply amount of the water in accordance with a temperature in the inner lining or the housing space (Inada Fig. 1 #14 and #5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings Shintani with the teachings of Inada before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to cool the air as taught by Inada. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2004201630 to Shintani et al in view of Japanese Patent JP H05308857 to Nakanishi, Japanese Patent JP 2008224571 to Takakura, and China Patent CN 109788734 to Taomoto et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PCT WO 2018/163629 to Fuse. Regarding Claim 8, Shintani as modified is silent on the inner lining includes a door capable of being opened and closed, and an air curtain forming unit that forms an air curtain at an opening area in a state where the door is open is provided at a position along the door of the inner lining on the housing space side. However, Fuse teaches that a door and air curtain are old and notoriously well-known components for establishing clean rooms (Fuse Paragraph [0030], element #2) and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Shintani with the teachings of Fuse before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent outside air from entering as taught by Fuse. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2004201630 to Shintani et al in view of Japanese Patent JP H05308857 to Nakanishi, Japanese Patent JP 2008224571 to Takakura, and China Patent CN 109788734 to Taomoto et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0133052 to Carson. Regarding Claim 12 ad 15, Shintani as modified is silent on a concentration detection unit that detects a concentration of carbon dioxide in the housing space; and a carbon dioxide supply unit that supplies carbon dioxide to the housing space in accordance with a detection result of the concentration detection unit. However, Carson teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide on a concentration detection unit that detects a concentration of carbon dioxide in the housing space; and a carbon dioxide supply unit that supplies carbon dioxide to the housing space in accordance with a detection result of the concentration detection unit in a greenhouse, the light-shielding control unit controls each of the light-shielding sheets to be in the open state and the covered state based on an amount of the carbon dioxide supply unit in a unit period (Carson paragraph [0021]-[0022], teaches the use of control technology, control logic to provide environmental conditions that optimize plant growth; Fig. 3 #94). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Shintani with the teachings of Carson before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Shintani as modified satisfies the structural limitations of the claim and includes the structure of the light-shields and a computer CPU which are capable of performing the claimed open and closing of the sheets as part of an automated system. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,4-8,12 and 14-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record. 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 ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time. 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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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. /ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643 09 February 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 01, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 07, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 11, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593760
TREE GUARD ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588657
Stock Tank Guard
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12550834
AUTONOMOUS WALL MOUNTED GARDEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550833
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND SUSTAINING A COOL MICROCLIMATE IN AN ARTIFICIAL VALLEY, AND USE OF STRUCTURE FOR VALORIZATION AND REMEDIATION OF BAUXITE RESIDUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12507646
AQUAPONICS SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
42%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+58.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 736 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month