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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihelich (US 20230014943 A1) in view of Thomas (US 20210315170 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mihelich teaches a dehumidifying device (FIG. 1, the system surrounding and including dehumidifier 19) with VPD control (FIG. 2, steps 44, 45, and 46 describe a process for controlling VPD) for indoor residential cannabis cultivation (paragraph 6, the assembly may be used for cannabis cultivation), the dehumidifying device with VPD control comprising: a control module (FIG. 1, control system 10 and server 22) with a processing unit (paragraph 23, the server 22 includes a processor); a dehumidifier (FIG. 1, the dehumidifier 19) for providing dry air in response to a dehumidifier control signal from the control module (FIG. 2, step 46); a fan (FIG. 1, the fan or blower of AC intake 18 and AC output 20) for circulating dry air in response to a fan control signal from the control module (FIG. 2, step 46); and a temperature-humidity sensor (FIG. 1, the apparatus of sensor T1 and sensor H1) for sensing an environmental temperature value TENV and an environmental relative humidity value RH (paragraph 21, sensors T1 and H1 measure temperature and relative humidity respectively) within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment, wherein the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV are transmitted to the control module in real time (FIG. 2, steps 40-42), and wherein a leaf VPD value VPDLEAF is calculated from the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV by the processing unit of the control module (FIG. 2, at step 42 the VPD is calculated based on the temperature and humidity).
Mihelich fails to teach a display screen and an IO interface.
However, Thomas teaches a display screen and an IO interface (paragraph 139, the system includes an I/O subsystem 802, which may include a display).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by including an I/O user interface and a display, as taught by Thomas, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Thomas with the motivation of allowing a user to directly control the system and receive system data.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mihelich and Thomas teaches that the leaf VPD value VPDLEAF is compared with a pre-determined VPD threshold value VPDθ to determine running modes of the dehumidifier and the fan to control the leaf VPD value VPDLEAF within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (Mihelich, FIG. 2, step 43, the measured VPD is checked against a programmed setpoint, the result of which is used to control the dehumidifier and the fan therein to adjust the VPD), and wherein the control module transmits the dehumidifier control signal to the dehumidifier to adjust the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (Mihelich, FIG. 2, step 46, the dehumidifier 19 and the AC unit are employed to adjust the VPD, which is based on the temperature and humidity).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mihelich and Thomas teaches that the temperature-humidity sensor senses an updated environmental temperature value TENV and an updated environmental relative humidity value RHENV within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (Mihelich, FIG. 2, the process shown is repeated to maintain an appropriate temperature and humidity in the environment); wherein the updated environmental temperature value TENV and the updated environmental relative humidity value RHENV are transmitted to the control module (Mihelich, the steps of FIG. 2 are performed by the control system 10 and the server 22); and wherein an updated leaf VPD value VPDLEAF is calculated from the updated environmental temperature value TENV and the updated environmental relative humidity value RHENV by the processing unit of the control module (Mihelich, FIG. 2, the process shown is repeated to maintain an appropriate temperature and humidity in the environment).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mihelich and Thomas teaches that the updated leaf VPD value VPDLEAF is compared with the pre-determined VPD threshold value VPDθ again to adjust the running modes of the dehumidifier to control the leaf VPD within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (Mihelich, FIG. 2, step 43, in each iteration the process compares the calculated VDP to the setpoint); and wherein the control module transmits the dehumidifier control signal to the dehumidifier to adjust the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (Mihelich, FIG. 2, step 46, the dehumidifier 19 and the AC unit are employed to adjust the VPD, which is based on the temperature and humidity).
Claim(s) 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihelich in view of Zhang (CN 111947261 A) and Thomas.
Regarding claim 5, Mihelich teaches a dehumidifying device (FIG. 1, the system surrounding and including dehumidifier 19) with VPD control (FIG. 2, steps 44, 45, and 46 describe a process for controlling VPD) for indoor residential cannabis cultivation (paragraph 6, the assembly may be used for cannabis cultivation), the dehumidifying device with VPD control comprising: a power unit (FIG. 1, the electrical connections of control system 10 and server 22) for providing electric power to the dehumidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation; a fan (FIG. 1, the fan or blower of AC intake 18 and AC output 20) driven by a motor (the motor of the fan); a dehumidifier (FIG. 1, the dehumidifier 19) for providing dry air to the dehumidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation (FIG. 2, step 46); a temperature-humidity sensor (FIG. 1, the apparatus of sensor T1 and sensor H1) for sensing an environmental temperature value TENV and an environmental relative humidity value RHENV within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment (paragraph 21, sensors T1 and H1 measure temperature and relative humidity respectively), wherein a leaf VPD value VPDLEAF is calculated from the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV (FIG. 2, steps 40-42); and a main control unit (FIG. 1, control system 10 and server 22) for communicating with and controlling the power unit, the fan, the motor, the dehumidifier, and the temperature-humidity sensor (the system is controlled by the control system 10), wherein, in a VPD dehumidifying mode of the dehumidifying device with VPD control, the leaf VPD value VPDLEAF calculated from the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV is implemented to control the dehumidifying device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation (FIG. 2, at step 42 the VPD is calculated based on the temperature and humidity).
Mihelich fails to teach that the dehumidifier includes a plurality of dehumidifying power gears under a dehumidifying mode; an IO interface for input and output of control information and status information; and that the main control unit communicates with the IO interface.
However, Zhang teaches that the dehumidifier includes a plurality of dehumidifying power gears (FIG. 1, power gear 42 and brake gear 43) under a dehumidifying mode (the mode during which the dehumidifier is operating).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by including system of power gears to operate the fan, as taught by Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Zhang with the motivation of allowing a the system to vary the speed of the fan more precisely.
Zhang fails to teach an IO interface for input and output of control information and status information; and that the main control unit communicates with the IO interface.
However, Thomas teaches an IO interface for input and output of control information and status information; and that the main control unit communicates with the IO interface (paragraph 139, the system includes an I/O subsystem 802, which interacts with a controller).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by including an I/O user interface and a display, as taught by Thomas, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Thomas with the motivation of allowing a user to directly control the system and receive system data.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mihelich, Zhang, and Thomas teaches that the leaf VDP is calculated from the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV by: LeafVPD=610.78e17.2694TENV+LeafOffset237.3+TENV+LeafOffset-610.78e17.2694TENV237.3+TENV×RHENV100, wherein, Leaf Offset is the difference between the leaf temperature and the environment temperature, wherein VPD unit is in Pa, TENV is temperature of the air in degrees Celsius, RHENV is relative humidity of air in % unit and e ≈ 2.71828 (Mihelich, the formula found in this claim is used in paragraphs 23 and 24).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mihelich, Zhang, and Thomas teaches that when the Leaf Offset is defaulted to 0°C, the leaf VPD value is calculated from the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV via: LeafVPD=610.78e17.2694TENV237.3+TENV(1-RHENV100), wherein, Leaf VPD unit is in Pa, TENV is temperature of the air in degrees Celsius, RHENV is relative humidity of air in % unit and e ≈ 2.71828 (Mihelich, paragraphs 23 and 24).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mihelich, Zhang, and Thomas teaches that the user can set a Leaf Offset value between -10°C and 10°C (Mihelich, paragraph 29, the system may employ a leaf offset setting. In the example given in paragraph 23, the setting is set to zero, which is in between -10 and 10).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mihelich, Zhang, and Thomas teaches that in a VPD dehumidification mode, when the leaf VPD is smaller than or equal to a predetermined threshold VPDs, the dehumidifying power gear is increased gradually to a Max-level dehumidifying power gear set in the ON dehumidification mode, wherein when the leaf VPD is greater than the predetermined threshold VPDs, the dehumidifying power gear is decreased gradually to a Min-level dehumidifying power gear set in the OFF dehumidification mode (Mihelich, paragraph 26, if the VPD is lower than the setpoint, step 46 begins, which operates the dehumidifier at maximum power (the dehumidifier only has an off and on setting), which if the VPD is higher than the setpoint, step 45 begins, which terminates the dehumidification).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mihelich, Zhang, and Thomas teaches that in an AUTO dehumidification mode (Mihelich, the system runs automatically, and is therefore often in an auto mode), a humidity threshold value Hs is set between 0 and 100 using the IO interface (Mihelich, FIG. 4, the VPD setpoint may be set, which corresponds to particular humidity values between 1 percent and 100 percent. In the combination above, the VPD setpoint is input using the I/O interface), when the environmental humidity value HENV is greater than or equal to the humidity threshold value Hs, the dehumidifying power gear is increased gradually to the Max-level dehumidifying power gear set in the ON dehumidifying mode, when the environmental humidity value HENV is smaller than the humidity threshold value Hs, the dehumidifying power gear is decreased gradually to the Min-level dehumidifying power gear set in the OFF dehumidifying mode (Mihelich, paragraph 26, if the VPD (and therefore the humidity) is lower than the setpoint, step 46 begins, which operates the dehumidifier at maximum power (the dehumidifier only has an off and on setting), which if the VPD is higher than the setpoint, step 45 begins, which terminates the dehumidification).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mihelich, Zhang, and Thomas teaches that in a TIMER dehumidification mode, a countdown timer is set using the IO interface, wherein when the countdown time is not zero, the Max-level dehumidifying power gear is run, wherein when the countdown time reaches zero, the Min-level dehumidifying power gear is run (Mihelich, paragraph 28, a run time may be assigned during which the system will operate at max power).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mihelich, Zhang, and Thomas teaches that in a CYCLE dehumidification mode (Mihelich, the process of FIG. 2 runs in cycles), an ON-time is set, and an OFF-time is set using the IO interface, wherein during the ON-time, the Max-level dehumidifying power gear is run, wherein during the OFF-time, the Min-level dehumidifying power gear is run (Mihelich, paragraph 28, a run time may be assigned during which the system will operate at max power, and during the other times it will run at minimum power (i.e., powered off)).
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihelich in view of Murakami (JP 2023040690 A), Oh (US 20200260667 A1), and Thomas.
Regarding claim 13, Mihelich teaches a dehumidifying device (FIG. 1, the system surrounding and including dehumidifier 19) with VPD control FIG. 2, steps 44, 45, and 46 describe a process for controlling VPD) for an indoor residential cannabis cultivation environment (paragraph 6, the assembly may be used for cannabis cultivation), the dehumidifying device comprising: a top cover of the enclosure, a front cover of the enclosure, a rear cover of the enclosure, and a bottom of the enclosure (FIG. 1, the top, front, rear, and bottom walls of the grow room 14); a control module (FIG. 1, control system 10 and server 22) integrated into the control panel (see combination below); a dehumidifying unit (FIG. 1, the dehumidifier 19) implemented between the air entry opening and the air exit opening (see below), wherein the dehumidifying unit is implemented for providing dry air in response to a dehumidifier control signal from the control module (FIG. 2, step 46); a fan (FIG. 1, the fan or blower of AC intake 18 and AC output 20) implemented between the air entry opening and the dehumidifying unit (see below, the fan is in between the air entry and the components of the dehumidifier), wherein the fan is implemented for driving air into the air entry opening through the dehumidifying unit (see below), and driving air out of the air exit opening into the indoor residential cannabis cultivation environment in response to a fan control signal from the control module (see below); and a temperature-humidity sensor (FIG. 1, the apparatus of sensor T1 and sensor H1) outside the enclosure for sensing an environmental temperature value TENV and an environmental relative humidity value RHENV within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (paragraph 21, sensors T1 and H1 measure temperature and relative humidity respectively).
Mihelich fails to teach an air entry opening and an air exit opening implemented on opposing sides of the enclosure; a water tank slidably implemented in the lower part of the enclosure; a water level buoy located inside the water tank, wherein the water level buoy is electronically connected to the control module for providing water level information signal; a control panel with a display screen mounted on the front cover of the enclosure; with a user IO interface for input and output of control information.
However, Murakami teaches an air entry opening and an air exit opening implemented on opposing sides of the enclosure (FIG. 1, air inlet 10a and air outlet 10b are positioned on opposite walls).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by including opposite inlets and outlets in the room, as taught by Murakami, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Murakami with the motivation of allowing the system to more precisely control the flow of air within the room.
Murakami fails to teach a water tank slidably implemented in the lower part of the enclosure; a water level buoy located inside the water tank, wherein the water level buoy is electronically connected to the control module for providing water level information signal; a control panel with a display screen mounted on the front cover of the enclosure; with a user IO interface for input and output of control information.
However, Oh teaches a water tank slidably implemented in the lower part of the enclosure (paragraph 140, the tank rail 43 of the tank 40 can slide); a water level buoy located inside the water tank, wherein the water level buoy is electronically connected to the control module for providing water level information signal (paragraph 181, the water level sensor electrically senses and reports a water level).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by including slidable tank and a water level sensor, as taught by Oh, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Oh with the motivation of allowing a user to move the water tanks of the system and keep track of their level.
Oh fails to teach a control panel with a display screen mounted on the front cover of the enclosure; an IO interface for input and output of control information and status information; and that the main control unit communicates with the IO interface.
However, Thomas teaches a control panel with a display screen mounted on the front cover of the enclosure; a user IO interface for input and output of control information and that the main control unit communicates with the IO interface. (paragraph 139, the system includes an I/O subsystem 802, which interacts with a controller).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by including an I/O user interface and a display, as taught by Thomas, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Thomas with the motivation of allowing a user to directly control the system and receive system data.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas teaches that the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV are transmitted to the control module in real time (FIG. 2, steps 40-42), and wherein a leaf VPD value VPDLEAF is calculated from the environmental temperature value TENV and the environmental relative humidity value RHENV by the processing unit of the control module (FIG. 2, at step 42 the VPD is calculated based on the temperature and humidity).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas teaches that the dehumidifying unit is controlled by comparing the leaf VPD value VPDLEAF with a predetermined threshold VPD value VPDs to optimize cannabis cultivation in the indoor residential cannabis cultivation environment (Mihelich, FIG. 2, step 43).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas as applied to claims 13, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Shalom (US 20080282704 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas fails to teach a hose connected to the air exit opening for transiting dry air generated by the dehumidifying device into the indoor residential cannabis cultivation environment, wherein the hose is connected to the air exit opening via a connector.
However, Shalom teaches a hose connected to the air exit opening for transiting dry air generated by the dehumidifying device into the indoor residential cannabis cultivation environment, wherein the hose is connected to the air exit opening via a connector (paragraph 32, the dehumidifier includes a pair of hoses at its inlet and exit to transport air, each of which are mechanically connected to the assembly).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by including a pair of hoses for directing the inlet and outlet air of the dehumidifier, as taught by Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Shalom with the motivation of allowing a user to direct the air exactly where the user would like.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, Thomas, and Shalom teaches a second hose connected to the air entry opening for drawing air to the dehumidifying unit from the indoor residential cannabis cultivation environment, wherein the second hose is connected to the air entry opening via a connector (paragraph 32, the dehumidifier includes a pair of hoses at its inlet and exit to transport air, each of which are mechanically connected to the assembly).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas as applied to claims 13, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Brophy (US 20200387125 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas fails to teach a USB-C connector mounted on the rear cover of the enclosure for connecting an external controller to the control module in the enclosure for additional controls.
However, Brophy teaches a USB-C connector mounted on the rear cover of the enclosure for connecting an external controller to the control module in the enclosure for additional controls (paragraph 94, the system, which includes a dehumidifier, includes USB-C connectors).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by including USB-C connections, as taught by Brophy, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Brophy with the motivation of employing the most up to date and easily accessible types of connections.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas as applied to claims 13, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Kojima (US 20230152180 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas fails to teach an audio headphone jack mounted on the rear cover of the enclosure for connecting to the temperature-humidity sensor outside the enclosure.
However, Kojima teaches an audio headphone jack mounted on the rear cover of the enclosure for connecting to the temperature-humidity sensor outside the enclosure (FIG. 1, the sensor 12 and the rest of the assembly are connected via headphone jacks).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by employing audio jacks for the sensors, as taught by Kojima, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Kojima with the motivation of employing a cheap and plentiful connector type for the sensors.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas as applied to claims 13, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Williams (US 20200011550 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mihelich, Murakami, Oh, and Thomas fails to teach a filter between the hose and the air exit opening and a second filter between the second hose and the air entry opening ensure air quality passed into the dehumidifying unit.
However, Williams teaches a filter between the hose and the air exit opening and a second filter between the second hose and the air entry opening ensure air quality passed into the dehumidifying unit (paragraph 41, filters may be placed near the inlets and outlets of the system).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Mihelich by employing filters in the dehumidifier, as taught by Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mihelich with these aforementioned teachings of Williams with the motivation of preventing debris from entering the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights