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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The amendment filed on 07/20/2026 cancelled all claims determined by the examiner in the previous Office Action dated 02/18/2026 to have been directed to a non-elected invention. New claims 33-38 are considered by the examiner to be directed to Group I, which was elected by Applicant without traverse in the reply filed 02/14/2025.
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 33-38 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.
In re. claims 33-38, it is unclear what structure the applicant intends to positively claim since many limitations contain wording that can be read as merely intended use and do not provide further structural requirements. The preamble of claim 33 states a beam "for a growing system". The body of the claim however only appears to require the structure of the beam which is "to interact with the growing system". The "growing system" recited in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations and is not considered to be a required claim limitation. Similar functional language is found throughout the claims. The following are examples. In claim 33 "for distributing gases to a crop" does not positively require gas or crops or additional structure from a chamber which is further claimed to be “in communication with” a plurality of orifices however it is unclear where the orifices are located or what structure is required for “communication”. The orifices are further stated to be “arranged at an inclined plane” however it is unclear where they are arranged and how they are arranged at an inclined plane structurally and relation to what structure defines what constitutes the incline. In claim 34 "adapted to receive a vented screw" does not positively require a vented screw or define what structure is required for the orifice to be “adapted to”. In claim 37 "for supporting a lighting device" does not positively require a lighting device only a “lighting profile” which is structurally undefined and unclear how it relates structurally to the beam. In claim 38 "to be inserted" is intended use recitation which does not require the step of inserting and therefore is also not positively claiming assembly slots or adjacent beams and it is undefined what structure is required by an “assembly guide” and unclear how it relates structurally to the beam. The limitations of the claims that are positively claimed are left structurally undefined and lacking specific requirements, for example: "chambers", "orifices", "connector", "profile", and "channel" are structural limitations that are not given any further description, definition, specifics, or context and therefore said terms are being examined as best understood and read given their broadest reasonable definition.
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.
Claim(s) 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mears et al. (4,780,989).
In re. claim 33 as best understood, with reference to Figures 2 and 5 and col.9 line 59 to col.10 line 20, Mears et al. disclose a multifunction beam for a growing system, the beam comprising: a body having a profiled shape comprising a plurality of enclosed chambers and a plurality of slots or channels to interact with the growing system; wherein one of the plurality of chambers is a gas chamber in communication with a plurality of orifices for distributing gases to a crop, wherein the orifices could be considered to be arranged at an inclined plane. However, if not, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the position or placement of the orifices and the results of the modification would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In re. claim 34 as best understood, with reference to col. 10 lines 22-39, Mears et al. disclose each orifice is considered to be adapted to receive a vented screw.
In re. claim 35 as best understood, with reference to Figures 2 and 5 and col. 11 line 12-20, Mears et al. disclose one of the chambers is an irrigation chamber and wherein the irrigation chamber is considered to be in communication with a drainage channel disposed above the irrigation chamber via a plurality of drainage ports.
In re. claim 36 as best understood, with reference to Figures 2 and 5 and col. 11 line 12-20, Mears et al. disclose a drainage connector considered to be for collecting drained liquid via the irrigation chamber.
In re. claim 37 as best understood, with reference to Figures 2, 5, and 10 and col. 11 lines 35-64, Mears et al. disclose a lighting profile considered to be for supporting a lighting device.
In re. claim 38 as best understood, with reference to col.6 lines 7-20, Mears et al. disclose at least one assembly guide considered as capable to be inserted in corresponding assembly slots in an adjacent beam. However, the examiner notes that the limitation as written is only the intended use of the structure and requires no further structure as the limitations following “to be inserted” are read as an optional step that may take place in the future.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Examiner lists referenced documents on PTO-892 because the references present other/alternative or conceptual designs similar in scope that illustrate relevant features, which may demonstrate the level of novelty in comparison to Applicant’s inventive submission. The record relates to Applicant’s identified material and Examiner’s discovered references concerning Applicant’s subject matter relevant for a patentability determination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA L PERRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights