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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 31 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 31 December 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control module” and “a processing unit” in claim 1, line 3. The specification discusses this control module in ¶¶ 5 and 17 but ¶ 5 includes only the language already presented in the claims (e.g. “a control module with a processing unit, a display screen and an IO interface”) and ¶ 17 teaches only that the module is “integrated into the control panel with a user IO interface” with neither passage describing the structure of the “module” itself by which it performs the function of “control”. Further, while the “control module” is taught to include “a processing unit”, this unit also taught only by its functions (in ¶¶ 5, 7, and 18) without identification of the structure which is required. For this reason, attention is directed to the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Further, examiner notes that the phrase “for indoor residential cannabis cultivation” in the preamble of each of claims 1-4 is interpreted as a statement of intended use and is not found to limit the scope of the respective claim beyond the structures set forth in body of the claim. Regarding the interpretation of recitations of intended use within the preamble of claim, refer to MPEP 2111.02 Effect of Preamble and particularly subsection (II) Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose of Intended Use.
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 1-4 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.
As discussed above, claim 1 recites in line 3 “a control module with a processing unit” but the specification does not teach the specific structure of each of these components by which the “module” performs the function of “control” or by which the “unit” performs the function of “processing”. Although the control module is taught (e.g. in ¶ 17) to be “integrated into the control panel”, a structure which could be found to perform such a function, the control module itself is taught as a component of the control panel rather than the other way around so that the control panel being specific structure does not impart such structure of the control module. Regarding the “processing unit”, no structure is suggested except for the teaching that it is a part of the control module, with all other recitations merely teaching the functions the unit is to perform (e.g. calculating a VPD value form a measured temperature and humidity). For this reason, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement with regard to the control module and processing unit.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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.
As discussed above, As discussed above, claim 1 recites in line 3 “a control module with a processing unit” but the specification does not teach the specific structure of each of these components by which the “module” performs the function of “control” or by which the “unit” performs the function of “processing”. As such, the specific structure required for an apparatus to fall within the scope of the claim regarding the control module and processing unit cannot be positively ascertained and claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 4 teaches in line 2 that “the updated leaf VPD value is compared to the pre-determined VPD value again” but neither claim 4 nor any of claims 1-3 upon which it depends teaching that “the updated leaf VPD value” (calculated in line 7 of claim 3) has previously been “compared to the pre-determined VPD value” (which is only previously taught in line 2 of claim 2) so that it is unclear if the word “again” in claim 4 refers to the previous (non-update) VPD value being compared (as taught in claim 2) or requires that the updated VPD value also have been compared to the pre-determined value more than once. For this reason, the scope of claim 4 and the comparisons which must be performed by the device cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 4 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the updated leave VPD value is interpreted as only being required to be compared to the pre-determined value once, with the word “again” referring to the comparison of the pre-update value described in claim 2.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 1, the abbreviation “VPD” should be spelled out where it is first used in the claim (using the longform version “vapor pressure deficiency” as taught in ¶ 3 of the specification) before it may be abbreviated in subsequent uses.
Claims 3 and 4 use the same reference characters to refer to updated measurements and calculated values which were previously used to refer to the pre-update values (e.g. “an updated environmental temperature value T” in lines 2-3 of claim 3, in comparison to “an environmental temperature value T” in line 6 of claim 1). It is suggested that the updated values should be indicated using a modified reference character (e.g. Tupdate or T2) to clearly identify where the updated rather than original data is being used. The same modification should also be applied to the “updated environmental relative humidity value” (e.g. RHupdate or RH2) and the “updated leaf VPD value” (e.g. VPDupdate or VPD2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
Similar to claims 3 and 4 as discussed above, ¶¶ 7-8 of the specification reuse the reference characters T, RH, and VPD for the updated versions of the temperature, humidity, and VPD values. For this reason, it is suggested that the use of modified reference characters (such as Tupdate or T2) be applied in the specification as well in order to ensure that the teachings and notation of the specification and claims remain consistent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites “a heating device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation”, with the structure of this device being “a control module”, “a heater”, “a fan”, and “a temperature-humidity sensor” with all other limitations being directed to the acquisition, calculation, and processing of data and the output of signals.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the structure recited by the claim amounts to conventional devices operating in a conventional manner. As evidence, Serbian Publication No. 54673 B1 to Pinchuk teaches in fig. 1a, shown below, and in ¶ 35 a “conventional system 30” for the control of an environment within a greenhouse (20) (that is, for indoor cultivation of agricultural crops, equivalent to the claimed invention) which includes the structure of the claimed invention, and teaches them to operate in a well-known and conventional manner. Particularly, Pinchuk teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
564
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a control module (30) with a processing unit, … and an IO interface (for receiving input at least form the sensors 31 and 32 and providing output to the fans 24 and 46 and the heat exchanger 40);
a heater (heat exchanger 40, taught for “heating the air inside the greenhouse 20 to the desired temperature”) for providing heat in response to a heater control signal from the control module (the controller 33 being taught in ¶ 35 to operate the heat exchanger to provide the desired temperature);
a fan (such as the fans 24 at the outlets of the greenhouse 20 or the fans 46 on the heat exchanger 40) for circulating heat in response to a fan control signal from the control module (by the controller 33 as taught in ¶ 35); and
a temperature-humidity sensor (sensors 31 and 32, taught for monitoring “temperature and humidity, respectively) for sensing an environmental temperature value T and an environmental relative humidity value RH within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment (that is, the environment in the greenhouse 20 as taught in ¶ 35).
