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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/2/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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, 7, 47, 51, 54 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,164,537, cited in the previous office action) in view of Chen (CN 204340838 U).
For claim 1, Mariani et al. discloses a method of growing plants, comprising: positioning a plurality of plants into a plurality of trays (Col. 3, lines 40-42, Col. 6, lines 18-25 and Figs. 4-7: 80); loading the plurality of trays onto movable cart in a plurality of layers (Col. 3, lines 43-44, Col. 6, lines 51-53 and Figs. 6, 7: 100), and positioning the movable cart in a first space configured to store the plurality of plants during a first stage of growth (Col. 3, lines 34-36 and Fig. 1: 10); transporting the movable cart and the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays to a second space configured to store the plurality of plants during a second stage of growth (Col. 3, lines 44-46); and wherein positioning the movable cart and the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays within the cart receiving structure (Col. 7, lines 3-7).
Mariani et al. is silent about wherein the second space comprises a cart receiving structure including a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and an irrigation system accessible to the plurality of layers of trays; and applying LED exposure and irrigation to the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays during the second stage of growth. Chen teaches a method of growing plants (as discussed in the abstract), comprising: a cart receiving structure ([0001] and Fig. 1: transport vehicle 1) including a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0008], [0018] and Fig. 2: 6 “illuminating device is an LED lamp”) and an irrigation system (bottom of [0016] and [0020]: 11) accessible to the plurality of layers of trays; and applying LED exposure ([0018]) and irrigation ([0011]) to the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays during the second stage of growth ([0003]). 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 method of Mariani et al. to include a cart receiving structure as taught by Chen for the advantage of continuously growing the plants during transportation.
For clam 7, Mariani et al. as modified by Chen disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first space is a germination area (Mariani et al. Col. 5, lines 36-46) and the second area is a nursery area (Chen [0011]: “the carriage is provided with a control system, controlling the growing environment of vegetable and flower of the carriage, a simulated environment in the greenhouse, suitable for growth of vegetable and flower. the crop can also be continuously grown in transportation, and it does not need picking vegetables, such that people can eat fresh vegetable”).
For clam 47, Mariani et al. as modified by Chen disclose the method of claim 1, comprising transporting the movable cart and the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays to a third space configured to store the plurality of plants during a third stage of growth (Mariani et al. as discussed in the abstract: “retailer's stores” and Col. 8, lines 15-19).
For claim 51, Mariani et al. as modified by Chen disclose the invention substantially as claimed including further comprising unloading the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays from the movable cart (Mariani et al. Col. 7, lines 5-11 and Col. 8, lines 34-36), but fail to show further comprising arranging the plurality of plants in a plant density of four to eight plants per square foot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method Mariani et al. and Chen to include arranging the plurality of plants in a plant density of four to eight plants per square foot for the advantage of displaying the plants in a easily accessible manner as they grow from semi-finished to mature plants, since 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.
For claim 54, Mariani et al. discloses a system for growing plants, comprising: a movable cart (Col. 6, lines 54-56 and Figs. 6, 7: 100) configured to receive a plurality of plants in a plurality of layers of trays (Col. 3, lines 40-46) and to position said plants in a first space and a second space (Col. 6, lines 64-67); wherein the first space is configured to store the plurality of plants during a first stage of growth (Col. 3, lines 34-36 and Fig. 1: 10) and the second space is configured to store the plurality of plants during a second stage of growth (Col. 3, lines 44-46 and Fig. 8: 306); the second space comprises a cart receiving structure (Figs. 8-9: 306); and the movable cart and the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays are positionable within the cart receiving structure during the second stage of growth (Col. 7, lines 3-7).
Mariani et al. is silent about the cart receiving structure including a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and an irrigation system. Chen teaches a system for growing plants (as discussed in the abstract), comprising: a cart receiving structure ([0001] and Fig. 1: transport vehicle 1) including a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0008], [0018] and Fig. 2: 6 “illuminating device is an LED lamp”) and an irrigation system (bottom of [0016] and [0020]: 11). 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 system of Mariani et al. to include a cart receiving structure as taught by Chen for the advantage of growing the plants under controlled conditions during transportation.
For claim 55, Mariani et al. as modified by Chen discloses the system of claim 54, wherein the cart (Mariani et al. Figs 6, 7 and 9: 100) comprises shelves configured to store the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays (Mariani et al. Col. 3, lines 42-44).
Claims 9, 11 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,164,537, cited in the previous office action) in view of Chen (CN 204340838 U), as applied to claims 1 and 54 above, and further in view of Chapman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0183368).
For claims 9 and 11, Mariani et al. as modified by Chen disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to show wherein the LED exposure comprises the LEDs emitting light having a wavelength between 440 nm to 495 nm and light having a wavelength between 615 nm to 750 nm during the second stage of growth; and wherein the LED exposure comprises the LEDs emitting 10% to 30% blue light and 70% to 90% red light. Chapman teaches a method of providing illumination to plants in a greenhouse using LEDs ([0001]) comprising: wherein the LED exposure comprises the LEDs emitting light having a wavelength between 440 nm to 495 nm and light having a wavelength between 615 nm to 750 nm during the second stage of growth ([0030]), and wherein the LED exposure comprises the LEDs emitting 10% to 30% blue light and 70% to 90% red light ([0030] and [0031]: “Furthermore, the light in the green spectrum increases the tendency of the plant to propagate. In addition, by using light with the appropriate wavelength the blooming of the plants can be controlled. So by controlling the type of wavelength being emitted onto the plants, the way and the manner of the growing of the plant can be controlled.”). 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 method of Mariani et al. and Chen to include LEDs that emit a wavelength between 440 nm to 495 nm and a wavelength between 615 nm to 750 nm and wherein the LED exposure comprises 10% to 30% blue light and 70% to 90% red light as taught by Chapman for the advantage of providing LED grow lights to supplement natural light and provide specific wavelengths needed for optimal plant growth.
For claim 57, Mariani et al. as modified by Chen disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to show wherein the LEDs are capable of emitting wavelengths from about 440 nm to about 710 nm. Chapman teaches a system for growing plants comprising: a plurality of LEDs ([0001]) in a space configured to store a plurality of plants, wherein the LEDs are capable of emitting wavelengths from about 440 nm to about 710 nm ([0030]). 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 system of Mariani et al. and Chen to include LEDs that emit wavelengths from about 440 nm to about 710 nm as taught by Chapman for the advantage of providing LED grow lights to supplement natural light and provide specific wavelengths needed for optimal plant growth.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,164,537, cited in the previous office action) in view of Chen (CN 204340838 U) and Chapman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0183368, cited in the previous office action), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Capen et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0199470, cited in the previous office action).
For claims 12-14, Mariani et al., Chen and Chapman disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to show wherein the LED exposure further comprises 1% to 10% green light, wherein the LED exposure further comprises yellow and orange light, and wherein the LED exposure further comprises 1% to 10% white light. Capen et al. teaches a method of growing potted plants comprising: selectively exposing the potted plant to light emitting diodes (LEDs)([0085]), wherein the LED exposure comprises green ([0025]-[0026]), yellow ([0105]), orange ([0025]), and white ([0093]-[0094]). 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 method of Mariani et al., Chen, and Chapman to include LEDs that emit green, yellow, orange and white light as taught by Capen et al. for the advantage of providing LED grow lights specific to desired plant grow conditions.
While the reference fails to specify the percentage of green light and white light LED exposure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method Mariani et al., Chen, Chapman and Capen to include 1% to 10% green light and 1% to 10% white light for the advantage of providing LED grow lights to supplement natural light and provide specific wavelengths needed for optimal plant growth, since 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.
Claims 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,164,537) in view of Chen (CN 204340838 U), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reynoso et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,847,514).
For claims 43 and 45, Mariani et al. as modified by Chen disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to show comprising applying the LED exposure for a first period of time that is followed by a dark period during which the plurality of plants are not exposed to the LEDs or other light. Reynoso et al. teaches a method of growing plants comprising: applying the LED exposure for a first period of time that is followed by a dark period during which the plurality of plants are not exposed to the LEDs or other light (Col. 4, lines 4-32: “length of darkness in a 24-hour period”); and comprising exposing the plurality of plants to each the first period of time and the dark period once per day (Col. 4, lines 4-32: “Light maps may also vary from day-to-day. In one embodiment, a 24-hour light map remains constant for several days or weeks during a growth phase. Then the 24-hour light map is changed for a second growth phase. Light maps could also be adjusted incrementally each day, such as to evaluate the lengthening of daylight during the spring.”). 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 method of Mariani et al. and Chen to expose the herbs to the LEDs for a first period of time that is followed by a dark period during which the plurality of plants are not exposed to the LEDs or other light as taught by Reynoso et al. for the advantage of providing an LED cycle that corresponds to different growth phases of a the plant’s life.
For claims 44 and 46, Mariani et al., Chen, and Reynoso et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, including programming the LEDs, and adjusting the time period of LED exposure during a 24 hour period (Reynoso et al. Col. 5, lines 36-45, Col. 15, lines 10-20), but fail to show wherein the first period is between 12 hours and 23 hours and the dark period is between 1 hour and 12 hours, and comprising exposing the plurality of plants to each the first period of time and the dark period for between 2 days and 30 days. 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 method of Mariani et al., Chen, and Reynoso et al. to include LEDs that operate during the first period between 12 hours and 23 hours and the dark period between 1 hour and 12 hours, and comprising exposing the plurality of plants to each the first period of time and the dark period for between 2 days and 30 days for the advantage of providing LED grow lights specific to growth stages, since 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.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,164,537) in view of Chen (CN 204340838 U), as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of LV (CN 108770525 A).
For claim 53, Mariani et al. as modified by Chen disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to show wherein the third space is a greenhouse. LV teaches a method for growing plants (as discussed in the abstract) comprising: transporting a movable cart (Fig. 1: 4) to a third space (Fig. 1: 1) configured to store the plurality of plants during a third stage of growth; and wherein the third space is a greenhouse (Fig. 1 shows a movable cart 4 traveling between a plurality of greenhouses 1). 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 method of Mariani et al. and Chen to include growing plants between a plurality of greenhouses as taught by LV for the advantage of accommodating plants in different stages of growth.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,164,537) in view of Chen (CN 204340838 U), as applied to claim 54 above, and further in view of Helene et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0115958, as previously cited by Applicant un PTO 892 on 1/12/2024).
For claim 56, Mariani et al. as modified by Chen disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to show wherein the cart receiving structure comprises a stall including connectable members that are adjustably configurable. Helene et al. teaches a system for growing plants (as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a space (Figs. 1-10: container 200) configured to store a plurality of plants during a second stage of growth ([0032]-[0033]: interior 300); the second space comprises a cart receiving structure (Figs. 8-10: controllable environment chambers 310a-310b) including a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (Fig. 8 and [0061]: 814) and an irrigation system (Fig. 7 and 11A and [0053]: 700); wherein the cart receiving structure comprises a stall system (Figs. 3 and 8: a dividing wall 350 of each chamber 310a-310b) including connectable members ([0073]-[0074]: controllers 1102a, 1102b) that are adjustably configurable ([0073]-[0074]). 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 system of Mariani et al. and Chen to include the stall system as taught by Helene et al. for the advantage of selectively controlling areas within the second space for storage of plants in a second stage of growth.
Claims 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,164,537, cited in the previous office action) in view of Helene et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0115958, as previously cited by Applicant un PTO 892 on 1/12/2024).
For claim 58, Mariani et al. discloses a system for growing plants, comprising: a first space (Fig. 8: 10) configured to grow a plurality of plants during a first stage of growth (Col. 3, lines 34-36); a second space (Col. 6, lines 64-67) configured to store the plurality of plants during a second stage of growth (Col. 3, lines 44-46 and Fig. 8: 306); a plurality of movable carts (Col. 6, line 54-Col. 7, line 7 and Figs. 6, 7: 100) each is configured to receive the plurality of plants in a plurality of layers of trays and to position said plants in the first space and the second space.
Mariani et al. fails to show a plurality of cart receiving structures in the second space. Helene et al. teaches a system for growing plants (as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a second space ([0069] and Figs. 1-10: container 200 is able to receive and transport a plurality of racks as part of a multi-mode plant production system) configured to store a plurality of plants during a second stage of growth ([0032]-[0033]: interior 300); a plurality of cart receiving structures (Figs. 8-10: controllable environment chambers 310a-310b) in the second space, each of the cart receiving structures includes a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (Fig. 8 and [0061]: 814) and an irrigation system (Fig. 7 and 11A and [0053]: 700); and the movable cart and the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays are positionable within the cart receiving structure during the second stage of growth ([0035] and Figs. 3 and 8: a dividing wall 350 of each chamber 310a-310b which stores one or more rack systems 380). 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 system of Mariani et al. to include a plurality of cart receiving structures as taught by Helene et al. for the advantage of selectively controlling areas within the second space for storage of plants in a second stage of growth.
For claim 59, Mariani et al. as modified by Helene et al. discloses a conveyor belt underneath each rack system 380 for automated removal and replacement of the plurality of removable carts (Helene et al. [0069] and Figs. 8-10: controllable environment chambers 310a-310b), but fails to show wherein each of the plurality of cart receiving structures includes casters configured for transportation and reconfiguration of the plurality of movable carts and the plurality of cart receiving structures. 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 system of Mariani et al. and Helene et al. wherein each of the plurality of cart receiving structures includes casters for the advantage of easily moving and reconfiguring the plurality of movable carts and the plurality of cart receiving structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues “Additionally, Mariani is also silent about the moveable cart being “configured to … position said plants in a first space and a second space, wherein the first space is configured to store the plurality of plants during a first stage of growth and the second space is configured to store the plurality of plants during a second stage of growth.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument since the reference to Mariani discloses a moveable cart, which structurally is designed to transport, in this case plants, to desired locations. Mariani specifically discloses that plants are stored in a first space on the movable cart within the greenhouse (Fig. 8), and further on a truck (Fig. 8: 306), a second space, when transported.
Applicant further argues “Second, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office’s interpretation of Chen is incorrect and is inconsistent with Chen’s actual disclosure... Chen teaches “cabin floor is provided with the stereoscopic frame for placing insemination pot, described stereoscopic frame is fixed on base plate by anchor fitting, base plate in described compartment is also fixed with the bracing frame” (emphasis added) Chen, Abstract. Chen’s stereoscopic frame is not configured for “positioning the movable cart and the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays within the cart receiving structure during the second stage of growth.” In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Mariani shows a vehicle (Fig. 8: “306 carries plant racks loaded with spacer trays filled with plants”) used to transport plant racks. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reference to Chen, in the same field of endeavor which shows “a transport vehicle suitable for growing vegetable, flower and plant crop”, provides the advantage of growing the plants under controlled conditions during transportation. Chen shows a cart receiving structure ([0001] and Fig. 1: transport vehicle 1) including a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0008], [0018] and Fig. 2: 6 “illuminating device is an LED lamp”) and an irrigation system (bottom of [0016] and [0020]: 11).
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office’s interpretation of Helene is incorrect and is inconsistent with Helene’s actual disclosure. Helene teaches a container (200) and an interior (300) of the container (200) having a rack system (380) as shown in FIG. 3 of Helene…Helene’s rack system (380) does not teach a plurality of cart receiving structures in the second space, wherein “the movable cart and the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays are positionable within the cart receiving structure during the second stage of growth.” The examiner acknowledges the plurality of cart receiving structures are defined in the reference to Helene by the controllable environment chambers 310a-310b as shown in Figs. 8-10, such that and the movable cart and the plurality of plants in the plurality of layers of trays are positionable within the cart receiving structures, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM.
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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights