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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawing of Figure 1 filed on 7/14/25 (seen below on the right) is an entirely different figure than the original Figure 1 filed on 5/31/24 (seen below on the left). The specification description of Figure 1 in Paragraphs [0026] and [0073] are describing a flowchart, and no longer match the description of the drawing. It is unclear if this was a mistake and a different figure was meant to be attached as the replacement for Figure 1, or if the specification was supposed to be amended.
PNG
media_image1.png
451
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
387
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, and similarly claims 13 and 20, state “wherein there is an outdoor light measurement sensor; wherein the outdoor light measurement sensor will measure photosynthetic active radiation (PAR).” However, these claims also state “wherein all the sensors sense environmental conditions in the greenhouse and nursery.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the outdoor light sensor is measuring light outdoors, or whether it is measuring conditions inside of the greenhouse, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 9, and similarly claims 12 and 20, state “wherein some of the changes the artificial intelligence software are made to both the vertical farm and the greenhouse include: changing the temperature…” It is unclear how the artificial intelligence software itself makes these changes throughout the entirety of the claim. For example, a software cannot change the temperature of a greenhouse, however, software can control an HVAC system. In another example, software itself cannot, for example, change carbon dioxide levels, however, the software can control a carbon dioxide generator.
Claim 10 states “wherein the greenhouse can include hydroponic plants.” The specification does not provide a definition for what plants are considered a hydroponic plant. Hydroponic simply refers to a method of growing plants and does not define a specific grouping or type of plants, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Similarly, in Claim 11, aquaponic, refers to a technique of growing plants, and not the type of plant itself.
Claim 12 states “a sensor to measure nutrient solution in the plants in the nursery and greenhouse.” It is unclear as to exactly what this sensor is measuring, thus rendering the claim indefinite. The specification discusses a sensor that detects certain ingredients in a nutrient solution in Paragraphs [0061-0062], however, there is no discussion of a sensor that has the ability to measure the nutrient solution in a plant.
Claims 2-8, 11, and 14-19 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicant's claimed invention. The closest prior art of record fails to specifically teach the method, wherein the artificial intelligence software balances power going directly from the grid of solar panels to heating, cooling and pumps, and is balanced with charging the solar battery. Previously, the closest prior art was Whitcher et al. (US 10306847) in view of Hinson (US 2023/0216442) as discussed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 4/18/25. While references such as Sharma et al. (WO 2023235593) disclose the artificial intelligence software balances power going from a system to the battery (“artificial intelligence (Al) is used to refine the decision-making for upload and/or download of energy to or from the battery (or batteries) associated with the energy management system. The algorithm for determining whether to charge or discharge a battery or batteries within a system may include user input, artificial intelligence, or a combination thereof.” Page 16 lines 21-25), Sharma fails to render the limitation obvious, as Sharma does not disclose the operation of the AI system with greenhouse operations such as heating, cooling, and pumps, or the use of solar panels connected to the battery, as well as specific battery percentages.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642