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 Objections
Claims 4, 9-10, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, lines 13-15, the added phase should be deleted since it is repeated later in the claim in lines 25-27.
In claims 9 and 10, lines 2-3, “laminar flows traveling” should be changed to --laminar, non-turbulent flows travel--.
In claims 16, and 17, line 5, “flows traveling” should be changed to --flows travel--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-12 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 4 recites the limitation "the second laminar, non-turbulent flow of air" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-12 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muanchart (US 10667472) in view of Veugen (US 2019/0183068) and Knowles (US 2022/0000041).
Regarding claim 1, Muanchart discloses a system comprising: a gas producer (311) configured to produce gases used for indoor crop growth (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 53-57 gases used for photosynthesis brought from the storage tank (201)), wherein the gas producer is configured to customize characteristics of the gases including a composition carried within in accordance with growth needs of different crop types (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 3, values are determined based on measurements from the crops themselves); flow pathways configured to transport the gas created by the gas producer to a first crop surface and to a second crop surface (Figs. 1 and 7A, each outlet (048) provides a flow pathway for a separate crop surface); and airflow components configured to direct a flow of air ((326) and/or (325) blow air to tube (047) and then to emission point (048) and back through (049)), wherein the system is configured to: direct a first laminar, non-turbulent flow of air (510) originating from a first outlet ((048) located at far left of Fig. 1) positioned on an edge of a first planar surface on which the first crop is grown and moving in one direction, end-to-end across the first planar surface (to (049) at other end of the planar surface), resulting in movement of a first gas mix configuration across the first crop (Fig. 7A); and direct a second laminar, non-turbulent flow of air originating from a second outlet ((048) located in the middle of Fig. 1) positioned on an edge of a second planar surface on which the second crop is grown and moving in one direction, end-to-end across the second planar surface (to (049) at other end of the planar surface), resulting in movement of a second gas mix configuration across the second crop (Fig. 7A), wherein each of the first and second laminar, non-turbulent flows is velocity-controlled and directionally constrained such that each flow occurs in a substantially planar, boundary-layer-reducing flow regime across the respective planar surface (Figs. 1, 3, and 7A, col. 3, lines 36-49 and col. 11, lines 41-60 teach the ideal of importance of laminar flow, and how to control the direction and speed of the air flow to be across the crop).
Muanchart does not explicitly disclose a fogger configured to produce fog used for indoor crop growth per fogponics, wherein the fogger is configured to customize characteristics of the fog including a composition of nutrients carried within in accordance with growth needs of different crop types, which includes a first fog configuration for a first crop and a second fog configuration for a second crop.
Veugen, like Muanchart, teaches a system and further teaches a fogger (1) configured to produce fog used for indoor crop growth per fogponics (paragraph [0002]), wherein the fogger is configured to customize characteristics of the fog including a composition of nutrients carried within in accordance with growth needs of different crop types, which includes a first fog configuration for a first crop and a second fog configuration for a second crop (paragraph [0037] teaches that different compositions of nutrients can be carried out by the fogger through a transition of nozzle configurations for the supply (45)).
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 of Muanchart to include a fogger as taught by Veugen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the proper nutrients to the crops through the plant nutrient processing discussed (see Muanchart: paragraph [0031]). Using a known technique of adding a fogger to the air flow system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Veugen would yield predictable results for providing nutrients to the first and second crops.
Knowles, like Muanchart, teaches, a system and further teaches the air flow system includes dampers within the flow pathways (paragraph [0129] teaches dampers to control the supply of airflow).
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 of Muanchart as modified by Veugen to include dampers as taught by Knowles, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide adjustability to the control and access to each individual air outlet that directs the flow of air to each planar surface on which a crop is grown, and allow for the changing of the nutrients stored for the fogger of Veugen and the determination of which planar surface will be treated. Please note in the combination, the gas producer is the fogger as taught by Veugen and the first gas mix configuration and the second gas mix configurations are the first and second compositions of nutrients that are supplied to the fogger of Veugen.
Regarding claim 2, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the system of claim 1, (references to Muanchart) and teaches wherein the first crop surface is proximate to the second crop surface such that a turbulent movement of the fog as opposed to that resulting from the first and second laminar flows would result in a significant amount of the first fog configuration being absorbed by the second crop and a significant amount of the second fog configuration being absorbed by the first crop, wherein the first crop is not substantially exposed to the second fog configuration, wherein the second crop is not substantially exposed to the first fog configuration (Figs. 1, 3, and 7A, col. 3, lines 36-49 and col. 11, lines 41-60 teach the ideal of importance of laminar flow, and how to control the direction and speed of the air flow to be across the crop, the positioning within the figures of the first crop next to the second crop would result in a significant amount of absorption by the wrong crop if processed with turbulent flow which would move away from the direct movement across and spread towards the other crops, please note “substantially exposed” is being understood as being “affected by”).
Regarding claim 3, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the system of claim 1, (references to Muanchart) wherein the second crop would be adversely affected by the first fog configuration were the first laminar flow a turbulent movement instead of being a laminar one, wherein the first crop would be adversely affected by the second fog configuration were the second laminar flow a turbulent flow instead of being a laminar one, wherein the first crop is not adversely affected by the second laminar flow, wherein the second crop is not adversely affected by the first fog configuration (Figs. 1, 3, and 7A, col. 3, lines 36-49 and col. 11, lines 41-60 teach the ideal of importance of laminar flow, and how to control the direction and speed of the air flow to be across the crop, the positioning within the figures of the first crop next to the second crop would result in a significant amount of absorption by the wrong crop if processed with turbulent flow which would move away from the direct movement across and spread towards the other crops).
Regarding claim 4, Muanchart discloses a method that applies laminar flows of gas to controlled environment agriculture (CEA) comprising: establishing an indoor farm unit (Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of growth surfaces (Figs. 1 and 7A, each outlet (048) provides a flow pathway for a separate growth surface) comprising at least a first planar surface (Fig. 1, first crop rail (931)) and a second planar surface (Fig. 1, second crop rail (931)), wherein a first crop of a first crop type grows on the first planar surface (crop on first planar surface), wherein a second crop of a second crop type grows on the second planar surface (crop on second planar surface); applying, via a CEA system configured to customize environmental growth conditions for crops through a selective application of system configurable gases (col. 2, lines 55-57 teaches each growth surface between (048) and (049) is its own environment; Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 53-57 gases used for photosynthesis brought from the storage tank (201) of configurable compositions col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 3, values are determined based on measurements from the crops themselves) first gas adjustments for the first crop (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 3, values are determined based on measurements from the crops themselves, therefore a first crop would have first gas adjustments); applying second gas adjustments for the second crop (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 3, values are determined based on measurements from the crops themselves, therefore a second crop would have second gas adjustments); directing a first laminar, non-turbulent flow of a first gas consistent with the first gas adjustments across the first planar surface ((048) located at far left of Fig. 1) to (049) at other end of the first planar surface, Fig. 7A); wherein the second laminar, non-turbulent flow of air originating from a second outlet ((048) located in the middle of Fig. 1) positioned on an edge of a second planar surface on which the second crop is grown and moving in one direction, end-to-end across the second planar surface (to (049) at other end of the planar surface), and directing a second laminar, non-turbulent flow of a second gas consistent with the second gas adjustments across the second planar surface (Fig. 7A), wherein despite the first crop being relatively proximate to the second crop, the first laminar, non-turbulent flow of the first gas does not appreciably affect the second crop and the second laminar, non-turbulent flow of the second gas does not appreciably affect the first crop (Figs. 1, 3, and 7A, col. 3, lines 36-49 and col. 11, lines 41-60 teach the ideal of importance of laminar flow, and how to control the direction and speed of the air flow to be across the crop, the positioning within the figures of the first crop next to the second crop would result in a significant amount of absorption by the wrong crop if processed with turbulent flow which would move away from the direct movement across and spread towards the other crops), wherein the second crop would be adversely affected by the first gas were the first laminar flow a turbulent movement instead of being a laminar one, wherein the first crop would be adversely affected by the second gas were the second laminar flow a turbulent flow instead of being a laminar one (Figs. 1, 3, and 7A, col. 3, lines 36-49 and col. 11, lines 41-60 teach the ideal of importance of laminar flow, and how to control the direction and speed of the air flow to be across the crop, the positioning within the figures of the first crop next to the second crop would result in a significant amount of absorption by the wrong crop if processed with turbulent flow which would move away from the direct movement across and spread towards the other crops); wherein the second laminar, non-turbulent flow of air originating from a second outlet ((048) located in the middle of Fig. 1) positioned on an edge of a second planar surface on which the second crop is grown and moving in one direction, end-to-end across the second planar surface (to (049) at other end of the planar surface, Fig. 7A), wherein each of the first and second laminar, non-turbulent flows is velocity-controlled and directionally constrained such that each flow occurs in a substantially planar, boundary-layer-reducing flow regime across the respective planar surface (Figs. 1, 3, and 7A, col. 3, lines 36-49 and col. 11, lines 41-60 teach the ideal of importance of laminar flow, and how to control the direction and speed of the air flow to be across the crop).
Muanchart does not explicitly disclose applying first fog adjustments and second fog adjustments and directing a first fog and a second fog consistent with these adjustments.
Veugen, like Muanchart, teaches a system and further teaches a fogger (1) configured to produce fog of configurable compositions (paragraph [0037] teaches that different compositions of nutrients can be carried out by the fogger through a transition of nozzle configurations for the supply (45)), wherein said fog carries nutrients and water needed for crop growth (paragraph [0002]), wherein first fog adjustments for a first fog is optimized for growth conditions of the first crop, wherein second fog adjustments for a second fog is optimized for growth conditions of the second crop (paragraph [0037] teaches that different compositions of nutrients can be carried out by the fogger through a transition of nozzle configurations for the supply (45) creating first fog adjustments and second fog adjustments).
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 of Muanchart to include a fogger as taught by Veugen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the proper nutrients to the crops through the plant nutrient processing discussed (see Muanchart: paragraph [0031]). Using a known technique of adding a fogger to the air flow system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Veugen would yield predictable results for providing nutrients to the first and second crops.
Knowles, like Muanchart, teaches, a system and further teaches the air flow system includes dampers within the flow pathways (paragraph [0129] teaches dampers to control the supply of airflow).
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 of Muanchart as modified by Veugen to include dampers as taught by Knowles, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide adjustability to the control and access to each individual air outlet that directs the flow of air to each planar surface on which a crop is grown, and allow for the changing of the nutrients stored for the fogger of Veugen and the determination of which planar surface will be treated. Please note in the combination, the gas producer is the fogger as taught by Veugen and the second gas adjustments and the second gas adjustments are the first and second compositions of nutrients that are supplied to the fogger of Veugen.
Regarding claim 5, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the method of claim 4, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein the first crop adjustments comprise a first fog temperature (col. 2, lines 30-37), a first fog nutrient mix (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 3, values are determined based on measurements from the crops themselves, therefore a first crop would have first gas adjustments), and a first fog humidity level (col. 6, lines 54-56, through a humidity control unit), and wherein the second crop adjustments comprise a second fog temperature (col. 2, lines 30-37), a second fog nutrient mix (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 3, values are determined based on measurements from the crops themselves, therefore a second crop would have second gas adjustments), and a second fog humidity level (col. 6, lines 54-56, through a humidity control unit).
Regarding claim 7, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the method of claim 5, and teaches (references to Veugen) wherein the first fog adjustments are optimized for the first crop, wherein the second fog adjustments are optimized for the second crop (paragraph [0037] teaches that different compositions of nutrients can be carried out by the fogger through a transition of nozzle configurations for the supply (45) creating first fog adjustments and second fog adjustments).
Regarding claim 8, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the method of claim 5, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein the first surface and the second surface are substantially parallel surfaces separated by a perpendicular distance D, wherein D is less than a distance across the first surface traveled by the first fog configuration (Fig. 1 shows a distance D, roughly less than the distance across the first surface from (048) to (049)).
Regarding claim 9, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the method of claim 5, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein each of the growth surfaces are substantially horizontal surfaces, wherein the first and second laminar flows traveling along a substantially horizontal plane (Figs. 1 and 7A, each outlet (048) provides a flow pathway for separate crop surfaces which are along a horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 10, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the method of claim 5, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein each of the growth surfaces are substantially vertical surfaces, wherein the first and second laminar flows traveling along a substantially vertical plane (col. 6, lines 59-63, Figs. 1 and 7A, each outlet (048) provides a flow pathway for separate crop surfaces which can be along a vertical plane).
Regarding claim 11, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the method of claim 5, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein the first crop and the second crop are not separated by an air or water tight barrier (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the method of claim 5, and teaches (references to Muanchart unless otherwise noted) wherein the indoor farm unit is a rack (col. 6, lines 59-63, vertical and horizontal), which is a shelving unit comprising a plurality of vertically stacked shelves, each supporting a crop tray, which the first surface is a first shelf of the plurality of vertically stacked shelves (Knowles: Fig. 5), wherein the second surface is a second shelf of the plurality of vertically stacked shelves (Knowles: Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Muanchart discloses a controlled environment agriculture (CEA) system for applying laminar movements of air and gas comprising: a plurality of crop growth surfaces (Figs. 1 and 7A, each outlet (048) provides a flow pathway for a separate crop surface) comprising at least a first surface (Fig. 1, first crop rail (931)) and a second surface (Fig. 1, second crop rail (931)), each of the crop growth surfaces being a tunable microenvironment (col. 2, lines 55-57 teaches each growth surface between (048) and (049) is its own environment), wherein a first crop of a first crop type grows on the first surface (crop on first surface), wherein a second crop of a second crop type grows on the second surface (crop on second surface); a gas producer (311) configured to produce gases (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 53-57 gases used for photosynthesis brought from the storage tank (201)), of configurable compositions (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 3, values are determined based on measurements from the crops themselves); flow pathways configured to direct gas produced by the gas producer through a first pathway to the first surface and configured to direct gas produced by the gas producer through a second pathway to the second surface (Figs. 1 and 7A, each outlet (048) provides a flow pathway for a separate crop surface); and airflow components configured to increase or decrease a flow of air being conveyed through the first flow pathways to the first surface and to the second surface ((326) and/or (325) blow air to tube (047) and then to emission point (048) and back through (049) with (110) increasing or decreasing flow), wherein the CEA system is configured to: direct a first laminar, non-turbulent flow of air (510) originating from a first outlet ((048) located at far left of Fig. 1) positioned on an edge of a first planar surface on which the first crop is grown and moving in one direction, end-to-end across the first planar surface (to (049) at other end of the planar surface), resulting in movement of a first gas mix configuration across the first crop (Fig. 7A); and direct a second laminar, non-turbulent flow of air originating from a second outlet ((048) located in the middle of Fig. 1) positioned on an edge of a second planar surface on which the second crop is grown and moving in one direction, end-to-end across the second planar surface (to (049) at other end of the planar surface), resulting in movement of a second gas mix configuration across the second crop (Fig. 7A), wherein despite the first crop being relatively proximate to the second crop, the first laminar, non-turbulent flow of the first gas mix configuration does not appreciably affect the second crop and the second laminar, non-turbulent flow of the second gas mix configuration does not appreciably affect the first crop (Figs. 1, 3, and 7A, col. 3, lines 36-49 and col. 11, lines 41-60 teach the ideal of importance of laminar flow, and how to control the direction and speed of the air flow to be across the crop, the positioning within the figures of the first crop next to the second crop would result in a significant amount of absorption by the wrong crop if processed with turbulent flow which would move away from the direct movement across and spread towards the other crops).
Muanchart does not explicitly disclose a fogger to produce fog of configurable compositions, wherein said fog carries nutrients and water needed for crop growth at configurable temperatures, wherein a first fog configuration for a first fog is optimized for growth conditions of the first crop type, wherein a second fog configuration for a second fog is optimized for growth conditions of the second crop type.
Veugen, like Muanchart, teaches a system and further teaches a fogger (1) configured to produce fog of configurable compositions (paragraph [0037] teaches that different compositions of nutrients can be carried out by the fogger through a transition of nozzle configurations for the supply (45)), wherein said fog carries nutrients and water needed for crop growth (paragraph [0002]), wherein a first fog configuration for a first fog is optimized for growth conditions of the first crop type, wherein a second fog configuration for a second fog is optimized for growth conditions of the second crop type (paragraph [0037] teaches that different compositions of nutrients can be carried out by the fogger through a transition of nozzle configurations for the supply (45) creating a first fog configuration and a second fog configuration).
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 of Muanchart to include a fogger as taught by Veugen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the proper nutrients to the crops through the plant nutrient processing discussed (see Muanchart: paragraph [0031]). Using a known technique of adding a fogger to the air flow system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Veugen would yield predictable results for providing nutrients to the first and second crops.
Knowles, like Muanchart, teaches, a system and further teaches the air flow system includes dampers within the flow pathways (paragraph [0129] teaches dampers to control the supply of airflow).
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 of Muanchart as modified by Veugen to include dampers as taught by Knowles, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide adjustability to the control and access to each individual air outlet that directs the flow of air to each planar surface on which a crop is grown, and allow for the changing of the nutrients stored for the fogger of Veugen and the determination of which planar surface will be treated. Please note in the combination, the gas producer is the fogger as taught by Veugen and the first gas mix configuration and the second gas mix configurations are the first and second compositions of nutrients that are supplied to the fogger of Veugen.
Regarding claim 15, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the CEA system of claim 13, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein the first surface and the second surface are substantially parallel surfaces separated by a perpendicular distance D, wherein D is less than a distance across the first surface traveled by the first fog configuration (Fig. 1 shows a distance D, roughly less than the distance across the first surface from (048) to (049)).
Regarding claim 16, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the CEA system of claim 13, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein each of the growth surfaces are substantially horizontal surfaces, wherein the first and second laminar, non-turbulent flows traveling along a substantially horizontal plane (Figs. 1 and 7A, each outlet (048) provides a flow pathway for separate crop surfaces which are along a horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 17, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the CEA system of claim 13, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein each of the growth surfaces are substantially vertical surfaces, wherein the first and second laminar, non-turbulent flows traveling along a substantially vertical plane (col. 6, lines 59-63, Figs. 1 and 7A, each outlet (048) provides a flow pathway for separate crop surfaces which can be along a vertical plane).
Regarding claim 18, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the CEA system of claim 13, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein the flow pathways comprise a set of pipes, ducting, and outlets (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the CEA system of claim 13, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein the airflow components comprise at least one pump (col. 5, lines 58-60, (325), most suitable is a pump) and a plurality of fans (101).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muanchart (US 10667472) in view of Veugen (US 2019/0183068) and Knowles (US 2022/0000041) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Peterson et al. (US 2025/0008895).
Regarding claim 6, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the method of claim 5.
However, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles does not explicitly teach wherein the first crop is a plant, wherein the second crop is a fungus.
Peterson et al., like Muanchart, teaches a method and further teaches a first crop is a plant, wherein the second crop is a fungus (paragraphs [0026] and [0098] teach the use of the system for different crops that include plants and fungus).
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 method of Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles to include a plant and a fungus as crops as taught by Peterson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the crop rotation as desired by a client and for increase efficiency in the rotation of crops within the system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muanchart (US 10667472) in view of Veugen (US 2019/0183068) and Knowles (US 2022/0000041) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Peterson et al. (US 2025/0008895).
Regarding claim 14, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the CEA system of claim 13, and teaches (references to Muanchart) wherein the second crop is a fungus, wherein the second crop would be adversely affected if the first fog configuration were a turbulent flow (Figs. 1, 3, and 7A, col. 3, lines 36-49 and col. 11, lines 41-60 teach the ideal of importance of laminar flow, and how to control the direction and speed of the air flow to be across the crop, the positioning within the figures of the first crop next to the second crop would result in a significant amount of absorption by the wrong crop if processed with turbulent flow which would move away from the direct movement across and spread towards the other crops).
However, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles does not explicitly teach wherein the first crop is a plant, wherein the second crop is a fungus.
Peterson et al., like Muanchart, teaches a CEA system and further teaches a first crop is a plant, wherein the second crop is a fungus (paragraphs [0026] and [0098] teach the use of the system for different crops that include plants and fungus).
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 CEA system of Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles to include a plant and a fungus as crops as taught by Peterson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the crop rotation as desired by a client and for increase efficiency in the rotation of crops within the system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muanchart (US 10667472) in view of Veugen (US 2019/0183068) and Knowles (US 2022/0000041) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Dunbar (WO 2024/059130).
Regarding claim 20, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles teaches the CEA system of claim 13, and teaches (references to Muanchart) the control over temperature, CO2, humidity, and airflow.
However, Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles does not explicitly teach at least one sensor foe each.
Dunbar, like Muanchart, teaches a CEA system, and further teaches a plurality of sensors, said sensors comprising at least one temperature sensor, at least one CO2 sensor, at least one humidity sensor, and at least one airflow sensor (paragraph [0034] lists each sensor).
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 CEA system of Muanchart as modified by Veugen and Knowles to include sensors for temperature, CO2, humidity, and airflow as taught by Dunbar, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to measure these values to determine further control instructions for setting these values for the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights