US Patent Pending Pot - US20150096230

Hello All,

New here, but have been around the block many times.

So, would a published US patent application qualify as an advanced cultivation technique?

Seems folks don't take you seriously until the application publishes: US2015096230

If anyone has heard of using shoot-to-root temperature differentials to improve plant growth and quality; please let me know. I have a duty to the Patent Office to disclose any prior-art I'm aware of during application pendency. Better to know about relevant references a day before grant than a day after.

I contacted Ed Rosenthal soon after I filed and asked if he'd heard of using shoot-to-root temp diffs. He replied, "What are you talking about?". I explained a bit and sent a copy of the application as filed. Never heard back. That's a rather strong indication that my method is new and non-obvious to the community big-wigs.

So, if you've heard of using shoot-to-root temperature differentials to improve plant growth and quality; please let me know. Many thanks.

I hope everyone is well, take good care,

~Charles
SAINT Brand Cannabis

saint.brand.cannabis said:

Hello All,

New here, but have been around the block many times.

So, would a published US patent application qualify as an advanced cultivation technique?

Seems folks don't take you seriously until the application publishes: US2015096230

If anyone has heard of using shoot-to-root temperature differentials to improve plant growth and quality; please let me know. I have a duty to the Patent Office to disclose any prior-art I'm aware of during application pendency. Better to know about relevant references a day before grant than a day after.

I contacted Ed Rosenthal soon after I filed and asked if he'd heard of using shoot-to-root temp diffs. He replied, "What are you talking about?". I explained a bit and sent a copy of the application as filed. Never heard back. That's a rather strong indication that my method is new and non-obvious to the community big-wigs.

So, if you've heard of using shoot-to-root temperature differentials to improve plant growth and quality; please let me know. Many thanks.

I hope everyone is well, take good care,

~Charles
SAINT Brand Cannabis

Click to expand...

Correct me if im wrong but your speaking of the method of plant green matter being a different temp than its root system correct? Well as far as i understand people have used water chiller in hydroponics and soil chillers for many years...

Here's a paper on it from the 90's
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/2/211.full.pdf

Here's a paper on it from the 60's
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3/561.full.pdf

Here's ANOTHER paper on it specifically related to the effect on nitrogen fixation
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/39/4/561.full.pdf

Here's a contemporary website about it
http://rootzonetemperaturecontrol.com/GREENHOUSE_RESEARCH.html

Not sure that you're gonna be able to patent a rather standard gardening practice, and if you did I can't imagine it would be for any reason other than trying to bring patent trolling to another medium. Just my $0.02

I hope you didn't pay too much to submit that patent application.

personal lux said:

Correct me if im wrong but your speaking of the method of plant green matter being a different temp than its root system correct? Well as far as i understand people have used water chiller in hydroponics and soil chillers for many years...

Click to expand...

No, no. Not over all cooling, but providing a temp differential between shoot and root.

Ace Yonder said:

Here's a paper on it from the 90's
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/2/211.full.pdf

Here's a paper on it from the 60's
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3/561.full.pdf

Here's ANOTHER paper on it specifically related to the effect on nitrogen fixation
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/39/4/561.full.pdf

Here's a contemporary website about it

ServingSize1oz said:

I hope you didn't pay too much to submit that patent application.

Click to expand...

Not sure that you're gonna be able to patent a rather standard gardening practice, and if you did I can't imagine it would be for any reason other than trying to bring patent trolling to another medium. Just my $0.02

Click to expand...

Hello Ace,
Thanks for the citations. I'll take a look. "Nelson" is enclosed. None of those are invaliding citations, either alone or combined. But, best not to exam the app on here. Better left done by the Examiner. Hope you enjoy Nelson, which is not invalidating.
~Charles P.S. No troll.

Ace Yonder said:

Here's a paper on it from the 90's
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/2/211.full.pdf

Here's a paper on it from the 60's
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3/561.full.pdf

Here's ANOTHER paper on it specifically related to the effect on nitrogen fixation
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/39/4/561.full.pdf

Here's a contemporary website about it
http://rootzonetemperaturecontrol.com/GREENHOUSE_RESEARCH.html

Not sure that you're gonna be able to patent a rather standard gardening practice, and if you did I can't imagine it would be for any reason other than trying to bring patent trolling to another medium. Just my $0.02

Click to expand...

