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 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30 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.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 8, 11, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. When the term optionally is used it does not positively require the structural features it references since those features are merely voluntary. The term renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what applicant is intending to positively claim and what the clear boundaries of the claim are. Clarification and correction is requested.
Regarding claims 5, 8, 10, 14, the phrase "for example" (e.g.) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 20, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 8, “wind turbine.” The period does not belong here and it should be --wind turbine;--
Claim 20, line 2, “so as to be exposed the plants” should be --so as to expose the plants--
Claim 17, line 1, “claim 15” should be --claim 14--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0105373 to Byron et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Byron teaches a controlled environment agriculture system (Byron paragraph [0015]), wherein the system is modular (Byron Fig. 3 modular elements #306, #310, #312) and configured for retrofit location in a pre-existing building structure (Byron paragraph [0016], [0018] “indoor”).
Regarding Claims 2, 28 and 29, Byron teaches comprising one or more multi-modal farm modules, the or each multi-modal farm module comprising: an aquaculture module (Byron Fig. 3 #312); a plant production module (Byron Fig. 3 #306); a mushroom production module (Byron Fig. 3 #310); and a waste regeneration module (Byron Fig. 4 #422), wherein the aquaculture module, the plant production module, the mushroom production module and the waste regeneration module are coupled together or operatively associated to form a process loop whereby at least one output from the aquaculture module forms an input into the plant production module, at least one output from the plant production module forms an input into the mushroom production module, at least one output from the mushroom production module forms an input into the waste regeneration module, and at least output from the waste regeneration module forms an input into the aquaculture module (Byron Fig. 3 and 4, paragraph [0048] “recirculated”, [0044] “circulated”).
Regarding Claims 25 and 30, Byron as applied to claims 28 and 29 above teaches a building structure (Byron paragraph [0016], [0018] “indoor”) comprising the controlled environment agriculture system of claim 29, wherein optionally the building structure comprises or takes the form of a single or multi-story building structure. (The indefinite term “optionally” appears to not require the presence of a single or multi-story building structure, it is a voluntary choice and structural features are not positively claimed or required).
Regarding Claim 3, Byron teaches wherein the system is coupled to and configured to receive a feed water input (Byron paragraph [0015] water input; [0030] adding water), and wherein optionally the feed water input comprises or takes the form of rainwater
from a rainwater collection system (The indefinite term “optionally” appears to not require the presence of a rainwater collection system, it is a voluntary choice and structural features are not positively claimed or required).
Regarding Claim 5, Byron teaches wherein the system is coupled to and configured to receive an electrical power input (Byron paragraph [0017], [0015], [0026]) from an energy supply, and wherein optionally the energy supply comprises or takes the form of a renewable energy power generation module comprising: one or more photovoltaic panels; one or more solar thermal panels; one or more wind energy capture device, e.g. one or more wind turbine. one or more bio-gas unit (The indefinite term “optionally” appears to not require the presence of a renewable power generation, it is a voluntary choice and structural features are not positively claimed or required).
Regarding Claim 7, Byron teaches the aquaculture module comprises or takes the form of a recirculating aquaculture system (Byron paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 8, Byron teaches the aquaculture module comprises a filtration arrangement comprising one or more filters, and wherein at least one of the filters comprises or takes the form of a replaceable filter pack (Byron #406, #420, #428 are able to be replaced) and wherein optionally at least one of the filters comprises a filter media which comprises or takes the form of wood, e.g. waste wood, and/or straw (The indefinite term “optionally” appears to not require the presence of a wood filter, it is a voluntary choice and structural features are not positively claimed or required).
Regarding Claim 10, Byron teaches the aquaculture module is configured and/or operable to provide at least one of: a waste water output (Byron Fig. 4 #412, applicant doesn’t claim where it is output to), e.g. comprising fish waste from fish in the aquaculture module; and a warm air output.
Regarding Claim 11, Byron teaches the system comprises an air handling system (Byron paragraph [0015] air input, ventilation; [0028]), and wherein optionally the air handling system comprises or forms part of an air handling system of the building structure. (Indefinite term “optionally” does not positively require forming part of the air handling system of the building)
Regarding Claim 13, Byron teaches wherein the system comprises an air handling system (Byron paragraph [0015], [0028]), and wherein the air handling system is configured and/or operable to communicate the warm air output from the aquaculture module to the plant production module, the mushroom production module and/or the waste regeneration module (Byron Fig. 3 air can travel around the system).
Regarding Claim 14, Byron teaches a mineralization module (Byron paragraph [0031]-[0031] “doser”), wherein the mineralization module is configured and/or operable to output one or more of: gas for release into the plant production module; radiant heat; a liquid fertilizer (Byron paragraph [0031]-[0032] nutrients) for the plant production module; and a solid waste output, e.g. for the waste regeneration module.
Regarding Claim 15, Byron teaches the plant production module is configured and/or operable to provide at least one of: an oxygen output (Byron plants inherently give off oxygen), the oxygen output forming the at least output from the plant production module forming the input to the mushroom production module (Byron air is free to circulate to all the models and this is an input to the mushroom module, applicant doesn’t claim specific structure or conduit configurations); and an organic waste output, the organic waste output forming the at least output from the plant production module which forms the input to the waste regeneration module.
Regarding Claim 16, Byron teaches the system comprises an air handling system (Byron paragraph [0015] ventilation and [0031] air conditioner), and wherein the air handling system is configured and/or operable to communicate the oxygen output from the plant production module to the mushroom production module (Byron plant module #306 is able to circulate are around the whole module including mushroom #310, applicant doesn’t claim a structural conduit system).
Regarding Claim 17, Byron teaches the system comprises an air handling system (Byron teaches ventilation paragraph [0015]), and wherein the air handling system is configured and/or operable to communicate the oxygen output from the plant production module to the mineralization module (the oxygen from plants in #306 are capable of reaching the doser all within the same indoor structure).
Regarding Claim 18, Byron teaches the plant production module comprises a light arrangement (Byron Fig. 3 #304a/b), and wherein optionally the light arrangement comprises or form part of a lighting system of the building structure. (Indefinite nature of “optionally” does not require the features of the lighting system to be present).
Regarding Claim 20, Byron teaches the plant production module is arranged so as to be expose the plants to be grown to natural daylight.(Byron paragraph [0032] mimics sunlight spectrum i.e. natural light).
Regarding Claim 21, Byron teaches the mushroom production module (Byron paragraph [0017] and [0020]) is configured to output at least one of: a spent substrate output; and a gas output (Mushroom/fungi inherently output carbon dioxide gas).
Regarding Claim 24, Byron teaches the system comprises one or more further module coupled to the multi-modal module (Byron paragraphs [0015]-[0016] “Devices”), wherein the at least one of the one or more further modules optionally comprises or takes the form of a herb production module (Indefinite term “optionally” does not positively require the herb module but Byron teaches it paragraph [0015]).
Regarding Claims 27 and 32, Byron as applied to claim 28 above teaches a method of farming using the controlled environment agriculture system comprising: providing the controlled environment agriculture system (Byron paragraph [0015]; [0017]) and operating the controlled environment agriculture system to produce a fish output (Byron #312), a plant output (Byron #306) and a mushroom output (Byron #310 paragraph [0015], [0017], [0018]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0105373 to Byron et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0031893 to Bodlovich.
Regarding Claim 22, Byron is silent on the waste regeneration module comprises a composting arrangement, wherein the composting arrangement is configured and/or operable to output a compost output for supply to the plant production module. However, Bodlovich teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is know to provide a composting arrangement, wherein the composting arrangement is configured and/or operable to output a compost output for supply to the plant production module (Bodlovich oaragraph [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Byron with the teachings of Bodlovich before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to make plant food as taught by Bodlovich. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Bryon as modified, wherein optionally the composting arrangement comprises a vermi-compost arrangement, the vermi-compost arrangement configured and/or operable to produce an annelid output for supply to the aquaculture module (The indefinite term “optionally” does not positively require the structure of the vermi-compost, it is merely voluntary addition).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to controlled environmental modules that grow plants, fish, and/or mushrooms:
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0245569; U.S. Patent No. 9,456,689; PCT WO 2018/092142; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0037722; China Patent CN 113615645; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0183240.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
16 March 2026