.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 1-13 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.
In re. claim 1, it is unclear what structure is required. The only positively claimed structure are the modules which amounts to a vague placeholder for any known, structural equivalent. It is unclear how the system functions as there is no claimed structural connection between any structures. The wording “completely utilized” is completely undefined and the claim lacks any corresponding structure.
In claim 2, the term “occurs” reads as an action which causes the claim to read as a method step. It is also unclear what structure is required for this limitation to “occur”. And the reference to “single stage” is undefined.
In claim 6, the terms “receives” and “releases” describe an action which causes the claim to read as a method step. It is also unclear what structure is required for this limitation.
In claim 7, it is unclear whether the “dehumidifier” is meant to require a dehumidifier wheel or if the claim is referring to any structure comprising a dehumidifier.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 11, the terms “receives” and “releases” describe an action which causes the claim to read as a method step. It is also unclear what structure is required for this limitation.
In claim 12, the terms “extracted” and “released” describe an action which causes the claim to read as a method step. It is also unclear what structure is required for this limitation.
In claim 13, it is unclear how the system functions as no structure is positively claimed. The wording “completely utilized” is completely undefined and the claim lacks any corresponding structure. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The wording “carbon neutral” and “zero waste” lack specific definition and the claim lacks any corresponding structure.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (4,205,529).
In re. claim 1 as best understood, with reference to the abstract, Ko discloses a sustainable growing system for plants, comprising: an absorption module and an adsorption module for cooling and dehumidifying an atmosphere of the sustainable growing system respectively, wherein by-products or outputs of the absorption module and adsorption module are completely utilized, thereby enabling an optimized atmosphere inside the sustainable growing system.
In re. claim 2 as best understood, with reference to col.2 lines 3-22, Ko discloses the absorption module is an absorption chiller wherein absorption cooling occurs in a single stage.
In re. claim 3 as best understood, with reference to col.2 lines 3-22, Ko discloses the absorption chiller comprises a generator, a condenser, an evaporator and an absorber.
In re. claim 4 as best understood, with reference to col.2 lines 3-22, Ko discloses a refrigerant of the absorption chiller is a mix of lithium bromide and water.
In re. claim 5 as best understood, with reference to col.2 lines 3-22, Ko discloses the absorption chiller is in connection with a cooling tower.
In re. claims 6 and 11 as best understood, with reference to col.1 lines 25-41 and the abstract, Ko discloses the absorption module receives heat and / or electricity from photovoltaic (PV) modules as input and releases chilled water, which is used for cooling or conditioning the of the growing system, and wherein the adsorption module is also capable of receiving heat and / or electricity from photovoltaic (PV) modules as input and releases dehumidified air, which is used for dehumidifying the atmosphere of the growing system.
In re. claim 7 as best understood, with reference to col.1 lines 25-41 and the abstract, Ko appears to discloses the adsorption module comprises a desiccant wheel / dehumidifier and a heat transfer wheel. However if not, the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalent to substitute the components of the adsorption module with any known, suitable equivalent components, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
In re. claim 8 as best understood, Ko fails to explicitly disclose the desiccant wheel is made of a polymer-based material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device to be made from any known, suitable material including polymer based, 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.
In re. claims 9 and 10 as best understood, with refernece to col.4 line 64 to col.5 line 3k, Ko appears to disclose the desiccant wheel is a rotating wheel coated with a sorption agent on which moisture from the atmosphere deposits, wherein the sorption agent is a hygroscopic agent such as silica.
In re. claim 12 as best understood, with reference to col.2 lines 3-22, Ko discloses humidity extracted from the atmosphere of the growing system is capable of being released outwards instead of re-processing the same.
In re. claim 13 as best understood, with reference to col.1 lines 25-41 and the abstract, Ko appears to discloses the sustainable growing system is capable of being carbon neutral and results in zero waste of resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA L PERRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644