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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “cooling unit” in claims 1-12 and “control unit” in claim 5 (and thus also claims 6-12 which depend therefrom).
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.
For the record:
“Cooling unit” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described in the specification as comprising an evaporator and condenser (para.0012; etc.). Note that “cooling unit” is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for claims 13-20, since claim 13 recites the corresponding structure of an evaporator and condenser.
No corresponding structure for the limitation “control unit” is described in the specification. See corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b), below. It is noted that the specification does describe corresponding structure for a “control module” (see para. 0005, etc.). However, it is unclear whether the “control unit” and “control module” are meant to connote the same thing or not.
No corresponding structure for the limitation “power unit for providing electric power” is described in the specification. See corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b), below.
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.
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 5-12 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. Claim 5 recites the limitations “control unit” and “power unit for providing electric power” which have been interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above. However, since the specification does not describe the corresponding structure as required under that statute, Applicant has failed to demonstrate full possession of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention at the effective filing date of the application. Claims 6-12 are also rejected since they depend from claim 5.
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 1-12, 15, and 17-18 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 per claim 5 (and claims 6-12 which depend therefrom), claim limitations “control unit” and “power unit for providing electric power” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In addition:
The term “cold air” in claims 1 (and thus claims 2-4 which depend therefrom) and claim 5 (and thus claims 6-12 which depend therefrom) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner suggest Applicant change “cold” to “cooled.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the ON cooling mode" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the OFF cooling mode" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the ON cooling mode" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the OFF cooling mode" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation the MAX-level cooling power gear " in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the MIN-level cooling power gear" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation the MAX-level cooling power gear " in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the MIN-level cooling power gear" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recited “a hose” at line 5 of the claim, and then “a second hose” at line 6 of the claim. For clarity, the Examiner suggest changing the recitation of ‘a hose” to “a first hose.”
Claims 17 and 18 each recites the limitation "the rear cover" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 process without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recite(s) the abstract steps of
wherein a leaf VPD value VPD ear is calculated from the environmental temperature value Tenv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv by the processing unit of the control module.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons:
“a control module with a processing unit, a display screen and an IO interface” is a well understood routine element in the field with a high degree of generality (see for example Solomon et al. para. 0037 as applied in the art rejections below)
“a cooling unit” (i.e., a refrigeration cycle with an evaporator and condenser as interpreted above under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) is also well understood routine structure with a high degree of generality. The recitation: “for providing cold air in response to a cooling unit control signal from the control module” is simply a functional capability of the cooling unit, and not a positively recited output.
“ a fan” is also well understood routine structure. The recitation: “for circulating cold air in response to a fan control signal from the control module” is simply a functional capability of the fan, and not a positively recited output.
(See MPEP 2106.05(d) for guidance).
“a temperature-humidity sensor for sensing an environmental temperature value Tenv and an environmental relative humidity value RHenv within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment, wherein the environmental temperature value Trnv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv are transmitted to the control module in real time”
constitute insignificant pre-solution activity related to data gathering, the sensors simply being the generic elements for collecting information performing the activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance).
Finally, there is no functionally applied output of the abstract calculation.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 2022/0400625 A1) in view of Solomon et al. (US 2019/0335676 A1).