The invention of claim 1 differs from the conventional system identified by Pinchuk only in the inclusion of a display screen in the control module, and the measured temperature and humidity values being transmitted in real time to the control module and used to calculate a leaf vapor pressure deficit (VPD). Addressing these features:
PNG
media_image2.png
360
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Display Screen:
The inclusion of a display screen on a computer system is conventional within the art. As evidence, Korean Publication No. 10-2017-0077473 to Chae is presented. Chae teaches in ¶ 6 and in fig. 7, shown below, “an example of a conventional heating system for a greenhouse” in which a control panel (200) provided in combination and to control a plurality of heaters (100) includes “a temperature display unit”. Further, MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity indicates that the mere outputting of data (such as by the provision of a display screen) amounts only to insignificant extra solution activity which does not elevate a system or method beyond a judicial exception.
Data transmission:
Similar to the outputting of data, MPEP 2106.05(g) states that when a “limitation amounts to necessary data gathering”, it does not elevate a system or method beyond a judicial exception. Here, Pinchuk has already identified the sensors (31 and 32) of the conventional system which they describe as providing the gathered temperature and humidity data to the controller (33) and this transmission therefore, whether in real time or with some manner of unspecified delay, represents only the conventional function of the known components.
Calculation:
Although Pinchuk does not teach the collected temperature and humidity data to be used in calculating a leaf VPD value of the environment within the greenhouse (20), such calculation, in the absence of any more specific details, amounts only to a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) details that a mental process is one which “‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ [and states such a process] to be an abstract idea”. Further, this section states in subsection (C) that “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Particularly identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea which is not patent eligible. The “control module” of the instant claims is such a “generic computer” as it is recited with a high degree of generality such that no specific structure or processes are required of the recited “control module”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims pertain only to the application of well-known and conventional apparatus, used only to perform conventional functions (the gathering of data by sensors), mental processes (the calculation of a new value from the gathered data). The apparatus does not amount to a “particular machine” as it is conventional structure (per the evidence of Pinchuk and Chae) claimed with a high degree of generality and the claimed invention does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing as it merely gathers data and performs a calculation using that data without any claimed physical operation or transformation as a result.
For this reason, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being drawn to patent ineligible subject matter.
English translations of Pinchuk and Chae have been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Serbian-language and Korean-language original document.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, it is noted that they are not found to constitute an abstract idea as claim 2 (upon which claims 3 and 4 depends) requires the limitation that “control module transmits the heater control signal to the heater and the fan control signal to the fan to adjust the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment” (emphasis by examiner) thus teaching a particular physical transformation to result from the practice of the invention and causing the invention as recited in these claims to amount to “significantly more than the judicial exception”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2022/0400625 A1 to Gordon et al. in view of US Publication No. 2024/0107959 A1 to Bacon.
