Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 5 and 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 5 is rejected for the use of “and/or.” While and/or clauses are sometimes permitted, they are improper when the two items or conditions are not disclosed as having use together. In this instance, it is unclear how the “or” condition is possible. How would the reflectors face the photosynthetic portions of the plants but not reflect light towards them? Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 20 is rejected for the term “about,” which is not defined in the specification. Therefore it is unclear what range is encompassed by “greater than or equal to about 800 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to about 2,500 nm.” Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marquez (US 20130118070 A1, as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 06/07/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Marquez discloses an indoor system for making self-sufficient green walls (see para 0002), the indoor system comprising:
a load-bearing structure comprising one or more growing receptacles (see para 2 and fig 6);
wherein each of the one or more growing receptacles comprises a growing medium configured to contain, support, and/or feed roots of at least one plant (grow media 7 in compartment 8, see para 0042 and receptacles 2, see figs 1-2 and 6);
a feeding system configured to provide water, fertilizers, and/or other nutrients to the at least one plant (irrigation means water reservoir 13 and circulation means 12, fig 3);
a photostimulation system comprising one or more light sources configured to stimulate photosynthesis processes in the at least one plant (lighting, see para 0047 and 0062, 0065); and
a control system configured to automatically control the feeding system and/or the photostimulation system based on detection of one or more operating variables of one or more of the feeding system, the photostimulation system, and one or more physical/chemical quantities of the at least one plant and/or an environment surrounding the at least one plant (para 64-65, control unit 26 receives sensor data and can then adjust variables such as air flow, lighting, growth media/water).
Regarding claim 6, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1, wherein the one or more growing receptacles each forms a suction port, and wherein the indoor system is configured to draw in air from an outside environment through the suction port (air is drawn through the air inlets that are aligned with barrier 10, see figs 2-3, and para 0051).
Regarding claim 13, Marquez discloses a green wall comprising the indoor system of claim 1 (see rejection above); and the at least one plant planted in the one or more growing receptacles (see figs 1-3 and 6).
Regarding claim 14, Marquez discloses a building (wall on buildings, see para 0040), comprising; the indoor system of claim 1 (see rejection above), and the at least one plant that covers at least in part, the load-bearing structure (see figs 1-3 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Marquez discloses a process for growing the at least one plant for implementing a system of claim 1, the process comprising: growing or otherwise keeping alive the at least one at least partially supported by the load-bearing structure so that the at least one plant forms one or more of the following entities: a substantially vertical panel, a substantially vertical wall or other curtain, and a row (plants form a vertical wall and a row, see figs 1-3 and 6, growth of plant, see para 0020).
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(s) 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 20130118070 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kee (WO 2016117884 A1, as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 06/07/2024).
Regarding claim 2, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1.
Marquez fails to disclose further comprising one or more photosynthesis reflectors, each of which comprises at least one reflective surface configured to reflect light radiation emitted by the one or more light sources back to portions of the at least one plant wherein chlorophyll photosynthesis takes place.
Kee teaches further comprising one or more photosynthesis reflectors (reflective layer 190 on second portion 151, see figs 3 and 5), each of which comprises at least one reflective surface (190, see page 7) configured to reflect light radiation emitted by the one or more light sources back to portions of the at least one plant wherein chlorophyll photosynthesis takes place (see figs 3 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the photosynthesis reflectors of Kee with a reasonable expectation of success because this will increase the light available for photosynthesis for the plants, therefore improving their photosynthetic capabilities.
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the indoor system of claim 2, and Kee further teaches wherein reflective surfaces of the one or more photosynthesis reflectors extend over at least 30% of surfaces of the indoor system configured to face and/or to reflect light to the portions of the at least one plant wherein the chlorophyll photosynthesis takes place (outer surfaces 150 and 151 have reflective layer/coating 190, see figs 3 and 5).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 20130118070 A1) in view of Kee (WO 2016117884 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Toye (US 10791680 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the indoor system of claim 2.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the at least one reflective surface has a total reflectance greater than or equal to 40%.
Toye teaches wherein the at least one reflective surface has a total reflectance greater than or equal to 40% (reflectance of at least 40%, or 45% or 50%, see col 4, lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the reflectance of Toye with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow for increased light for photosynthesis and therefore increase the plants growth and development for higher crop yield.
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the indoor system of claim 3.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a value of the total reflectance refers to any of the light radiation whose wavelength is greater than or equal to 450 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 660 nm.
Toye further teaches wherein a value of the total reflectance refers to any of the light radiation whose wavelength is greater than or equal to 450 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 660 nm (reflectance of at least 40%, or 45% or 50%, of visible wavelength range of 420-700nm see col 4, lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the light reflectance range of Toye with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow for increased light for photosynthesis and therefore increase the plants growth and development for higher crop yield, and further, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 20130118070 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20210142428 A, hereafter referred to as Kim ‘428, as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 06/07/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1, wherein the feeding system comprises a water generator (pump 12), at least one irrigation point configured to irrigate the at least one plant by dropping water into a growing receptacle of the one or more growing receptacles containing the roots of the at least one plant (Irrigation point/inlet 9, see fig 3) and wherein the at least one irrigation point is higher than the water generator (water inlet 9 is higher than the pump 12).
Marquez fails to disclose wherein the feeding system comprises a water generators configured to obtain liquid water from atmospheric humidity.
Kim ‘428 teaches wherein the feeding system comprises a water generators configured to obtain liquid water from atmospheric humidity (Peltier element 210 with first heat sink 220 and second heat sink 230, see pages 2-3), wherein the at least one irrigation point is higher than the water generator (Marquez as modified by Kim ‘428 teaches this - water inlet 9 is higher than the pump 12, obvious to put the water generator with the pump and reservoir 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the water generator of Kim ‘428 with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plants consistently have an adequate supply of water in an environmentally friendly method.
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the indoor system of claim 7, and Marquez further discloses further comprising a plurality of the growing receptacles, wherein each of the growing receptacles contains at least a portion of a respective plants (plant modules 2, see figs 1-3), and wherein the growing receptacles are configured one on top of the other so that water flowing from a higher one of the growing receptacles may falls into a lower one of the growing receptacles (grow modules 2 on top of each other, see respective water inlets 9 and outlets 11 with gravity flow, see fig 3 and para 0042), and wherein the at least one irrigation point is configured so that water from the at least one irrigation point falls into at least one of the growing receptacles (grow modules 2 on top of each other, see respective water inlets 9 and outlets 11 with gravity flow, see fig 3 and para 0042).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the indoor system of claim 7, and Marquez further discloses further comprising a plurality of the growing receptacles at different heights (grow modules 2 on top of each other, see figs 1-3), wherein the water generator is lower than one or more of the growing receptacles (Marquez as modified above with the water generator of Kim ‘428 teaches this - water inlet 9 is higher than the pump 12, obvious to put the water generator with the pump and reservoir 13), and wherein the indoor system is configured to create an air flow lapping the growing receptacles, flowing top downwards to the water generator (air can flow past/through the plant modules, see para 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the indoor system of claim 7, and Marquez further discloses further comprising a plurality of the growing receptacles at different heights (grow modules 2 on top of each other, see figs 1-3), wherein the water generator is lower than all of the growing receptacles (Marquez as modified above with the water generator of Kim ‘428 teaches this - water inlet 9 is higher than the pump 12, obvious to put the water generator with the pump and reservoir 13), and wherein the indoor system is configured to create an air flow lapping the growing receptacles, flowing top downwards to the water generator (air can flow past/through the plant modules, see para 0051-0052).
Claim(s) 10, 12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 20130118070 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20210148819 A, hereafter referred to as Kim ‘819).
Regarding claim 10, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1.
Marquez fails to disclose further comprising a carbon dioxide sensor configured to detect atmospheric carbon dioxide present in the environment surrounding the at least one plant.
Kim ‘819 teaches further comprising a carbon dioxide sensor configured to detect atmospheric carbon dioxide present in the environment surrounding the at least one plant (air quality sensor, including for carbon dioxide, see page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the carbon dioxide sensor of Kim ‘819 with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow for monitoring of carbon dioxide levels to ensure the conditions are optimal for photosynthesis.
Regarding claim 12, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1.
Marquez fails to disclose wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in one of the following wavelength ranges: greater than or equal to 400 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 500 nm; greater than or equal to 430 nm and less than or equal to 470 nm; greater than or equal to 440 nm and less than or equal to 460 nm; greater than or equal to 600 nm and less than or equal to 700 nm; greater than or equal to 640 nm and less than or equal to 680 nm; and greater than or equal to 650 nm and less than or equal to 670 nm.
Kim ‘819 teaches wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in one of the following wavelength ranges: greater than or equal to 400 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 500 nm (led package with blue led chip at 450 nm, see page 5); greater than or equal to 430 nm and less than or equal to 470 nm (led package with blue led chip at 450 nm, see page 5); greater than or equal to 440 nm and less than or equal to 460 nm (led package with blue led chip at 450 nm, see page 5); greater than or equal to 600 nm and less than or equal to 700 nm (led package with red led chip at 660 nm, see page 5); greater than or equal to 640 nm and less than or equal to 680 nm (led package with red led chip at 660 nm, see page 5); and greater than or equal to 650 nm and less than or equal to 670 nm (led package with red led chip at 660 nm, see page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the lights of Kim ‘819 with a reasonable expectation of success because blue and red lights are known for promoting photosynthesis and flowering, as well as driving vegetative growth.
Regarding claim 17, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1.
Marquez fails to disclose wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the following wavelength range: greater than or equal to 400 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 700 nm.
Kim ‘819 teaches wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the following wavelength range: greater than or equal to 400 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 700 nm (led package with blue led chip at 450 nm, and led package with red led chip at 660 nm, see page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the lights of Kim ‘819 with a reasonable expectation of success because blue and red lights are known for promoting photosynthesis and flowering, as well as driving vegetative growth.
Regarding claim 18, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1.
Marquez fails to disclose wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the following wavelength range: greater than or equal to 430 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 680 nm.
Kim ‘819 teaches wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the following wavelength range: greater than or equal to 430 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 680 nm (led package with blue led chip at 450 nm, and led package with red led chip at 660 nm, see page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the lights of Kim ‘819 with a reasonable expectation of success because blue and red lights are known for promoting photosynthesis and flowering, as well as driving vegetative growth.
Regarding claim 19, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1.
Marquez fails to disclose wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the following wavelength range: greater than or equal to 440 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 670 nm.
Kim ‘819 teaches wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the following wavelength range: greater than or equal to 440 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to 670 nm (led package with blue led chip at 450 nm, and led package with red led chip at 660 nm, see page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the lights of Kim ‘819 with a reasonable expectation of success because blue and red lights are known for promoting photosynthesis and flowering, as well as driving vegetative growth.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 20130118070 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuba (US-20110239867-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1.
Marquez fails to disclose wherein the feeding system comprises a water generator of an adsorption type configured to obtain liquid water from atmospheric humidity and, in turn comprising a first path of air to be treated, a second regeneration air path, and a drying rotor and wherein the drying rotor contains adsorbent material and is configured to reversibly switching switch from a first drying position to a second regeneration positions, wherein in the first drying position, the drying rotor is configured to trap, by adsorption in the adsorbent materials, humidity of the air provided by the first path of the air to be treated, and wherein in the second regeneration position the drying rotor is configured to release the adsorbed humidity from the adsorbent material by desorption.
Matsuba teaches wherein the feeding system comprises a water generator of an adsorption type configured to obtain liquid water from atmospheric humidity and, in turn comprising a first path of air to be treated, a second regeneration air path, and a drying rotor (see fig 1, both adsorption and desorption within the same drying rotor) and wherein the drying rotor contains adsorbent material and is configured to reversibly switching switch from a first drying position to a second regeneration positions (see fig 1, both adsorption and desorption within the same drying rotor), wherein in the first drying position, the drying rotor is configured to trap, by adsorption in the adsorbent materials, humidity of the air provided by the first path of the air to be treated (see fig 1, 1st position/path includes adsorption side), and wherein in the second regeneration position the drying rotor is configured to release the adsorbed humidity from the adsorbent material by desorption (see fig 1, 2nd position/path includes desorption side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the adsorption type water generator of Matsuba with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the air is dehumidified such that water can be easily supplied to the plants to promote growth and development.
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 20130118070 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolfe (US-20180279563-A1).
Regarding claim 20, Marquez discloses the indoor system of claim 1.
Marquez fails to disclose wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the following wavelength range: greater than or equal to about 800 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to about 2,500 nm.
Wolfe teaches wherein the one or more light sources are further configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in the following wavelength range: greater than or equal to about 800 nanometers (nm) and less than or equal to about 2,500 nm (infrared, i.e. 780-1000nm, light source, see para 0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the lights with the infrared lights of Wolfe with a reasonable expectation of success as infrared light is known to increase photosynthetic activity and stem growth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art noted in the References Cited document is relevant as it pertains to similar lighting systems for plant cultivation. Specifically, Miyauchi discusses a rotor that can simultaneously humidify and dehumidify.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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 at (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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642