Patent Application 18836770 - COMBINED NET HOUSE AND VERTICAL FARMING SYSTEM - Rejection

Patent Application 18836770 - COMBINED NET HOUSE AND VERTICAL FARMING SYSTEM

Title: COMBINED NET HOUSE AND VERTICAL FARMING SYSTEM

Application Information

• Invention Title: COMBINED NET HOUSE AND VERTICAL FARMING SYSTEM
• Application Number: 18836770
• Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2024-08-08T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2024-08-08T00:00:00.000Z
• Examiner Employee Number: 98247
• Art Unit: 3642
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 2098804🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered, unless cited by the examiner. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).

Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 
¶0025: “Fig 4 should read –Fig 4 (A-B)—or –Fig 4A and Fig 4B--
Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “a plurality of photovoltaic (PV)” should read –a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) panels—
Claim 2: “the PV panels” should read –the plurality of PV panels--, to maintain consistency in claim language.
Claim 5: “wherein the plurality of PV panels installed on” should read –wherein the plurality of PV panels are installed on--.
The listing in claim 11 should read –PV panels comprise layers of tempered glass, a PV module, a heat conducting sheet and heat conducting pipe, an insulation layer, and an alloy frame—or –PV panels comprise layers of tempered glass, a PV module, a heat conducting sheet, a pipe, an insulation layer, and an alloy frame—, depending on the applicant’s response to the 112 rejection over “heat conducting sheet and pipe” below. Essentially, the examiner requests that the applicant get rid of the term ‘in addition to’, and form the elements in a single listing, for ease of understanding.
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 1-14 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 net house", and “the indoor farming system”.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim only previously recites “a combined net house and indoor farming system,” which does not necessarily require that the combined net house and indoor farming system comprises a net house, and an indoor farming system. 
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the combination" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the shading " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Several claims use active verbiage often reserved for method claims, and appear to positively recite method steps. For example, claim 1 recites “the plurality of PV panels simultaneously shades the net house and supplies energy”, claim 12 recites “the plurality of PV panels possess a negative temperature effect and absorb energy,” claim 13 recites “heat energy is transported…stored,” claim 14 recites “panels generate energy…electricity and solar heat, which are supplied”. When both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus are claimed within the same claim, it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is constructed or when the apparatus is used; therefore, the claim has an indefinite scope. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II). Being that the claims are directed to an apparatus, as best understood, all such language will be treated as purely functional recitations or recitations of intended use (see MPEP 2173.05(g); MPEP 2114), as such, these limitations will only require that there exist structure with the ability to perform such functions/steps. The examiner suggests using language like “configured to”, “capable of”, etc., rather than active verbiage or method-language to improve the clarity of the claim. For example, --wherein the plurality of PV panels are configured to simultaneously shade the net house and supply energy to the indoor farming system--.
Claim 3 seems to be attempting to provide functionality to a method step, and it is generally unclear how this claim is limiting the structure of the invention. For examination purposes, the examiner will understand claim 3 as requiring that the combined net house and indoor farming system be configured for cultivation and growth of premium crops such as lettuces and tomatoes year-round. 
Regarding claim 3, 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).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the year" in line 3.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “round the year” will be understood as –year-round--.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the plurality of PV panels are directly connected to light emitting diode (LED) lights within the indoor farming system. Directly connected is understood as requiring connection without intervening elements. This being said, it is unclear how the applicant’s invention could include a direct connection between the light emitting diodes and the PV panels, given the PV panels are atop of the net house, and the LEDs are within the indoor farming system. It would appear that some sort of circuitry element – like a wire, cable, etc. would be required to connect the two elements, so as to pass through the distance of the net house roof. Overall, as such, it is unclear whether the applicant is defining ‘directly connected’ as something contrary to the well-known definition, perhaps requiring that the LEDs and panels simply be electrically connected. 
Claim 11 recites “PV panels comprise layers of tempered glass, a PV module, and a heat conducting sheet and pipe.” It is unclear whether the applicant is requiring that the pipe, like the sheet, be heat-conducting, or if the pipe is simply the last item in the list at hand, not necessarily heat-conducting. Further it is unclear whether the applicant is requiring multiple layers of tempered glass, or just that the panel requires layers, one of which is tempered glass.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.


(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (CN 107135844), hereinafter referred to as Hu, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above. 
Regarding claim 1: 
Hu discloses a combined net house and indoor farming system comprising: 
a net (insect net 6, Fig 1) covering the net house (see Fig 2) while allowing sunlight to pass through (functional language: capable of letting sunlight through, due to perforations/mesh like structure); and
a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) panels (left and right photovoltaic panels per Pg 4, ¶4); wherein the plurality of PV panels simultaneously shades the net house (functional language: capable of providing shade to the net house, given they are atop the net house; Pg 4, ¶4 – “shielding effect”) and supplies energy to the indoor farming system (functional language: capable of supplying energy per Pg 11, ¶2).

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 and 4-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 21057738) in view of Pade (US 20200296899), and Lin (CN 201766902), hereinafter referred to as Chen, Pade, and Lin, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above. 
Regarding claim 1: 
Chen discloses a combined net house and indoor farming system (title) comprising: 
A covered greenhouse (multi-span shed 1, Fig 2)
a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) panels (photovoltaic modules 2.4, Fig 2); wherein the plurality of PV panels shades the net house (functional language: capable of providing shade to the net house, given they are atop the net house) 
Although the title of Chen recites “insect-proof net type multi-span agricultural greenhouse based on flat single-axis tracking support,” which seems to imply, the greenhouse is covered by insect-proof netting, thereby being a net house, Chen fails to specifically disclose a net covering the net house while allowing sunlight to pass through. Further, Chen fails to specifically disclose that the photovoltaic panels are specifically configured to supply energy to the indoor farming system (only contemplates collection of energy from panels to supply to electrical grid).
Pade discloses a covered greenhouse, the covering being a net which covers the framing of the house, while allowing sunlight to pass through (¶0040: “insect screening; capable of allowing sunlight to pass through being that it is perforated).
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 greenhouse of Chen to specifically be covered by insect screening, as in Pade, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to fulfill the briefly contemplated ‘anti-insect’ functionality of Chen, preventing insects from being able to access and spread disease between plants housed in the greenhouse. Further, as disclosed in Pade, insect screening is one of several known variants of greenhouse covering, the selection between art recognized equivalents being well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. 
Lin discloses a greenhouse (greenhouse 1, Fig 4), with a plurality of photovoltaic panels (solar panel 21, Fig 4), the photovoltaic panels specifically configured to supply energy to the greenhouse for operations including lighting via lamps 5, and watering via sprinkler heads 3(¶0033).
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 Chen to have included lights, and sprinkler heads, the electricity for their function provided by the photovoltaic panels, as in Lin, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because per ¶0035 of Lin, doing so would promote growth of the plants in the greenhouse, and the use of the solar panel as the energy source would provide a closed, more environmental and efficient system. 

Regarding claim 4: 
Chen 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, due to the net perforated structure – an insect larger than the perforations would not be able to pass through).

Regarding claim 5: 
Chen 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 2).

Regarding claim 6: 
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and Lin further discloses wherein the plurality of PV panels are directly connected to light emitting diode (LED) lights within the indoor farming system (see Fig 2; ¶0033).

Regarding claim 7: 
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 6 above and Lin further discloses wherein the LED lights are grow lights (¶0035). 

Regarding claim 8: 
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and Lin further discloses wherein the system further comprises sprinklers within the net house for achieving cooling during warm periods (sprinkler heads 3, Fig 4). 

Regarding claim 9: 
Chen 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). 

Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Pade, and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Baker (WO 2019215460), hereinafter referred to as Baker, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above. 
Regarding claim 2: 
Chen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further, appears to show shading of less than 50% of the net house by the panels (see Fig 2 proportions). 
However, Chen fails to specifically disclose  wherein the plurality of PV panels 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 Chen, so that less than 50% of the net house is 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: 
Chen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the combination of the shading of the PV panels and the net enables cultivation and growth of premium crops such as lettuces and tomatoes round the year (functional language: structure met, thereby capable of fulfilling such a function).

Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Pade, and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Gordon (WO 2022061045), hereinafter referred to as Gordon, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above. 
Regarding claim 10: 
Chen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Chen 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 Chen 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 greenhouse, in order to provide optimal grow conditions (¶0027; ¶0116).

Regarding claim 12: 
Chen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of PV panels possess a negative temperature effect (the negative temperature effect, as best understood, is an inherent phenomenon that effects solar panel efficiency).
Chen fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of PV panels absorb heat energy generated on the plurality of PV panels, thereby increasing power generation capacity of the plurality of PV panels.
Gordon discloses a plurality of PV panels configured to absorb heat energy generated on the plurality of PV panels, 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 Chen to provide the system with solar thermal cogeneration/heat absorption functionality, for providing temperature control in the greenhouse, 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 greenhouse, in order to provide optimal grow conditions (¶0027; ¶0116).

Regarding claim 13: 
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 12 above and Gordon further discloses wherein a portion of the generated heat energy is transported via pipes and stored in tanks to produce hot water for the indoor farming system (¶00116).

Regarding claim 14: 
Chen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of PV panels generate energy. 
Chen as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of PV panels generate energy, in the form of electricity and solar heat, which are supplied 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 supply said energy to the indoor farming system (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 system of Chen such that the solar panels generate not only electricity, but also solar heat, and supply said quantities to the indoor farming system to provide lighting and temperature control. 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 Chen, Pade, and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sellier (KR 20120098643), hereinafter referred to as Sellier, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above. 
Regarding claim 11: 
Chen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Chen as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of PV panels comprise layers of tempered glass, a PV module, and a heat conducting sheet and pipe, in addition to an insulation layer and an alloy frame.
Sellier discloses a PV panel comprising layers 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 Chen 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).
Chen 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.


Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.  Yu (KR 20140143562 A), Kim (KR 101946209 B1), Lip (WO 2011014120 A2), Curtin (EP 2098804 A2), Hicham (WO 2019229056 A1), Hong (CN 110149979 A), and Bartelmuss (AT 511969 B1) exhibit similarities to the present invention.
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