Gordon teaches limitations from claim 1, a heating device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation (taught by Gordon as a heat exchange system for a greenhouse 10, with cannabis given as an exemplary crop for such a greenhouse in ¶ 30), the heating device with VPD control comprising:
a control module (controller 74)…;
a heater (heat pump 401 taught in ¶ 119 as an element of a ground to air heat transfer (GAHT) system) for providing heat in response to a heater control signal from the control module (the GAHT system being controlled by the controller 74 as taught in ¶ 114);
a fan (air moving device 213, 213’ taught in ¶ 114 as elements of the GAHT system) for circulating heat in response to a fan control signal from the control module (the GAHT system being controlled by the controller 74 as taught in ¶ 114); and
a temperature-humidity sensor (temperature sensor 73, taught in ¶ 100) for sensing an environmental temperature value T and an environmental relative humidity value RH (although the sensor is not explicitly taught to measure the humidity of the air, this function is implicitly taught as Gordon teaches the system regulating the humidity of the greenhouse as well as its temperature in ¶ 118-119, and particularly teaches humidity regulation as a separate function with dedicated apparatus rather than merely a side-effect of temperature control in ¶ 122) within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment (within the greenhouse 10),
wherein the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH are transmitted to the control module (74) in real time (no delay in the transmission is taught or suggested by Gordon, indicating the data to be communicated to the controller 74 from the sensor 73 in real time).
Gordon further teaches in ¶ 5 the importance of controlling a vapor pressure deficit (VPD) within the greenhouse to prevent damage to the crops, but does not teach the controller of his invention calculating the VPD from the temperature and humidity data, or the control module having a display screen and IO interface.
PNG
media_image3.png
744
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
758
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bacon teaches in figs. 1 and 5, shown above, a control system for an agricultural climate control system (in this case, a hydroponics or aquaponics system, Abstract) in which a controller (514, shown in fig. 5 and taught in ¶ 80) is provided with a touchscreen (510) as a user interface for allowing a user to manipulator or monitor environmental conditions. Bacon further teaches in ¶ 20 that sensors (4) arranged in the growing trays (1) may be used for measuring temperature and humidity in those trays “in real time” and that these values may be used to derive other parameters such as dew points or VPD “to help optimize plant growth” with the calculation of the VPD described in greater detail in ¶ 88. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Gordon with the VPD calculation, as well as the explicit inclusion of the display screen, humidity sensing, and real time measurements taught by Bacon in order to ensure that the VPD value is known and may be monitored without delays in the measurement of data to ensure that the environment is properly controlled to prevent damage to crops being grown therein as taught in Gordon’s ¶ 5.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon and Bacon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2023/0014943 A1 to Mihelich.
Gordon teaches limitations from claim 2, the heating device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation of claim 1;
…
wherein the control module (74) transmits the heater control signal to the heater (heat pump 401) and the fan control signal to the fan (213 and 213’) to adjust the environmental temperature value T and the environmental relative humidity value RH within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (the greenhouse 10) (the controller 74 being taught in ¶ 114 to control the GAHT system, this system being taught in ¶ 25 to control both the temperature and the humidity within the greenhouse.)
PNG
media_image5.png
990
697
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claim 2, Gordon teaches the importance of monitoring and controlling VPD for the health of the plants in ¶ 5 but does not teach the comparison of a calculated VPD value to a pre-determined VPD threshold value to determine the control of the heat pump and fans. Mihelich teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a control system for controlling the climate of an indoor growing environment in which a VPD value is calculated (step 42) and compared to a programmed set point value (step 43) to determine the appropriate control of apparatus to control the climate in the growing environment (controlling dehumidification in steps 45 and 46 in fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Gordon with the VPD comparison of Mihelich in order to ensure that the VPD value is maintained in an appropriate relation with regard to known and desired growing conditions is to ensure that the environment is properly controlled to prevent damage to crops being grown therein as taught in Gordon’s ¶ 5.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Gordon does not teach the process of control being repeated to provide updated environmental values, particularly including the sensor sensing updated temperature and humidity values to be transmitted to the control module and used to calculate an updated VPD value as taught in claim 3, or this updated VPD value being compared to the pre-determined VPD threshold value and used to update the control of the environment by the heater and fan as taught in claim 4. Bacon teaches in ¶ 29 that a control loop (particularly a PID loop) is used “to optimize the complete grow environment” (including the VPD) “be based on sensor feedback by engaging auxiliary systems which can alter the grow environment.” In modifying Gordon as modified with Bacon and Mihelich and discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be obvious in light of Bacon’s teaching of looped control to perform the data gathering, VPD calculation, and comparison discussed in the above rejections of claims 1 and 2 repeatedly in order to ensure that the environment remains in a condition optimal for the health and growth of plants, rather than being allowed to drift away from such a condition after a one-time setting action.
Regarding the teaching in claim 4 of the control module transmitting control signals to the heater and fan, refer to the above rejection of claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763