DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-12 and 21-24 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.
The term “readily adjustable” in claims 1 and 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “readily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the limitation of “the planting structure is readily adjustable” is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-12, 21, and 23-24 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-3, 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) and Cuello et al. (WO 2019/006019) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 3/29/21).
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 at least one lighting track, the at least one lighting track coupled with the at least one lighting element, the planting structure comprising a plurality of plant panels, the plant panels slideably coupled to the elongate body structure in a vertically stacked configuration, and wherein the distance between the lighting structure or the at least one lighting track and the planting structure is readily adjustable.
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.
Additionally, Cuello teaches a similar hydroponic assembly (“the crop production mode may be hydroponics,” Paragraph [0085]; Figure 1A) comprising: a lighting structure (lighting boards 146) including at least one lighting element (light sources 148) and at least one lighting track (top and bottom tracks 120, 130; Figures 1B, C, and 2), the at least one lighting track coupled with the at least one lighting element (Figures 1C and 2); wherein the distance between the lighting structure or the at least one lighting track and the planting structure (growing boards 142) is readily adjustable (Figures 1A-C, horizontal arrows shown in Figure 2; “the top and bottom tracks (120, 130) may also be slidably movable along the top and bottom rails (1 12, 1 16) in a second direction parallel to the top and bottom rails,” Paragraph [0083]).
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 bar lighting of Coffin, with the lighting on tracks as taught by Cuello, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for optimal lighting of the crops (Cuello Paragraph [0087]) and help prevent burning of the plant leaves, or not providing sufficient lighting.
Regarding Claim 2, Coffin as modified 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 3, Coffin as modified 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, Cuello teaches the assembly, wherein the plurality of wheels are movable along a track to adjust the location of the planting structure for use (“a sliding mechanism (160) may be disposed on each of the top track ends (122, 124) and each of the bottom track ends (132, 134). Non-limiting examples of the sliding mechanism include wheels, ball bearings, or sliding brackets. Without wishing to limit the invention to a particular theory or mechanism, the sliding mechanism (160) can allow for the top and bottom tracks to slidably move along the top and bottom rails,” Paragraph [0093]).
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 Cuello, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a smooth and stable movement of the grow towers.
Regarding Claim 7, Coffin as modified 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 as modified 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 as modified 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 as modified 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 as modified 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 at least one lighting track, the at least one lighting track coupled with the at least one lighting element; the planting structure comprising a plurality of plant panels, the plant panels slideably coupled to the elongate body structure in a vertically stacked configuration, wherein the distance between the lighting structure or the at least one lighting track and the planting structure is readily adjustable;
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.
Additionally, Cuello teaches a similar hydroponic assembly (“the crop production mode may be hydroponics,” Paragraph [0085]; Figure 1A) comprising: a lighting structure (lighting boards 146) including at least one lighting element (light sources 148) and at least one lighting track (top and bottom tracks 120, 130; Figures 1B, C, and 2), the at least one lighting track coupled with the at least one lighting element (Figures 1C and 2); wherein the distance between the lighting structure or the at least one lighting track and the planting structure (growing boards 142) is readily adjustable (Figures 1A-C, horizontal arrows shown in Figure 2; “the top and bottom tracks (120, 130) may also be slidably movable along the top and bottom rails (1 12, 1 16) in a second direction parallel to the top and bottom rails,” Paragraph [0083]).
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 bar lighting of Coffin, with the lighting on tracks as taught by Cuello, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for optimal lighting of the crops (Cuello Paragraph [0087]) and help prevent burning of the plant leaves, or not providing sufficient lighting.
Regarding Claim 23, Coffin as modified 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 as modified 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin in view of Tyink and Cuello as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Roeser et al. (US 20140165469) and Moffitt (US 2019/0082617 Al).
Regarding Claim 4, Coffin as modified 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 systems 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 and Cuello 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 as modified 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 as taught by Roeser, 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 and Cuello as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koumoudis (US 7788848 Bl).
Regarding Claim 6, Coffin as modified 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 and Cuello as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Klein et al. (US 20190269079 Al).
Regarding Claim 8, Coffin as modified 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 and Cuello 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 as modified 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 6/15/26 with respect to claims 1 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly added reference Cuello et al. (WO 2019/006019) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 3/29/21) in combination with previously used references, teach the amended claims, as discussed in the currently presented rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights