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
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 46, line 2, “system (10)” should be --system--
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) 28-30, 32-27, 39-42, 45-47, 49, 50-54 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 Claims 28, 29 and 30, Byron teaches multi-modal module for a controlled environment agriculture system in a building structure (Byron paragraph [0015] controlled environment; [0016], [0018] “greenhouse” and “indoor”), 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. 5 #422 and #428), 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"; [0013] “fluid is circulated through various receptacles in the planting device”; paragraph [0015] “one or more receptacles”, “each growing bed within the device may may grow a different type of plant species”, “grow different phenotypes”; shared characteristics pertaining to plumbing and structural connections arranged in almost any interconnected configuration; paragraph [0050] “drain into another receptacle”; Byron Fig. 3 shows aquaculture tank #312 with grow beds #310 and #306 above it for plants and mushrooms and that they are interconnected and drain via gravity into a lower units and recirculated after waste processing via filtration back up to the grow beds; these are structural claims and Byron satisfies the structural limitations of the claims and is capable of functioning/operating as claimed; the grow beds of Byron can be arranged in a “customized” order).
Regarding Claim 32, Byron as applied to claim 28 above teaches a method of farming using the controlled environment agriculture system of claim 28 comprising: providing the controlled environment agriculture system; and operating the controlled environment agriculture system to produce a fish output, a plant output and a mushroom output (Byron paragraph [0015] growing vegetables, mushrooms, fish).
Regarding Claim 33, Byron as applied to claim 18 above teaches wherein the aquaculture module comprises or takes the form of a recirculating aquaculture system (Byron paragraph [0048] “recirculated”; Fig. 5 in #434 and out #432) for producing a fish output.
Regarding Claims 34 and 35, Byron teaches wherein the aquaculture module is configured and/or operable to provide at least one of: a waste water output; and/or a warm air output (Byron biological waste from aquatic organisms/fish paragraph [0044], [0046] the claim does not specify where the water water output goes to, where it is outputted, Byron waste water is recirculated i.e. outputted to the grow beds)
Regarding Claim 36, Byron teaches wherein the aquaculture module comprises a filtration arrangement comprising one or more filters (Byron Fig. 5 #428 and #420; abstract).
Regarding Claim 37, Byron teaches at least one of the filters comprises or takes the form of a replaceable filter pack; and/or at least one of the filters comprises a filter media which comprises or takes the form of wood. (Byron “wood” is not required it is claimed as an alternative “or”; filter packs #420, #428 are capable of being replaced i.e. they are replacable).
Regarding Claim 39, Byron teaches wherein the plant production module is configured and/or operable to provide an oxygen output (Byron plants inherently give off oxygen), the oxygen output forming the at least one 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 of conduit configurations).
Regarding Claim 40, Byron teaches wherein the plant production module is configured and/or operable to provide an organic waste output, the organic waste output forming the at least one output from the plant production module which forms the input to the waste regeneration module (Byron Fig. 5 organic waste from #306 travels via #408 into waste regeneration module #422 and filter #428).
Regarding Claim 41, Byron teaches the plant production module comprises a light arrangement (Byron Fig. 3 #304a/304b).
Regarding Claim 42, Byron teaches the mushroom production module is configured to output at least one of: a spent substrate output; and/or a gas output (Byron teaches mushrooms in paragraph [0015] which inherently give off carbon dioxide as they grow i.e. gas output; spent substrate is claimed in the alternate and not required).
Regarding Claim 45, Byron as applied to claim 29 above teaches wherein the system is modular and configured for retrofit location in a pre-existing building structure (Byron Fig. 3 is “modular” since it can be customized to have as many desired grow beds, paragraph [0015]; teaches placement in a pre-existing building greenhouse/indoors).
Regarding Claim 46, Byron as applied to claim 29 above teaches wherein the system is coupled to and configured to receive a feed water input (Byron paragraph [0030] “adding water”).
Regarding Claim 47, Byron as applied to claim 29 above teaches wherein the system is coupled to and configured to receive an electrical power input from an energy supply (Byron #212).
Regarding Claim 49, Byron as applied to claim 29 above teaches wherein the system comprises an air handling system (Byron paragraph [0015] ventilation, paragraph [0031] air conditioner).
Regarding Claim 50, Byron teaches wherein the air handling system comprises or forms part of an air handling system of the building structure (Byron paragraph [0031] “air conditioner” satisfies the broad nature of the claim, it is in the building and thus satisfies “of the building”).
Regarding Claims 51 and 52, Byron as applied to claim 29 above teaches wherein the system further comprises a mineralisation module, the mineralisation module being configured and/or operable to output one or more of: gas for release into the plant production module; radiant heat; a liquid fertiliser for the plant production module; a solid waste output or the waste regeneration module (Byron fertilizer/solid waste paragraph [0028], [0032]).
Regarding Claim 53, Byron as applied to claim 29 above teaches wherein the plant production module is arranged so as to expose the plants to be grown to natural daylight (Byron paragraph [0032] mimics sunlight spectrum i.e. natural light).
Regarding Claim 54, Byron as applied to claim 29 above teaches wherein the system comprises one or more further module coupled to the multi-modal module, wherein at least one of the further modules comprises or takes the form of a herb production module (Byron teaches a plurality of receptacles and growing herbs in paragraph [0015]).
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) 38 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 China Patent CN 114057362 to Ma et al.
Regarding Claim 38, Byron is silent on teaching wherein the wood comprises or takes
the form of waste wood and/or straw. However, Ma teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to selected a straw filter in hydroponic/aquaponic applications (Ma English translation Beneficial effects section; Fig. 1 #7, claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Byron with the teachings of Ma before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to intercept leaves as taught by Ma. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known filter material for another to obtain predictable results and/or is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 43 and 44 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 PCT WO 2016/154360 to Grabell et al.
Regarding Claims 43 and 44, Byron teaches vermicompost (Byron paragraph [0003] worm excretions), but is silent on teaching wherein the waste regeneration
module comprises a composting arrangement, the composting arrangement being configured
and/or operable to output a compost output for supply to the plant production module; wherein 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. However, Gabrell teaches composting arrangement, the composting arrangement being configured and/or operable to output a compost output for supply to the plant production module; wherein 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 (Grabell paragraph [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Byron with the teachings of Grabell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide plant nutrients as taught by Grabell. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 48 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 China Patent CN 104221982 to Li et al.
Regarding Claim 48, Byron is silent on wherein 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; and/or one or more bio-gas unit. However, Li teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to source energy for multi-modal agriculture systems from solar and wind (Li Fig. 2 #73 and #72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Byron with the teachings of Li before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce pollution and as a green energy alternative. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known energy for another to obtain predictable results and/or merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that Byron Fig. 4 #422 and its contents satisfy the broad limitation of a waste regeneration module. Byron Fig. 4 contains a filter that cleans the waste water so that it can be recirculated back to the grow beds after passing through the aquaculture tank; thus, the waste water has been regenerated. Applicant doesn’t identify what type of waste. The waste water in Byron is regenerated by passing it through filters and replenishing nutrients and then pumping it back to the grow beds. Applicant doesn’t claim the structural components of the regeneration module. The claim just merely states a waste regeneration module without identifying the features of the module resulting in a very broad limitation that leaves room for many interpretations.
Byron satisfies the limitation of a pre-existing building structure because Byron teaches constructing the structure of Fig. 3 indoors and/or in a greenhouse which is a pre-existing building structure. In addition, this is an apparatus/system claim and the structure of Byron is “capable of” the claimed functional language for retrofit location in a pre-existing building. Byron merely requires indoor space which includes pre-existing buildings.
Byron satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitations and Byron as modified by Li, Ma, or Grabell are merely obvious modifications for one of ordinary skill in the art involving merely simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Li teaches motivation to reduce pollution by selecting a known alternative green energy source. Ma teaches the motivation to intercept leaves and Grabell teaches the known motivation to provide a natural means of providing plant nutrients.
Byron teaches growing aquatic organisms (fish), plants, mushrooms symbiotically where the grow beds can be customized to any order or any number and receive water and rain water down through the grow beds to the aquatic tank and the regenerated water is pumped back up to the grow beds. Output from the growing bed Byron #310 to receptacle Byron #312; Byron paragraphs [0059], [0015], [0013] support that the fluid in the system travels via gravity down to lower grow beds and back to the aquatic tank. The examiner maintains the Byron teaches and satisfies the limitations of the claimed process loop. Also, the oxygen released from the plants will reach the mushrooms and the carbon dioxide released from the mushrooms will reach other parts of the loop/system. The independent claim doesn’t even identify what the output and inputs are it does not have to be fluid, but could be gases released in the air or even food. Further illustrating the broad nature of the independent claim.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
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 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
15 September 2026
Prosecution Insights