A per claim 13, Gordon et al. disclose an air conditioning device with VPD control, the air conditioning device with VPD control comprising: a top cover, a front-side enclosure wall, a rear-side enclosure wall, a left-side enclosure wall, and a right-side enclosure wall (see top cover and walls of Figs. 1-14, 17-19; etc.), wherein openings are implemented on the enclosure walls to facilitate air entry and exit of the enclosure of the air conditioning device with VPD control (see Figs 11-14, etc., showing airflow into and out of the enclosure; a cooling unit with an evaporator 409 and a condenser 404; a bottom cover (i.e., floor) of the enclosure; a fan (paras. 0048, 0114 re. air moving device 213) enclosed in the side enclosure walls (Figs. 11-13; etc.) of the air conditioning device with VPD control, wherein the fan is implemented for circulating the air treated by the air conditioning device with VPD control into the indoor residential cannabis cultivation environment in response to a fan control signal from the control module (paras. 0048, 114; etc.); and a temperature-humidity sensor for sensing an environmental temperature value Tenv and an environmental relative humidity value RHenv within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (temperature sensor 73; humidity sensor implicit for humidity controls described at paras. 0002, 0004, 0025, 0045, 0018-0019; etc.). Gordon et al. do not teach a control panel with a display screen mounted on the top cover; a control module integrated into the control panel with a user IO interface for input and output of control information. Solomon et al. teach a control panel with a display screen; a control module integrated into the control panel with a user IO interface for input and output of control information (para. 0037; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide the control module of Gordon et al. with these same common features for the purposes of interacting with the controller and monitoring system operation. The exact location of the mounting on a top cover is considered a rearrangement of existing parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as a simple expedient not affecting the basic functioning of the system. Note finally that the term “residential” is simply a matter of intended use in the preamble, and as such is not accorded patentable weight. Nevertheless, the basic concepts regarding the control of leaf VPD of Gordon et al. apply whether to cannabis is grown in a greenhouse or within a residence, and are equally pertinent within a residential context.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 2022/0400625 A1) in view of Solomon et al. (US 2019/0335676 A1) and Mihelich (US 2023/0014943 A1).
As per claim 1, Gordon et al. disclose an air conditioning device with VPD control (paras. 0005, 0030, 0045; claim 99; etc.) for indoor residential cannabis (para. 0030, line 6; etc.) cultivation, the air conditioning device with VPD control comprising: a control module 74; a cooling unit (see interpretation above; Gordon et al. disclose a cooling heat pump system with condenser 404 and evaporator 409) for providing cold air in response to a cooling unit control signal from the control module (paras. 0002, 0005, 0111, 0114-0115; etc.); a fan for circulating cold air in response to a fan control signal from the control module (paras. 0048, 0114-0115; etc); and a temperature-humidity sensor for sensing an environmental temperature value Tenv and an environmental relative humidity value RHenv within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment (temperature sensor 73; humidity sensor implicit for humidity controls described at paras. 0002, 0004, 0025, 0045, 0018-0019; etc.) wherein the environmental temperature value Trenv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv are transmitted to the control module in real time (measurement and controls are performed as the system is operating), and to control a leaf VPD value (para. 0005, 0045; claim 99; etc.) Gordon et al. do not explicitly the control module comprising a processing unit, a display screen and an IO interface, or wherein VPDleaf is calculated from the environmental temperature value Tenv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv by the processing unit of the control module. Solomon et al. teach a cannabis growing control arrangement wherein the controller comprises processing unit, a display screen and an IO interface (para. 0037; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide the control module of Gordon et al. with these same common features for the purposes of interacting with the controller and monitoring system operation. Mihelich et al. teach a cannabis growing control arrangement comprising temperature and humidity sensors (T1 & H1) providing readings which are used to calculate VDP (Fig. 2; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly calculate the VDP of Gordon et al. using the temperature and humidity values as simply the known parameters that constitute the variable. Note again that the term “residential” is simply a matter of intended use in the preamble, and as such is not accorded patentable weight. Nevertheless, the basic concepts regarding the control of leaf VPD of Gordon et al. apply whether to cannabis is grown in a greenhouse or within a residence, and are equally pertinent within a residential context.
As per claim 2; Gordon et al. do not teach wherein the leaf VPD value VPDleaf is compared with a pre-determined VPD threshold value VPDe to determine running modes of the air conditioning device to control the leaf VPD value VPDleaf within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment, and wherein the control module transmits the cooling unit control signal to the cooling unit to adjust the environmental temperature value Trenv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment. Mihelich et al. teach wherein the leaf VPD value VPDleaf is compared with a pre-determined VPD threshold value VPDe to determine running modes of the air conditioning device to control the leaf VPD value VPDleaf within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment, and wherein the control module transmits the cooling unit control signal to the cooling unit to adjust the environmental temperature value Trenv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (Fig. 2; Abstract; paras. 0002-0009, 0018-0024; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly control operation of the cooling system in this manner to control VDP related environmental temperature and humidity in order to provide desired cannabis growth conditions.
As per claim 3, Gordon et al. do npt teach wherein 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; wherein the updated environmental temperature value Tenv and the updated environmental relative humidity value RHenv are transmitted to the control module; and wherein an updated leaf VPD value VPDixar is calculated from the updated environmental temperature value Trnv and the updated environmental relative humidity value RHenv by the processing unit of the control module. Mihelich et al. teach wherein 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; wherein the updated environmental temperature value Tenv and the updated environmental relative humidity value RHenv are transmitted to the control module; and wherein an updated leaf VPD value VPDixar is calculated from the updated environmental temperature value Trnv and the updated environmental relative humidity value RHenv by the processing unit of the control module (the controls of Mihelich et al. as discussed regarding claim 2 above are performed on an on-going basis, and thus implicitly involve using updated parameters as the system is measured and controlled over time (Again, see Fig. 2; Abstract; paras. 0002-0009, 0018-0024; etc.).
As per claim 4, Gordon et al. do not teach wherein the updated leaf VPD value VPDleaf is compared with the pre-determined VPD threshold value VPDo again to adjust the running modes of the cooling unit to control the leaf VPD within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment; and wherein the control module transmits the cooling unit control signal to the cooling unit to adjust the environmental temperature value Tenv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment. Mihelich et al. teach wherein the updated leaf VPD value VPDleaf is compared with the pre-determined VPD threshold value VPDo again to adjust the running modes of the cooling unit to control the leaf VPD within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment; and wherein the control module transmits the cooling unit control signal to the cooling unit to adjust the environmental temperature value Tenv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (Again, see Fig. 2; Abstract; paras. 0002-0009, 0018-0024; etc.).
As per claim 5, Gordon et al. disclose an air conditioning device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation, the air conditioning device with VPD control comprising:
a power unit for providing electric power to the air conditioning device (providing power implicit for the system to operate) with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis (para. 0030, line 6; etc.) cultivation;
a fan (para. 0048, 0114) driven by a motor (implicit), wherein the fan includes a plurality of fan speed gears under a fan mode (para. 0048 re. variable speed fans operated according to greenhouse conditions; note that Applicant’s disclosure appears to use the term “gear” to indicate operating levels, not actual physical gears; a fan mode interpreted as a mode wherein the fan is operating);
a cooling unit for providing cold air to the air conditioning device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation, wherein the air conditioning device includes a plurality of cooling power gears under a cooling mode (Gordon et al. disclose a cooling heat pump system with condenser 404 and evaporator 409) for providing cold air in response to a cooling unit control signal from the control module (paras. 0002, 0005, 0111, 0114-0115; etc.; again note that Applicant’s disclosure appears to use the term “gear” to indicate operating levels, not actual physical gears); and a temperature-humidity sensor for sensing an environmental temperature value Tenv and an environmental relative humidity value RHenv within an indoor cannabis cultivation environment (temperature sensor 73; humidity sensor implicit for humidity controls described at paras. 0002, 0004, 0025, 0045, 0018-0019; etc.),
Gordon et al. do not teach an IO interface for input and output of control information and status information. Again, Solomon et al. teach a cannabis growing control arrangement wherein the controller comprises processing unit, a display screen and an IO interface (para. 0037; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide the control module of Gordon et al. with these same common features for the purposes of interacting with the controller and monitoring system operation. Gordon et al. also do not teach wherein a leaf VPD value VPD ear is calculated from the environmental temperature value Teny and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv or wherein, in a cooling mode of the air conditioning device with VPD control, the leaf VPD value VPDrrar calculated from the environmental temperature value Trnv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv is implemented to control the air conditioning device with VPD control for indoor residential cannabis cultivation.. Again, Mihelich et al. teach wherein the leaf VPD value VPDleaf is compared with a pre-determined VPD threshold value VPDe to determine running modes of the air conditioning device to control the leaf VPD value VPDleaf within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment, and wherein the control module transmits the cooling unit control signal to the cooling unit to adjust the environmental temperature value Trenv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv within the indoor cannabis cultivation environment (Fig. 2; Abstract; paras. 0002-0009, 0018-0024; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly control operation of the cooling system in this manner to control VDP related environmental temperature and humidity in order to provide desired cannabis growth conditions. Finally, given the features of Solomon et al. and Mihelich as already applied, it would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use the control unit 74 for communicating with and controlling the power unit, the fan, the motor, the cooling unit, the IO interface, and the temperature-humidity sensor for the purpose of connecting the components of the system to carry out the VDP controls as already discussed. And note again that the term “residential” is simply a matter of intended use in the preamble, and as such is not accorded patentable weight. Nevertheless, the basic concepts regarding the control of leaf VPD of Gordon et al. apply whether to cannabis is grown in a greenhouse or within a residence, and are equally pertinent within a residential context.
As per claim 14, Gordon et al. do not teach wherein the environmental temperature value Trnv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenv are transmitted to the control module in real time, and wherein a leaf VPD value VPDleaf is calculated from the environmental temperature value Tenv and the environmental relative humidity value RHenvy by the processing unit of the control module. Again, Mihelich et al. teach a cannabis growing control arrangement comprising temperature and humidity sensors (T1 & H1) providing readings which are used to calculate VDP (Fig. 2; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly calculate the VDP of Gordon et al. using the temperature and humidity values as simply the known parameters that constitute the variable.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 2022/0400625 A1) in view of Solomon et al. (US 2019/0335676 A1) and Mihelich (US 2023/0014943 A1), and further in view of Koverda.
As per claims 6 and 7, Gordon et al. in view of Solomon et al. and Mihelich do not teach the specific equations as recited. However, Koverda teaches these equations as being generally known in the art for calculating VPD (see How to Calculate VDP section). Accordingly, these equations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply to the system of Gordon et al. as a generally applied technique for determing VPD based on sensed temperature and humidity values.
As per claim 8, Gordon et al. do not teach wherein the user can set a Leaf Offset value between -10°C and 10°C. Koverda further teaches being able to choose offset values, and shows an example within this range (see VPD calculator section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to allow a user of the system of Gordon et al. to similarly to select such offset values in order account for varying leaf temperatures.
Claim(s) 15-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 2022/0400625 A1) in view of Solomon et al. (US 2019/0335676 A1) and further in view of Deering (US 2719410).
As per claim 15, Gordon et al. discloses hoses (i.e., pipes) for directing airflow (Figs 11-13; etc.) but do not teach wherein the system further comprises: an upper air hood mounted on an opening on one of the side enclosure walls for the evaporator; and a lower air hood mounted on an opening on one of the side enclosure walls for the condenser, wherein a hose is connected to the upper air hood to direct air flow for the evaporator, and wherein a second hose is connected to the lower air hood to direct air flow for the condenser. Deering teaches the concept of providing hood 27 over the evaporator and hood 26 over the condenser of an air conditioning device (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 35-53; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide hoods over the evaporator and condenser of Gordon et al. for the same basic purpose of protecting and shielding them from external elements. Further, the concept of using air flow hoses/pipes such as those of Figs. 11-13 of Gordon et al. to the evaporator and condenser of Figs. 17-24 as a simple mechanical expedient for the purpose directing airflow.
As per claim 16, Gordon et al. do not teach further comprises: a hot air outlet and a cold air outlet on the side enclosure walls, wherein when the air conditioning device is started, ambient air enters through the lower air hood and goes out through the hot air outlet, or ambient air enters through the upper air hood and goes out through the cold air outlet. Deering teach wherein when the air conditioning device is started, ambient air enters through the air hood (at 47) and goes out through the cold air outlet 48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide such flows to the evaporator 409 of Gordon et al. for the purpose of cooling ambient air in order to provide a desired temperature within the conditioned space.
As per claim 19, Gordon et al. do not teach wherein the system further comprises an evaporator screen frame and a condenser screen frame. Deering teach the system comprising screen frame portions at evaporator inlet 47 and condenser inlet 88 (Figs. 1-2; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide screen frames at the evaporator and condenser of the system of Gordon et al. for the same basic purpose of preventing contaminants and particulates from entering the devices.
As per claim 20, Gordon et al. do not teach wherein the system further comprises: air louvers on at least one of the openings implemented on the side enclosure walls. Deering teaches air louvers 49 on at least one of the openings 48 implemented on the side enclosure walls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide louvered openings on the modified system of Gordon et al. for the purpose of controllably directing conditioned air into the enclosure.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US 2022/0400625 A1) in view of Solomon et al. (US 2019/0335676 A1) and further in view of Doyle et al. (US 2023/0157217 A1).
As per claim 17, Gordon et al. do not teach wherein the system further comprises: 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. Doyle et al. teach a cannabis growing arrangement comprising a USB-C connector mounted on the enclosure for connecting an external controller to the control module in the enclosure for additional controls (para. 0096). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a USB-C connector to the system of Gordon et al. for the same purpose of effectively connecting peripheral devices. The specific placement at the rear cover (see rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) is considered a simple rearrangement of existing parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application not affecting the basic functioning of the system.
As per claim 18, Gordon et al. do not teach wherein the system further comprises: an audio headphone jack mounted on the rear cover of the enclosure for connecting to the temperature-humidity sensor outside the enclosure. Official notice is taken that headphone jacks are a generally known alternative to the USB-C port discussed above regarding claim 17 that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as an alternative expedient for effectively connecting peripheral devices. Again, the specific placement at the rear cover (see rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) is considered a simple rearrangement of existing parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application not affecting the basic functioning of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: .
As per claim 9, there is no teaching or motivation in the prior art to further modify the system of Gordon et al. wherein in the cooling mode, when the leaf VPD value VPDleaf is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold VPDo, the cooling power gear is increased gradually to a Max-level cooling power gear set in the ON cooling mode, wherein when the leaf VPD value VPleaf is lower than the predetermined threshold VPDo, the cooling power gear is decreased gradually to a Min-level cooling power gear set in the OFF cooling mode.
As per claim 10, there is no teaching or motivation in the prior art to further modify the system of Gordon et al. wherein in an AUTO cooling mode, a temperature threshold value is set between 0 and 100 using the IO interface, when the environmental temperature value Tenv is greater than or equal to the temperature threshold value, the cooling power gear is increased gradually to the Max-level cooling power gear set in the ON cooling mode, when the environmental temperature value T is smaller than the temperature threshold value, the cooling power gear is decreased gradually to the Min-level cooling power gear set in the OFF cooling mode.
As per claim 11, there is no teaching or motivation in the prior art to further modify the system of Gordon et al. wherein in a TIMER cooling mode, a countdown timer is set using the IO interface, wherein when the countdown time is not zero, the Max-level cooling power gear is run, wherein when the countdown time reaches zero, the Min-level cooling power gear is run.
As per claim 12, there is no teaching or motivation in the prior art to further modify the system of Gordon et al. wherein in a CYCLE cooling mode, an ON-time is set, and an OFF-time is set using the IO interface, wherein during the ON-time, the Max-level cooling power gear is run, wherein during the OFF-time, the Min-level cooling power gear is run.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Hernandez er al. (US 2023/0073284 A1), Clark et al. (US 2021/0307258 A1), Wilson et al. (US 11096337 B1), and Erickson et al. (US 2020/0281128 A1) teach further cannabis growing techniques utilizing VPD controls.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763