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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10-11, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: “an indoor or vertical farming system” should read –the indoor or vertical farming system--.
Claim 13: the examiner suggests changing “wherein pipes and tanks are configured” to –the system comprising pipes and tanks, wherein the pipes and tanks are configured—
Many claims, for example, those noted below, include active method-step-type language that must be adjusted, given these claims are directed to an apparatus, not a method. The scope of these limitations is not fully clear as written.
Claim 10, line 3: “the PV module absorbs” should read –the PV module is configured to absorb--, or similar to emphasis the functional nature of the limitation, given this is an apparatus claim, not a method.
Claim 10, line 4: “each panel generates energy in the form of electricity and solar heat that is supplied to the indoor or vertical farming system”
Claim 11, lines 4-5: “the panel simultaneously generates electricity via the PV module and collects solar heat”
Claim 13: examiner suggests changing ‘’wherein pipes and tanks are configured such that a portion of the heat energy generated on the plurality of PV panels is transported via the pipes and stored in the tanks to produce hot water for the indoor or vertical farming system”
Claim 14: “wherein the electricity is supplied to”
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 1-5, and 7-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the same plurality of PV panels" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of PV the PV panels are tiltable and are configured to be positioned at a particular angle in accordance with various months of the year, so as to optimize outputs for net house daily light integral (DLI), for the indoor or vertical farming system, or for a distribution of both.” It is clear from this limitation that the PV panels must be tiltable to a generic angle, but it is unclear how, if at all, the remainder of the quoted limitation serves to limit the scope of the applicant’s invention. Is this segment of the claim merely a non-limiting intended use of the tiltable panels – that the panel’s owner may tilt panels, as they see fit, based on their needs, and/or based on the time of year; or is the applicant attempting to claim specific structure, like a programmer/controller programmed with instructions that, when executed, actively control panel tilt based on certain stored data (e.g. plant type, month, etc.) or sensor data (e.g. available light, etc.); or is the applicant attempting to require a certain angle range of tiltability of their panels, which provides some optimal and unexpected result linked with DLI, etc.? Also, it is wholly unclear, when the applicant says “so as to optimize outputs for net house daily light integral (DLI), for the indoor or vertical farming system, or for a distribution of both” what “outputs” the applicant is referring to; ‘net house daily light integral (DLI) seems to be an ‘output’ or variable dependent on PV angle/shading, but the next line does not introduce any output, rather it just says “for the indoor or vertical farming system”, so the panels are configured to be positioned at a particular angle so as to optimize ?outputs? for the indoor or vertical farming system. How does this serve to limit the claim?
The term “highly” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-3, as amended recite that the system is configured such that the combined shading of the PV panels and the net “is directed to a target daily light integral (DLI)” of 24 -28 mol/m^2/day or at least 24 mol/m^2/day.” Similar to claim 1, it is unclear how these limitations serve to limit the structure of the applicant’s invention. The applicant notes in their remarks that these DLI values are recited as a functional design set point/target, not as an achieved result, in that these claims do not limit the net house DLI to be held within 24-28 at every moment of the year. With this, the applicant suggests that the limitation is not requiring the shading of their system to be set such that the DLI is 24-28, but if this is the case, is the applicant just saying (very broadly) that the panels themselves are capable of being oriented in a manner relative to the sun and net house interior, such that the net house receives a DLI of the claimed range? Is the applicant attempting to claim some programmer structure with programmed control of the panels with “is directed to” (e.g. if controller identifies plants as tomatoes, controller orients panels such that DLI in net house is 24-48)? Regardless, clarification in language is needed.
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, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuei Kuang Chen (TW-M496925-U) in view of Liu (US 20150131274, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Kuang (for distinction) and Liu, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Kuang discloses a system having a net house and an indoor or vertical farming system (Pg 2, ¶4-5; Pg 3, ¶5), the system comprising:
a net covering the net house (mesh curtain 3, Fig 1), the net configured to allow required sunlight, moisture and air to pass through gaps of the net (Pg 3, ¶5);
a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) panels (solar panels 2, Fig 1), wherein the plurality of PV panels are configured to shade the net house (Functional language: panels inherently capable of shading the net house, as evidenced by Figs 1 and 4);
an indoor or vertical farming system disposed within the net house (Pg 3, ¶5; Fig 4));
wherein the same plurality of PV panels are configured to generate energy (Pg 2, ¶2); and
wherein the plurality of PV panels are tiltable and are configured to be positioned at a particular angle in accordance with various months of the year, so as to optimize outputs for net house daily light integral (DLI), for the indoor or vertical farming system, or for a distribution of both (the plurality of PV panels are tiltable relative to the sun, as evidenced by the described sun chasing angle adjustment on Pg 3, ¶3; the rest of the limitation, as best understood, is merely intended use, which imparts no additional structure besides that already taught in Kuang - tiltability).
Kuang fails to specifically disclose that the indoor or vertical farming system has one or more LED lamps therein; and that the PV panels are electrically connected directly to the one or more LED lamps by a direct electrical connection to supply generated power thereto, the one or more LED lamps having electrical specifications matching an output of the plurality of PV panels.
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 are electrically connected directly to the one or more LED lamps by a direct electrical connection to supply power thereto (¶0014 – “the LED arrays are powered by the solar cell panels directly”), the one or more LED lamps having electrical specifications matching an output of the plurality of PV panels (this feature is inherent to the direct electrical connection, if the electrical specifications did not match, then the prior art invention would not work as it is described to – e.g. the LEDs would not be able to be powered directly by the cells, or they would be overpowered and fry, etc.).
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 Kuang, 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 Lui, LEDs are useful in greenhouses to supplement natural sunlight, and assist with plant/crop growth by promoting photosynthesis (abstract; ¶0003).
Regarding claim 4:
Kuang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the net is also configured to act as an insect net or trap (functional language: capable of acting as such, as evidenced by Pg 1, last ¶, and Pg 3, ¶5).
Regarding claim 5:
Kuang 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 Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and Liu further discloses wherein the one or more LED lamps are grow lights (abstract).
Regarding claim 9:
Kuang 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 (Fig 1; Pg 3, ¶3).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuang and Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, or, alternatively, further in view of Hinson (US 20210006201 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hinson, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Kuang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the net comprises a highly transparent insect net (Pg 3, ¶5), and the plurality of PV panels are configured such that combined shading of the net and the plurality of PV panels is directed to a target daily light integral (DLI) of 24 to 28 mol/m^2/day for the net house (as best understood, given the panel placement on the roof above the plants, tiltability, and general variation of sunlight intensity, direction, hours, etc. based on season and location, Kuang inherently provides the structure needed to meet this functional limitation, in that, without additional structure, Kuang may provide, with the net, a combined shading that results in a DLI of 24-28 mol/m^2/day).
Alternatively, Hinson teaches a similar greenhouse with tiltable sun tracking solar panels (abstract), wherein the panels are controllable via a controller to adjust the angle of the solar panels so as to provide a Daily Light Integral (DLI) in mol/m^2/day to the plants within the greenhouse, based on what is optimal for the growth of the plants therein (abstract; ¶0002; ¶0004).
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 specifically provided the panels of Kuang with the control structure of Hinson, for DLI-based control of the solar panel tilt, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Hinson, DLI is the most critical contributing factor in the growth of plants (¶0002), as such, controlling shading based on DLI would serve to improve plant growth and optimize available sunlight to the needs of the plant/environment (¶0003). Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided capability for directing solar panel operation to achieve a DLI of 24-28 mol/m^2/day, specifically, as a matter of routine optimization and experimentation, based on the type of plant being grown in the greenhouse or available sunlight, so as to improve plant growth and greenhouse efficiency, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3:
Kuang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the system is configured such that the combined shading by the plurality of PV panels and the net is directed to a target net house daily light integral of at least 24 mol/m^2/day suitable for cultivation and growth of premium crops, including lettuces and tomatoes (as best understood, given the panel placement on the roof above the plants, tiltability, and general variation of sunlight intensity, direction, hours, etc. based on season and location, Kuang inherently provides the structure needed to meet this functional limitation, in that, without additional structure, Kuang may provide, with the net, a combined shading that results in a DLI of at least 24 mol/m^2/day).
Alternatively, Hinson teaches a similar greenhouse with tiltable sun tracking solar panels (abstract), wherein the panels are controllable via a controller to adjust the angle of the solar panels so as to provide a Daily Light Integral (DLI) in mol/m^2/day to the plants within the greenhouse, based on what is optimal for the growth of the plants therein (abstract; ¶0002; ¶0004).
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 specifically provided the panels of Kuang with the control structure of Hinson, for DLI-based control of the solar panel tilt, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Hinson, DLI is the most critical contributing factor in the growth of plants (¶0002), as such, controlling shading based on DLI would serve to improve plant growth and optimize available sunlight to the needs of the plant/environment (¶0003). Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided capability for directing solar panel operation to achieve a DLI of at least 24 mol/m^2/day, specifically, as a matter of routine optimization and experimentation, based on the type of plant being grown in the greenhouse or available sunlight, so as to improve plant growth and greenhouse efficiency, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuang and Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kuei (WO 2013131203 A1, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Kuei, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 8:
Kuang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kuang as modified fails to disclose that the system further comprises sprinklers within the net house for achieving cooling during warm periods.
Kuei discloses that it is known, and often necessary to use sprinklers in greenhouses (Pg. 2, ¶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 provided sprinklers within the net house of Kuang, 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.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuang and Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zha (CN 204157369 U), hereinafter referred to as Zha, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 10:
Kuang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kuang as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of PV panels are photovoltaic/thermal cogeneration flat panels (only the generation of electricity is disclosed), each panel comprising a photovoltaic (PV) module and a heat conducting sheet and pipe, wherein the PV module absorbs heat energy generated on the panel, and wherein each panel generates energy in the form of electricity and solar heat that is supplied to the indoor or vertical farming system.
Zha discloses a photovoltaic greenhouse (¶0002) wherein each PV panel is a photovoltaic/thermal cogeneration flat panel (¶0004; ¶0011; ¶0023), each comprising a PV module (PV cell 1.4, Fig 2) and a heat conducting sheet and pipe (heat absorbing plate 1.7 and heat exchange pipe 2, Fig 2), wherein the PV module absorbs heat energy generated on the panel, and wherein each panel generates energy in the form of electricity and solar heat that is supplied to the indoor or vertical farming system (¶0011; ¶0023).
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 specifically structured the panels of Kuang such that they were photovoltaic/thermal cogeneration panels, configured to collect and supply solar heat, as well as electricity, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Zha, photoelectric collection can only occur with about 15% of solar energy on the panels, while the remaining 85% is converted to heat and lost; providing panels that can collect this lost heat improves overall solar panel energy generation capability, and allows for heating of the greenhouse when temperatures drop low at night, whilst ensuring high conversion efficiency of the PV cells by reducing the heat of the PV cells themselves (¶0004-0005; ¶0011; ¶0023)
Regarding claim 12:
Kuang 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).
Kuang as modified 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 overall power generation capacity of the plurality of PV panels by cooling the plurality of PV panels.
Zha discloses a photovoltaic greenhouse (¶0002) wherein each PV panel is configured to absorb heat energy generated on the panel, thereby increasing overall power generation capacity of the panel by cooling the panel (¶0005; ¶0011; ¶0023).
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 specifically structured the panels of Kuang such that they were photovoltaic/thermal cogeneration panels, configured to collect and supply solar heat, as well as electricity, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Zha, photoelectric collection can only occur with about 15% of solar energy on the panels, while the remaining 85% is converted to heat and lost; providing panels that can collect this lost heat improves overall solar panel energy generation capability, and allows for heating of the greenhouse when temperatures drop low at night, whilst ensuring high conversion efficiency of the PV cells by reducing the heat of the PV cells themselves (¶0004-0005; ¶0011; ¶0023)
Regarding claim 13:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 12 above and Zha further discloses pipes and tanks (heat exchange pipe 2, solar collector, heating pipe 4, Fig 1), configured such that a portion of the heat energy generated on the plurality of PV panels is transported via the pipes and stored in the tanks to produce hot water for the indoor or vertical farming system (¶0011; claim 1; ¶0021; ¶0023).
Regarding claim 14:
Kuang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of PV panels generate energy in the form of electricity, wherein the electricity is supplied to the indoor or vertical farming system via the direct electrical connection to the one or more LED lamps.
Kuang 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 the solar heat to the indoor or vertical farming system.
Zha discloses a photovoltaic greenhouse (¶0002) where each PV panel generates energy, in the form of electricity and solar heat, and wherein the system further includes pipes configured for supplying the solar heat to the indoor or vertical farming system (heat exchange pipe 2 and heating pipe 4, Fig 1; ¶0011; claim 1).
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 specifically structured the panels of Kuang such that they were photovoltaic/thermal cogeneration panels, configured to collect and supply solar heat, as well as electricity, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Zha, photoelectric collection can only occur with about 15% of solar energy on the panels, while the remaining 85% is converted to heat and lost; providing panels that can collect this lost heat improves overall solar panel energy generation capability, and allows for heating of the greenhouse when temperatures drop low at night, whilst ensuring high conversion efficiency of the PV cells by reducing the heat of the PV cells themselves (¶0004-0005; ¶0011; ¶0023)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuang and Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Qian (CN 202217688 U), hereinafter referred to as Qian, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 11:
Kuang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kuang as modified fails to disclose wherein the plurality of PV panels comprise at least one layer of tempered glass, a PV module, a heat conducting sheet, a heat conducting pipe, an insulation layer, and an alloy frame, wherein the PV module, the heat conducting sheet, and the heat conducting pipe are integrated together in the same panel such that the panel simultaneously generates electricity via the PV module and collects solar heat via the heat conducting sheet and the heat conducting pipe.
Qian contemplates roof mounted PV panels (¶0002; ¶0005) which comprise at least one layer of tempered glass (ultra-white tempered glass 12, Fig 4), a PV module (solar cell 13, Fig 4), a heat conducting sheet (heat collection plate 21, Fig 4) a heat conducting pipe (pipe 22, Fig 4), an insulation layer (insulation material 23, Fig 4), and an alloy frame (aluminum alloy frame 11, Fig 4), wherein the PV module, the heat conducting sheet, and the heat conducting pipe are integrated together in the same panel such that the panel simultaneously generates electricity via the PV module and collects solar heat via the heat conducting sheet and the heat conducting pipe (¶0002; ¶0007; ¶0010; ¶0020).
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 the thermal cogeneration panels of Qian in place of those in Kuang, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Qian, panels which can both generate electricity through the photoelectric effect and collect heat are desirable, given they allows overall increased energy collection, and the photothermal aspect of the panel allows for the cooling of the solar cells, which improves photoelectric collection and increases panel lifespan (¶0005; ¶0007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims 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. Exceptions have been addressed below.
On page 8, the applicant argues that Lui fails to teach the one or more LED lamps having electrical specifications matching an output of the plurality of PV panels, given there is no teaching about voltage/current matching between the panels and LEDs.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lui teaches, in ¶0014, “the LED arrays are powered by the solar cell panels directly,” with the LEDs used to emit photons towards a growing pant when the sun is not available, such as during the night or cloudy days (¶0017). The examiner contends that, in order for the PV panels to power the LEDs as claimed, the one or more LED lamps would necessarily need to have electrical specifications matching an output of the plurality of PV panel. If the specifications did not complement eachother, then the prior art invention would not work as it is described to – e.g. the LEDs would not be able to be powered directly by the cells, or they would be overpowered and fry, etc. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., voltage/current matching) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Yehia (US 20220287249 A1) which also contemplates variation of solar panel angle/shading based on optimal DLI, and Zhang (TW M502096 U) which teaches a solar power facility over a net house.
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
Prosecution Insights