ServingSize1oz said:

I hope you didn't pay too much to submit that patent application.

Click to expand...

Micro-entity status.

saint.brand.cannabis said:

No, no. Not over all cooling, but providing a temp differential between shoot and root.

Click to expand...

Im not sure you have an understanding of what im saying...85 degrees is optimal with proper co2 for green matter growth, and 68 is proper for root temp condition. That is a differential in temps...please explain how your idea is different because i dont see the difference but would like to.

I agree with the 12 year old. How are you going to patent that? My root zone is 68 degrees and my room is 79. yes this is optimal for the roots. Yes they grow better. That is a fact . But it's not a secret . How are you going to patent that? And why would you want to?

Hi Lux and Patrick,

Good temps, 68 for ox solubility and 79 for photosynth and transportation, they will grow better for those reasons. But, you won't see ontogenic changes until the diff is a bit higher. Push your nutes down to say 55 deg F. Then you'll start seeing changes like in Nelson's "H/L" category.

On the patent side, purposefully utilizing differentials at various temp ranges during selected growth phases significantly impacts cannabis morphology. Utilizing shoot to root temp differentials brings a whole new dimension to cultivation - because the genus and species reacts so dramatically to the temp diff. I'm patenting a method to produce more product by using those differentials - which reduces cost and increases profit. Very advantageous and patentable.

I disagree on your novelty argument. CO2 aug, nute solution mixtures, flush timing and amount, 24 hour lighting during veg, FIM, scrog, etc., all are public domain. But I have yet to see a single reference with all the elements of my claims. That would be the smoking gun.

Corporate cannabis is coming my dear friends. Tobacco fields are being plowed over in anticipation. In some States, Corp first or second harvest is on their way. Don't forget hemp, cannabis is a two sided coin. The method works great with hops as well, but the timing and temp is slightly different than with cannabis.

Patents are to stop infringing COMPANIES from selling apparatus to practice the method, and cannabis producing COMPANIES from infringing the method to increase yields and quality - without fairly compensating the owner. If they benefit from using, or having others use, the method; then I should be fairly compensated. Reasonable non-exclusive licensing is almost always negotiable. I want using shoot-to-root temp diffs to become extremely popular. Who knows where it may lead.

Now if some "Conglomo" rips off the method and makes a $100 million more a month than they would have not using the method - and they won't stop - then what's my recourse? Unless I have a few broad and strong granted patents, I wouldn't be able to stop them. Patents at least give me a fighting chance. Far from being a troll I would hope.

I'm a garage inventor, in this case it was in the shower. At least now I have room to grow.

~Charles

P.S. Has anyone actually read my app and/or Nelson yet?

saint.brand.cannabis said:

P.S. Has anyone actually read my app and/or Nelson yet?

Click to expand...

No, but that's because I don't open attachments even if I'm pretty sure there's no virus. If you copy and paste the text I would be more than happy to review it.

saint.brand.cannabis said:

Hi Lux and Patrick,

Good temps, 68 for ox solubility and 79 for photosynth and transportation, they will grow better for those reasons. But, you won't see ontogenic changes until the diff is a bit higher. Push your nutes down to say 55 deg F. Then you'll start seeing changes like in Nelson's "H/L" category.

On the patent side, purposefully utilizing differentials at various temp ranges during selected growth phases significantly impacts cannabis morphology. Utilizing shoot to root temp differentials brings a whole new dimension to cultivation - because the genus and species reacts so dramatically to the temp diff. I'm patenting a method to produce more product by using those differentials - which reduces cost and increases profit. Very advantageous and patentable.

I disagree on your novelty argument. CO2 aug, nute solution mixtures, flush timing and amount, 24 hour lighting during veg, FIM, scrog, etc., all are public domain. But I have yet to see a single reference with all the elements of my claims. That would be the smoking gun.

Corporate cannabis is coming my dear friends. Tobacco fields are being plowed over in anticipation. In some States, Corp first or second harvest is on their way. Don't forget hemp, cannabis is a two sided coin. The method works great with hops as well, but the timing and temp is slightly different than with cannabis.

Patents are to stop infringing COMPANIES from selling apparatus to practice the method, and cannabis producing COMPANIES from infringing the method to increase yields and quality - without fairly compensating the owner. If they benefit from using, or having others use, the method; then I should be fairly compensated. Reasonable non-exclusive licensing is almost always negotiable. I want using shoot-to-root temp diffs to become extremely popular. Who knows where it may lead.

Now if some "Conglomo" rips off the method and makes a $100 million more a month than they would have not using the method - and they won't stop - then what's my recourse? Unless I have a few broad and strong granted patents, I wouldn't be able to stop them. Patents at least give me a fighting chance. Far from being a troll I would hope.

I'm a garage inventor, in this case it was in the shower. At least now I have room to grow.

~Charles

Click to expand...

FWIW I think you would have a better shot at patenting a growbox that utilizes temp differentials than you will on trying to patent a technique. Also, if a "Conglomo" uses the idea and makes substantially more money, you're only entitled to some of that if YOU are where they got the idea. If they just happen to also be using a technique that you just happen to rushed to the patent office with first, but they didn't get the idea from you and you are still asking for money, that is the definition of patent trolling. You don't see Uncle Ben trying to sue anyone over their topping techniques, and you don't see Jorge Cervantes suing people over using h2o2 to wash mildew off their buds. Because they may have perfected the specifics, but those ideas, and yours, are built on too much communal knowledge to be patented. At least, that's MY view on it.

saint.brand.cannabis said:

Hi Lux and Patrick,

Good temps, 68 for ox solubility and 79 for photosynth and transportation, they will grow better for those reasons. But, you won't see ontogenic changes until the diff is a bit higher. Push your nutes down to say 55 deg F. Then you'll start seeing changes like in Nelson's "H/L" category.

On the patent side, purposefully utilizing differentials at various temp ranges during selected growth phases significantly impacts cannabis morphology. Utilizing shoot to root temp differentials brings a whole new dimension to cultivation - because the genus and species reacts so dramatically to the temp diff. I'm patenting a method to produce more product by using those differentials - which reduces cost and increases profit. Very advantageous and patentable.

I disagree on your novelty argument. CO2 aug, nute solution mixtures, flush timing and amount, 24 hour lighting during veg, FIM, scrog, etc., all are public domain. But I have yet to see a single reference with all the elements of my claims. That would be the smoking gun.

Corporate cannabis is coming my dear friends. Tobacco fields are being plowed over in anticipation. In some States, Corp first or second harvest is on their way. Don't forget hemp, cannabis is a two sided coin. The method works great with hops as well, but the timing and temp is slightly different than with cannabis.

Patents are to stop infringing COMPANIES from selling apparatus to practice the method, and cannabis producing COMPANIES from infringing the method to increase yields and quality - without fairly compensating the owner. If they benefit from using, or having others use, the method; then I should be fairly compensated. Reasonable non-exclusive licensing is almost always negotiable. I want using shoot-to-root temp diffs to become extremely popular. Who knows where it may lead.

Now if some "Conglomo" rips off the method and makes a $100 million more a month than they would have not using the method - and they won't stop - then what's my recourse? Unless I have a few broad and strong granted patents, I wouldn't be able to stop them. Patents at least give me a fighting chance. Far from being a troll I would hope.

I'm a garage inventor, in this case it was in the shower. At least now I have room to grow.

~Charles

P.S. Has anyone actually read my app and/or Nelson yet?

Click to expand...

I think you will have no success with this. Your claim is you want to patent a VAGUE method of temperature differentials....your not going ro get anywhere unless you come up with a state of the art machine that will do so. Thats just my opinion.

L

patrickkawi37 said:

I agree with the 12 year old. How are you going to patent that? My root zone is 68 degrees and my room is 79. yes this is optimal for the roots. Yes they grow better. That is a fact . But it's not a secret . How are you going to patent that? And why would you want to?

Click to expand...

love you <3

well first it's obvious you have no knowledge of the patent process, and two you cannot patent a method, idea or technique. I have been through the patent process both provisional and non provisional and own my own design patent as of 2009. unless you are designing some sort of grow box (haha sorry!) you will absolutely not get this patent (yes I read it!) as it's written. if your patent attorney thinks you can get this patent as written, then I say good luck, because you are about to take a long and expensive ride. so many people get fucked (real good!) by patent attorneys (some deserve it!). it's not surprising that Ed didn't respond, do you even grow bud? doesn't sound like it.

Sounds like all you did was document the fact the a temp differential between the roots and the growing tip is beneficial to plant growth, which is fairly common knowledge. I don't see how just proving it as a viable method can get you a patent. Seems like nothing new, just well documented.

Let's slow down a bit here folks:
____________________________________
@superjet: "well first it's obvious you have no knowledge of the patent process, and two you cannot patent a method, idea or technique."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent)

If we're going to talk law, let's talk law -
35 U.S. Code § 101 - Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S. Code § 102 - Conditions for patentability, novelty
a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or...
35 U.S. Code § 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
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.

I can chat case law as well, pick one or two; Bilski, Quanta, KSR, Ex Parte Lundgren (a fav of mine).

Bummer about your 2009 apps. Question, what did you want to design patent? Designs are for ornamental appearance. Not too much ornamental appearance in cultivating.
____________________________________
@ACE: Infringement has nothing to do with knowledge of the inventor or patent, rather with the practicing of the claims as taught. It makes no difference if someone infringes unknowingly or with willfulness - except you can get treble damages for willful infringement. Same as in crim law, ignorance of the law is no defense nor excuse.

Now, a commercializing inventor files apps to protect process or method of farming. If an alleged infringer (say Phillip-Morris) has prior-art to invalidate those granted claims - then they come forth, are heard, and the claims are invalidated. But, if they have no invalidating prior-art, and it's proven they infringe, then compensation and consideration is due.

So, unknowing infringement - compensatory damages from time of knowledge. Willful infringement - compensatory and treble damages. Every corporate infringer says. "I didn't know." to avoid 3X damages.
__________________________________
So, how about this? We let the Examiner examine the app. It would be rather dim of me to argue it here with you fine Gentlemen. Such would be discoverable if a granted pat is ever litigated. And litigating is best done in the courts, not in the forums.

Thanks for the citations. Hopefully, more will come along as more folks run across the posting.

~Charles

P.S. And in the pat biz, a troll is an Atty who approaches a non-commercializing patent holder to convince them to threaten lit against primarily a "barely" infringing corp infringer. A complaint is filed and the Atty tries to strike a deal to go away for... let's say $50 or $100K. Most corps will take it to avoid the suit. That's a troll.

Only a real douche would patent a process technique which is already widely known and used, only so they could sue to protect "thier" proprietary technique. You're a F'ing winner.
I bet you agree with companies owning the rights to food crops because they got a patent for it ..F that mentality.

Apple patents idea's and process's. So do other major companies.....
That doesn't make it right.
WeedFreak78 is right!!! "Monsatan" can suck my balls (Cartman's too)! They have destroyed the right of the farmer to "clean" some of his soy crop for replanting the next season. Even if you don't run Monsatan's GMO soy, it infects surrounding fields by pollination. The resulting soy crop is now covered under Monsatan's patents because it will now show their gene's......They have what you might call seed cops watching farmers and bringing suit's on them and the "cleaners" that used to come in to make clean seed stock from the farmers harvest.....

Now then. The point of the above statement is to say that Monsatan can afford to have "seed cops" report those "stealing" from them.....
My question is, How are you going to gain access to these indoor pot "farms" of major corporations to "see" if they are infringing on your patent (IF you succeed in getting it)????

BTW......If you write down the process and design on a post card and mail it to yourself........You have just copyrighted the material..The cancelled post card is now Federally accepted as a copyright of what is on it! ...That can hold your rights till you can secure a patent....Kinda cool eh?

Another person trying to get something for nothing. Gotta love this country sometimes. This particular idea is no better then conglomerates trying to control and charge for simple information an ideas. I suppose if you truly thought it was unique I can't blame Ya. Kinda doubt it though.