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 1-2, 5, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 1-2: “a system having a net house and an indoor farming system comprising:” should read –a system having a net house and an indoor farming system, the system comprising:--
Nothing is technically wrong with the amended line “a net configured for covering the net house while allowing sunlight to pass through” in claim 1, but the examiner notes that, as amended, the claim does not actually require the net to cover the net house, only that it be capable of covering the net house. Should the applicant wish to change this back, they could amend the claim to read –a net covering the net house, the net configured to allow sunlight to pass through--.
Claim 4: “wherein the net also acts as an insect net or trap” should read –wherein the net is also configured to act as an insect net or trap--.
Claim 11: “a PV module, a heat conducting sheet and heat conducting pipe, an insulation layer, and an alloy frame” should read -- a PV module, a heat conducting sheet, a heat conducting pipe, an insulation layer, and an alloy frame--.
Claim 13: “configured such a portion” should read –configured such that a portion--
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 2-3, 7, and 14 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 2 recites “wherein the plurality of PV panels is configured to cover a maximum of 50% of the net house. This limitation is unclear, as it is unclear, with the added functional language statement, whether the applicant is claiming that the panels are physically incapable of covering more than 50% of the net house, or if the panels simply need to be capable of covering 50% or less of the net house (not excluding panels which can be tilted/adjusted to cover, for example, 25%, 50% and 75% of the net house depending on angle or another variable). Claim language needs to be clarified, and if it is the prior, there may exist a 112(a) issue, given the applicant’s panels seem to allow more than 50% shading depending on the angle (¶0043, Table 5). Assuming it is the latter, for examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as –wherein the plurality of PV panels is configured to cover 50% or less of the net house.
Claim 3 recites “wherein shading of the plurality of PV panels and the net is configured for cultivation and growth of premium crops year-round.” This limitation is unclear, as it is unclear how a function of the panels (shading), and the net, alone, may be “configured” for cultivation and growth of premium crops year-round. Further, more generally, it is unclear how this claim serves to further limit the structure of the invention – it would seem that, since shading by the panels is required in claim 1, as is the net, that, as best understood, the functionality discussed in claim 3 would be inherent. Is the applicant requiring that the system as a whole be configured for cultivation and growth of premium crops? If so – is the applicant requiring a growth medium for the crops, or watering system (given it is unclear how crops may be grown in the absence of these elements).
The scope of claim 7 is unclear, as it is dependent on a cancelled claim (claim 6). For examination purposes, claim 7 will be understood as depending from claim 1, with “the LED lights” changed to –the LED lamps—to match the language of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “PV panels are configured to generate energy, in the form of electricity and solar heat, and wherein the system further includes pipes configured for supplying said energy.” It is unclear how the pipes may be configured for supplying electricity, it seems the applicant only discusses supplying heat through the pipes in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuei Kuang Chen (WO 2013131203 A1) in view of Liu (US 20150131274), hereinafter referred to as Kuei (for distinction) and Liu, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Kuei discloses a system having a combined net house (see Figs 1 and 2; Pg 4, ¶5) and an indoor farming system (Pg 1, last ¶; abstract) comprising:
a net configured for covering the net house while allowing sunlight to pass through (insect net curtain 19, per Pg 4, ¶5); and
a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) panels, wherein the plurality of PV panels are configured to shade the net house (solar panels 61, Fig 2);
an indoor farming subsystem disposed within the net house (Pg 1, last ¶; abstract);
wherein the PV panels are tiltable and are configured to be positioned at varying angles with respect to the sun so as to optimize solar energy capture during crop cultivation to enhance crop yield, in accordance with position of the sun depending on the season (Pg 5, ¶2; Pg 6, ¶1).
Although Kuei remarks on the common usage of lamps in greenhouses, and the advantages of being able to supply such lamps with solar energy from the panels (Pg 2, ¶2), Kuei fails to specifically disclose that the plurality of PV panels are configured to supply energy to the indoor farming system, particularly, that the indoor farming system has one or more LED lamps therein, and that the plurality of PV panels is electrically connected directly to the one or more LED lamps to supply power thereto.
Liu discloses a similar greenhouse system with one or more LED lamps within the greenhouse (LED light sources 6, Fig 2), and a plurality of PV panels (solar panels 5, Fig 2), wherein the plurality of PV panels is electrically connected directly to the one or more LED lamps to supply power thereto (¶0014).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided LED lights within the greenhouse of Kuei, electrically connected directly to the panels, as in Liu, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as in Kuei, cultivation lamps are often necessary in greenhouses to assist with plant/crop growth, and, as in Lui, providing LED light of specific wavelengths to growing plants helps promote photosynthesis, and thereby plant growth (abstract).
Regarding claim 4:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the net also acts as an insect net or trap (functional language: net capable of acting as an insect net or trap; Pg 4, ¶5).
Regarding claim 5:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of PV panels are installed on a top portion and/or side portion of the net house (see Figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 7:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and Liu further discloses wherein the LED lights are grow lights (abstract).
Regarding claim 8:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kuei fails to specifically disclose wherein the system further comprises sprinklers within the net house for achieving cooling during warm periods.
However, Kuei also remarks that it is known, and often necessary to use sprinklers in greenhouses.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided sprinklers within the net house of Kuei, as suggested by Kuei, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for efficient water distribution to the plants therein, so as to allow for improved and tailorable growth.
Regarding claim 9:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of PV panels are installed flat on the net house, or at inclined positions on the net house (see Fig 2; Pg 5, ¶2).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuei and Lui, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Baker (WO 2019215460, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Baker, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and the drawings seem to imply that the plurality of PV panels is configured to cover a maximum of 50% of the net house (capable of covering less than 50% of the net house, as best understood), given the spacing shown in figure 2, and the disclosure which contemplates the ability of the panels to tilt based on the sun’s angle (Pg 5, ¶2) – as the panels tilt, the coverage of the net house would decrease.
However, Kuei as modified fails to explicitly disclose that the plurality of PV panels is configured to cover a maximum of 50% of the net house.
Baker discloses a greenhouse with solar panels that cover a maximum of 50% of the net house (Pg 4, ¶8: “the photovoltaic cells from the assembly collectively cover no more than 30% of the surface area of the structure”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proportions of the net house and panels, or the tilt of the panels of Kuei, so that less than 50% of the net house may be covered by the panels, as in Baker, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Baker, covering less than 50% of the surface area strikes a reasonable balance between allowing sufficient sunlight to enter the structure to facilitate plant growth, whilst at the same time ensuring a good recovery of solar energy by the photovoltaic cells (Pg 4, ¶8). Further, 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.
Regarding claim 3:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 above and further discloses wherein shading of the plurality of PV panels and the net is configured for cultivation and growth of premium crops year-round (as best understood, Kuei is capable of allowing growth as claimed given the structural limitations met).
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuei and Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Gordon (WO 2022061045, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Gordon, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 10:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kuei as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of PV panels are thermal cogeneration flat panels (only the generation of electricity is disclosed).
Gordon discloses a solar greenhouse system with PV panels that are thermal cogeneration flat panels (310 solar panel, Fig 12; generate electricity and thermal energy per ¶0028 and ¶00116).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panels of Kuei to provide them with thermal cogeneration functionality, as in Gordon, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Gordon, the heat collected from the solar panels could be efficiently used in temperature control of the soil and greenhouse, in order to provide optimal grow conditions (¶0027; ¶0116).
Regarding claim 12:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of PV panels are configured to possess a negative temperature effect (the negative temperature effect, as best understood, is an inherent phenomenon that effects solar panel efficiency).
Kuei fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of PV panels are configured to absorb heat energy generated on the plurality of PV panels, thereby increasing power generation capacity of the plurality of PV panels.
Gordon discloses a greenhouse with a GAHT system having a plurality of PV panels configured to absorb heat energy generated on the plurality of PV panels and transfer said energy through a series of pipes and tanks via a thermal medium to moderate the grow climate, thereby increasing power generation capacity of the plurality of PV panels (310 solar panel, Fig 12; generate electricity and thermal energy per ¶0028 and ¶00116; functional language: capable of increasing power generation capacity by providing two sources of energy – thermal and electrical).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panels and net house of Kuei to institute a GAHT system powered by the panels, as in Gordon, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Gordon, the heat collected from the solar panels could be efficiently used in temperature and moisture control of the soil and greenhouse, or condensation generation for irrigation, in order to provide optimal grow conditions (¶0027; ¶0116; ¶0045).
Regarding claim 13:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 12 above and Gordon further discloses pipes and tanks, configured such that a portion of the generated heat energy is transported via the pipes and stored in the tanks to produce hot water for the indoor farming system (¶00116; ¶0027: water may be thermal medium; ¶0045; see Figs 12 and 20).
Regarding claim 14:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of PV panels generate energy.
Kuei as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of PV panels generate energy, in the form of electricity and solar heat, and wherein the system further includes pipes configured for supplying said energy to the indoor farming system.
Gordon discloses an indoor farming system with PV panels that are configured to generate energy, in the form of electricity and solar heat, and wherein the system further includes pipes configured for supplying said energy to the indoor farming system (310 solar panel, Fig 12; generate electricity and thermal energy per ¶0028 and ¶00116; Fig 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kuei such that the solar panels generate not only electricity, but also generate solar heat which is supplied via pipes to the indoor farming system to provide temperature and humidity control of the greenhouse. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a more robust greenhouse, better equipped to optimize plant growth, whilst maintaining an efficient and environmentally friendly, circular energy system.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuei and Lui, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sellier (KR 20120098643, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Sellier.
Regarding claim 11:
Kuei as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kuei as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of PV panels comprise at least one layer of tempered glass, a PV module, a heat conducting sheet and heat conducting pipe, an insulation layer and an alloy frame.
Sellier discloses a PV panel comprising at least one layer of tempered glass (walls 102, 104, Fig 2; Pg 4, ¶2), a PV module (Pg 7, last paragraph – Pg 8, first paragraph), and a heat conducting sheet and pipe (absorbent panel 106 and pipe 107, Fig 2), in addition to an insulation layer (spacers 109, Fig 2; made of glass per Pg 4) and a metal frame (metal frame 105, Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solar panels of Kuei to have the structure, as disclosed in Sellier, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Sellier, the panels of Sellier improve energy conversion efficiency of the solar panels while maintaining a small size and high mechanical strength (Pg 2, Background).
Kuei as modified discloses the claimed invention except for that the metal forming the metal frame is an alloy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have chosen an alloy, such as aluminum alloy, as the metal of the frame, in order to provide a suitably strong, resilient, and lightweight material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims over Chen 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.
To the extent to which the applicant’s arguments against Gordon still may apply, the examiner will respond below.
On page 5, the applicant argues that Gordon’s system bears no relation whatsoever to the claimed system other than the fact that it incorporates thermal cogeneration. Further, the applicant contends that Gordon’s system is designed to create heat within a cold-climate greenhouse, whereas the claimed system is designed to diffuse heat in the desert.
In response to applicant's argument that Gordon is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the examiner contends that Gordon is in the field of the inventor's endeavor. First of all, MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) states that, when determining whether a piece of art is from a relevant field of endeavor to the applicant’s invention, the examiner should consider "explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380, 2019 USPQ2d 430083 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212 ). The applicant’s specification describes the invention’s subject matter as including photovoltaic panels which absorb solar heat and direct the heat through pipes and tanks for environmental regulation. As noted in the above rejection, Gordon discloses similar structure and functionality with a greenhouse having solar panels which collect solar heat to distribute and reuse the energy for environmental regulation. The examiner also notes that per MPEP 2141.01(a) “The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’””) (quoting Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001, 120 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and that the Federal Circuit reads KSR as “direct[ing] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly” because “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238, 95 USPQ2d 1525, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 127 S. Ct. at 1727). The mere fact that the intention of the claimed invention is for desert use, does not exclude Gordon as being art. The examiner thusly asserts that Gordon is, in fact, considered analogous art and thus the rejection is sound.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642