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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/25 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-11, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin et al. (US 11089741) in view of Tyink (US 2018/0064037) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 4/29/20).
Regarding Claim 1, Coffin discloses a hydroponic assembly (Fig 1-12) comprising:
a lighting structure including at least one lighting element (Col. 3 lines 29-67; lighting system may be arranged in vertical bar-like structure to emit light laterally to adjacent grow towers 50);
a planting structure (grow towers 50) comprising an elongate body structure (Figure 3A) and a plant panel (face 101 Figures 4A and 4B), the planting structure having an inner passage forming a root chamber (Figures 4A-D, Col. 6 lines 36-52; cavities 54a and 54b) and at least one inlet opening and at least one outlet opening for fluid flow through the root chamber (Figure 8, Col. 12 lines 23-44; funnel structure 902 supplies nutrient solution to grow towers 50 from irrigation line 802, Col. 13 lines 6-8; gutter collects excess water, implying the presence of an outlet) and the plant panel including at least one planting well opened to the root chamber (Figure 3B, Col. 6 lines 14-31; grow sites 53), wherein the inner passage is formed by at least a portion of the elongate body and the coupled plant panel (Figures 4A-D, Col. 6 lines 36-52; cavities 54a and 54b); and
at least one feeder line connectable to an irrigation source and the plurality of plant units to provide fluid flow to the root chambers through the inlet openings of the plurality of plant units (Figure 8, Col. 12 lines 8-67; irrigation line 802).
Coffin fails to disclose a planting structure comprising a plurality of plant panels, the plant panels slideably coupled to the elongate body structure in a vertically stacked configuration.
However, Tyink teaches a plant growing assembly comprising a planting structure comprising a plurality of plant panels (front side 24; Figure 5), the plant panels slideably coupled to the elongate body (panels 16; Figures 13 and 14) structure in a vertically stacked configuration (Figure 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plant panel of Coffin, to be slideably attached as taught by Tyink, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easy attachment or detachment from the planting structure for inserting/removing plants and/or maintenance, while also saving space for clearance while accessing the interior of the body, and to have modified the plant panel of Coffin to be multiple panels as taught by Tyink, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the number of plants being grown, increasing the overall efficiency of the system, as well as allowing the user to more easily swap out different plants or groups of plants within the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 1. Coffin further discloses the assembly wherein the planting structure is movably coupled to a support structure to adjust a location of the planting structure (Figure 5A, Col. 3 lines 28-48; grow towers 50 movably couples to grow line 202).
Coffin fails to disclose wherein the assembly includes a plurality of wheels coupled to the planting structure to adjust a location of the planting structure.
However, Tyink teaches a plant growing assembly wherein the assembly includes a plurality of wheels coupled to the planting structure to adjust a location of the planting structure (wheels 34 Figure 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the planting structure of Coffin, with the wheel assembly of Tyink, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide a smooth and stable movement of the grow towers.
Regarding Claim 7, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 1. Coffin as modified above further discloses the assembly wherein the plurality plant panels are removably coupled to the elongate body structure to form an enclosure for the root chamber (Figures 4A-D, Col. 6 lines 36-52; cavities 54a and 54b).
Regarding Claim 9, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 1. Coffin further discloses the assembly wherein the plant panel (101) is connected to the elongate body (body 103) structure to form an enclosure for the root chamber (Figure 4B).
Coffin fails to disclose the assembly, wherein the plurality of plant panel are removably connected to the elongate body structure through a tongue and groove connection.
However, Tyink teaches the assembly, wherein the plurality of plant panels (front face 24) are removably connected to the elongate body structure through a tongue and groove connection (Figures 13 and 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hinge connection of Coffin, to be a removable tongue and groove connection as taught by Tyink, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easy cleaning of the front face and inside of the plant units while also allowing for easy replacement of new front face panels and plants.
Regarding Claim 10, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 9. Coffin as modified above further discloses the assembly wherein the elongate body structure (body 103) is a U- shaped body structure having an opened face and the plurality of plant panels (plate 101) are removably coupled to opposed sides of the opened face of the U-shaped body structure to form a rectangular shaped plant unit and root chamber (Figure 4B).
Regarding Claim 11, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 1. Coffin further discloses a dispersion plate including a plurality of openings disposed in the root chambers of the plurality of plant units below the at least one feeder line to disperse fluid from the feeder line into the root chambers of the plurality of plant units (Fig 11B, Col. 12 lines 45-67; funnel 902 and collector 910 located below irrigation line 802 to disperse fluid to grow towers 50).
Regarding Claim 21, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 1.
Coffin fails to disclose the hydroponic assembly, wherein the plurality of plant panels are removable from the elongate body structure and wherein the plurality of plant panels are slideably coupled to the elongate body structure such that they slide down by gravity.
However, Tyink teaches a hydroponic assembly, wherein the plurality of plant panels are removable from the elongate body structure and wherein the plurality of plant panels (front side 24) are slideably coupled to the elongate body structure (panel 16; Figures 13 and 14) such that they slide down by gravity (the vertical orientation of the panel 16 inherently implies gravity has an effect of the sliding movement) and at least one of the plurality of plant panels stopping at a support structure (see Figures 15 and 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plant panel of Coffin, to be slideably attached as taught by Tyink, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easy attachment or detachment from the planting structure for inserting/removing plants and/or maintenance while also providing a secure connection resistant to outward pressure.
Regarding Claim 22, Coffin discloses a hydroponic assembly comprising:
a lighting structure including at least one lighting element (Col. 3 lines 29-67; lighting system may be arranged in vertical bar-like structure to emit light laterally to adjacent grow towers SO);
a planting structure (Figure 5A, Col. 3 lines 10-27; grow towers SO) comprising an elongate body structure and a plant panel (Figures 3A-B, 4B, Col. 6 lines 36-45; grow towers 50 are elongate structure with face plates 101), the planting structure having an inner passage forming a root chamber (Figures 4A-D, Col. 6 lines 36-52; cavities 54a and 54b) and at least one inlet opening and at least one outlet opening for fluid flow through the root chamber (Figures 8, Col. 12 lines 23-44; funnel structure 902 supplies nutrient solution to grow towers 50 from irrigation line 802, Col. 13 lines 6-8; gutter collects excess water, implying the presence of an outlet) and the plant panel including at least one planting well opened to the root chamber (Figure 3B, Col. 6 lines 14-31; grow sites 53);
a means for diffusing fluid flow to the root chamber (Figures 8, Col. 12 lines 23-44; funnel structure 902); and
at least one feeder line connectable to an irrigation source and the plurality of plant units to provide fluid flow to the root chambers through the inlet openings of the plurality of plant units (Figures 8, Co. 12 lines 8-67; irrigation line 802).
Coffin fails to disclose a planting structure comprising a plurality of plant panels, the plant panels slideably coupled to the elongate body structure in a vertically stacked configuration.
However, Tyink teaches a plant growing assembly comprising a planting structure comprising a plurality of plant panels (front side 24; Figure 5), the plant panels slideably coupled to the elongate body (panels 16; Figures 13 and 14) structure in a vertically stacked configuration (Figure 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plant panel of Coffin, to be slideably attached as taught by Tyink, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easy attachment or detachment from the planting structure for inserting/removing plants and/or maintenance while also providing a secure connection resistant to outward pressure, and to have modified the plant panel of Coffin to be multiple panels as taught by Tyink, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the number of plants being grown, increasing the overall efficiency of the system, as well as allowing the user to more easily swap out different plants or groups of plants within the system.
Regarding Claim 23, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the hydroponic assembly of Claim 22. Coffin further discloses wherein the means for diffusing fluid flow is a diffusion plate (Fig 11B, Col. 12 lines 45-67; funnel 902 and collector 910).
Regarding Claim 24, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the hydroponic assembly of Claim 23. Coffin further discloses wherein the diffusion plate further comprises a plurality of flow openings (Figure 11B, Col. 12 lines 45-67; passageways 912).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin in view of Tyink as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Roeser (US 2014/0165468 Al)
Regarding Claim 3, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 2.
Coffin fails to disclose the assembly, wherein the plurality of wheels are movable along a track to adjust the location of the planting structure for use.
However, Roeser teaches the assembly, wherein the plurality of wheels (roller assembly 154) are movable along a track to adjust the location of the planting structure for use (Figures 6-8, Paragraph [0055]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of Coffin, with the wheels movable along a track as taught by Roeser, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a smooth and stable movement of the grow towers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin in view of Tyink and Roeser as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Moffitt (US 2019/0082617 Al).
Regarding Claim 4, Coffin in view of Tyink and Roeser teaches the assembly of Claim 4.
Coffin fails to disclose the assembly, further comprising a drive mechanism operable through an input device to rotate at least one of the plurality of wheels to move the wheels along the track to adjust the location of the planting structure.
However, Roeser further teaches the wheel assembly comprising a drive mechanism to rotate at least one of the plurality of wheels to move the wheels along the track to adjust the location of the planting structure (Figures 6-8, Paragraph [0055]; an automated transport mechanism could be utilized to move panels).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the hydroponic assembly of Coffin, with the drive mechanism of Roeser, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to more easily and efficiently move the growing and lighting boards by automating the movement.
Additionally, Moffitt teaches a hydroponic plant system wherein an input device is utilized to send information and instruction to the plant system to activate certain components (Paragraphs [0049]-[0051]; control unit 1060 with controllers, Paragraphs [0074]-[0076]; computer system 1400 that receive input from a remote external device).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the hydroponic assembly of Coffin, with the input device taught by Moffitt, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the ability to remotely control the movement of the planting structures increasing convenience to the user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin in view of Tyink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roeser (US 2014/0165468 Al) and Akagi (US 4965962 A).
Regarding Claim 5, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 1.
Coffin fails to disclose the assembly, wherein the at least one feeder line is formed of a flexible tubing including a plurality of openings through an outer wall of the flexible tubing and the flexible tubing is coupled to each of the plurality of plant units of the planting structure in series.
However, Roeser further teaches wherein the at least one feeder line including a plurality of openings through an outer wall of the tubing and the tubing is coupled to each of the plurality of plant units of the planting structure in series (Figures 6-8, Paragraphs [0057]; water feed line 158 connects to water lines 158 discharges water through openings within supports 150 to provide water to panels 134a-d, panels and water lines are in series).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the hydroponic assembly of Coffin with the feeder line including a plurality of openings along the tubing, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to properly supply water and nutrients to all plants across the length of the tubing.
Additionally, Akagi teaches a hydroponic plant system wherein the feeder line is disposed at the top of the plant system and is formed of flexible tubing (Figures 8-9, Col. 7 lines 34-40; flexible hose 153, disposed along top of the angle panel 141 to supply water to angle panels).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the hydroponic plant system taught by Coffin with the flexible tubing feeder line taught by Akagi, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to more easily manipulate the feed line to be directed in position to properly supply water to the plant structures.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin in view of Tyink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koumoudis (US 7788848 Bl).
Regarding Claim 6, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 1.
Coffin fails to disclose the assembly, wherein the plurality of plant units include a cradle structure including contoured supports sized to support the at least one feeder line along the top of the plurality of plant units.
However, Koumoudis teaches a hydroponic plant system wherein the plant units include a cradle structure including contoured supports sized to support the at least one feeder line along the top of the plurality of plant units (Figure 3, Col. 5 lines 43-51; integral irrigation slot 105 to support irrigation pipe 210).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the hydroponic plant system taught by Coffin with the irrigation slot taught by Koumoudis, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide sufficient support to the feed lines and to effectively hold the feed lines in place and allowing for water to flow consistently through them.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin in view of Tyink as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Klein et al. (US 20190269079 Al).
Regarding Claim 8, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 7.
Coffin fails to disclose the assembly, wherein the plurality of plant panels include water flow features along a back side of the plurality of plant panels.
However, Klein teaches a hydroponic plant structure wherein the tower cavity includes water flow features along the back wall of the tower (Figures 7-8, Paragraph [0039]; vertical ridges 811 on back wall of tower cavity).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydroponic assembly of Coffin with the flow features taught by Klein, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help control water/nutrient flow along the interior of the tower body (Klein: Paragraph [0039]).
Additionally, Coffin as modified above discloses the claimed invention except for the flow features being located on the back side of the front plant panel. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the flow feature ridges taught by Klein of the back side of the front plant panel instead of along the back wall, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the flow of water and nutrients closer to the location of the roots of the plants, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin in view of Tyink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roeser (US 20140165468 Al) and Ruggier et al. (US 20210185951 Al).
Regarding Claim 12, Coffin in view of Tyink teaches the assembly of Claim 1.
Coffin fails to disclose the assembly, further comprising a gutter coupled to the outlet openings of the plurality of plant units and comprising a blower or HVAC equipment coupled to the gutter to provide air flow to the root chambers of the plurality of plant units.
However, Roeser teaches a hydroponic plant system comprising a gutter coupled to the outlet openings of the plurality of plant units (Figures 6-7, Paragraph [0057]; gutters 162 coupled below the bottoms of panels 134a-d).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydroponic assembly of Coffin with the gutter taught by Roeser, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to catch any water and nutrients overflowing from the growing trays and to avoid it from spilling and being wasted.
Additionally, Ruggier teaches a hydroponic plant system wherein a blower or HVAC equipment may be coupled to a gutter to provide air flow to the root chambers of the plurality of plant units (Figures 1 and 6A, Paragraphs [0097]-[0098]; blower 44 to direct airflow to root chamber 14 indirectly coupled to gutter 52 which collects water flowing out of root chamber 14, Paragraph [0044], Figure 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the hydroponic assembly of Coffin with the blower of Ruggier, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide plant roots with a consistent air flow so as avoid the air inside the root chambers from getting too humid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument on pages 6-7 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, a new obviousness statement for modification has been added.
Applicant argues on page 7 of remarks that US Patent 10,701,875, which Coffin incorporates by reference to application 15/968,425, teaches away from the use of sliding panels since the allowance describes the criticality of the flared sidewall structure. The Office respectfully disagrees. The reasons for allowance provided by another examiner for application 15/968,425 do not state that the hinge is the critical concept. These quoted passages explicitly state that the critical concepts are “a double-sided hydroponic tower, each side comprising two flexible sidewalls which flare out when each respective front face is in an open position” and “a double-sided hydroponic tower, further comprising a V-shaped groove which runs the length and bridges the gap between the two columns.” Neither of these quoted passages mention a hinge, or any type of connection mechanism. Additionally, the criticality of the flared and flexible sidewalls does not teach away from a sliding panel, as a sliding panel could still function normally with walls that are flared away from one other. Additionally, the reference being used in the rejection above (Coffin et al. (US 11089741)) merely states “U.S. application Ser. No. 15/968,425 filed on May 1, 2018 which is incorporated by reference herein for all purposes…. U.S. application Ser. No. 15/968,425 discloses additional details regarding the construction and use of towers that may be used in embodiments of the invention.” The specification of Coffin is being considered in its whole, where there are other embodiments that do not require a flared or flexible sidewalls, for example Figure 4A shows the sidewalls as perpendicular to one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642