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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
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.
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, and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paton (GB 1576010 A) in view of Grotenfelt (WO 9305643 A1) and Thoma (US 20200375127 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Paton discloses a hydroponic system for cultivating a crop (figs 1 and 2; page 1, lines 11-46), comprising:
a guide (rails 10; figs 1 and 2) for guiding a plurality of carriers (runners 17; figs 1 and 2) in a predetermined area (fig 1 shows area of travel for carriers predetermined by length of guides);
wherein the guide (10) is configured to guide the carriers (17) in a first direction which extends from a first edge to a second edge of the area (page 2, lines 96-130);
wherein each carrier (17) is configured to carry at least three gutters in a side by side arrangement (carrier members 19; page 2, lines 16-18; figs 1 and 2);
wherein at least one of the at least three gutters (19) is removable (page 2, lines 101-106; gutters 19 are placed into carriers 17) from the carrier (17);
wherein each gutter comprises a channel in which a plurality of substrates of a plurality of crop units can be placed (figs 1 and 2 show that gutters 19 form channels which can facilitate the placing of substrates and crop units) is configured to contain a plurality of crop units of the crop (containers 24; figs 1 and 2; page 2, lines 44-46);
wherein the channel is configured to facilitate a flow of nutrient solution to the crop (figs 1 and 2 show that nutrient solution can flow along channels formed by gutters 19),
wherein the area comprises a first zone that is adjacent to the first edge and a second zone that is adjacent to the second edge (fig 1 shows first and second zones adjacent to edges of the area).
Paton, however, fails to specifically disclose a lid which covers the channel and comprises a plurality of openings arranged in the lid, wherein each opening of the plurality of openings comprises a flange which extends below a surface of the lid such that each opening forms a stop for a respective substrate of the plurality of substrates, and the lid closes the channel to reduce light reaching the substrates and the nutrient solution; and the hydroponic system comprises at a position of a transition from the first zone to the second zone, a gutter displacer for removing at least one gutter from each carrier, the plurality of carriers each have a length equal to the length of the gutters, and the carriers have an internal width which is substantially equal to a natural multiple of an external width of the gutters.
Thoma is in the field of plant cultivation and teaches and a lid which covers the channel and comprises a plurality of openings arranged in the lid, wherein each opening of the plurality of openings comprises a flange which extends below a surface of the lid such that each opening forms a stop for a respective substrate of the plurality of substrates (figs 1-3 show that tray 30 has openings 36 which extend from top surface of tray 30 to tray underside 32), and the lid closes the channel to reduce light reaching the substrates and the nutrient solution (figs 1-3 show that the lid of tray 30 is a cover to the channel configured to reduce light from passing through); and.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Paton to include a lid which covers the channel and comprises a plurality of openings arranged in the lid, wherein each opening of the plurality of openings comprises a flange which extends below a surface of the lid such that each opening forms a stop for a respective substrate of the plurality of substrate, and the lid closes the channel to reduce light reaching the substrates and the nutrient solution, as taught by the lid of Thoma. This would further support the plants, which would improve the overall function of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Grotenfelt is in the field of cultivation tracks and teaches the hydroponic system further comprising, at a position of a transition from the first zone to the second zone, a gutter displacer for removing at least one gutter from each carrier (transfer apparatus 5; fig 1 show groups of cultivation troughs 3 and rails 2 act as carriers to convey troughs along an area; page 5, lines 3-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Paton in view of Thoma such that the system comprises at the position of a transition from the first zone to the second zone gutter displacer for removing at least one gutter from each carrier, as taught by the gutter displacer of Grotenfelt. This would allow for the gutters to be removed vertically from the carrier guide system, which would give the user more control over the positioning of the gutters in the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have provided the device of Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt with plurality of carriers each having a length equal to the length of the gutters and the carriers with an internal width which is substantially equal to a natural multiple of an external width of the gutters in order to allow for more efficient conveyance of the gutters with minimal wasted space on the conveyors. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 2, Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt discloses the device of claim 1.
Paton discloses wherein the guide is further configured to gradually increase the distance between adjacent carriers in the first direction in each of the first zone and second zone (page 2, lines 122-130).
Regarding claim 4, Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the gutter displacer are configured to move the at least one removed gutter to a further carrier (Grotenfelt; figs 1 and 2 show transfer apparatus 5 can move cultivation trough 3 from track 2 to further track 2A through movement along transferring means 13, is configured to move removed gutter to different carrier; page 6, line 29-page 7, line 2).
Regarding claim 5, Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt discloses the device of claim 4, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches further comprising a supplier for supplying the further carrier at the position of the transition (Grotenfelt; engaging means 6; fig 1; page 6, lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 6, Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt discloses the device of claim 4, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein each carrier is further configured to carry at least one further carrier, wherein the at least further carrier is in each case removable from the respective carrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Paton in view of Grotenfelt and Thoma such that each carrier is further configured to carry at least one further carrier, wherein the at least further carrier is in each case removable from the respective carrier in order to improve the storage capabilities of the system as more than one carrier could be stored in the same footprint. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 7, Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt discloses the device of claim 5, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the guide is configured to guide the carriers from the first zone to the second zone (Paton; fig 1 shows rails 10 are configured to guide the carriers 17 through different zones in the area defined by the length of the rails 10).
Regarding claim 8, Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose that the carriers and the gutters have substantially the same length. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have provided the carrier pair of Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt with the same length as the gutters in order to further support and tailor to the specific shape of the gutters. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 9, Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the carriers have a length of at least 7 meters. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have provided the carrier pairs of Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt with a length of at least 7 meters in order to increase the number of crops that can be cultivated and conveyed by each carrier assembly. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 10, Paton in view of Grotenfelt and Thoma discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the carriers have an internal width which is substantially equal to a natural multiple of an external width of the gutters. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have provided the carrier pairs of Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt with an internal width that is substantially equal to a natural multiple of an external width of the gutters in order to allow for more efficient conveyance of the gutters with minimal wasted space on the conveyors. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 11, Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt discloses the device of claim 1,
Paton discloses wherein the carriers have a shape of an L-profile (fig 3 shows a carrier 17 forming an L-profile), that defines a stop for at least partially arresting gutters (fig 3 shows carrier 17 supporting gutters 19).
Regarding claim 12, Paton in view of Thoma and Grotenfelt discloses the device of claim 1.
Paton discloses wherein the gutters and/or the carriers are manufactured from plastic (page 2, lines 39-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 7 that “Applicant notes that none of the cited references discloses a hydroponic system for cultivating crops, as recited by claim 1. Paton and Grotenfelt disclose soil-based growing systems, while Thoma discloses a soil-less (aeroponic) growing system,” the Examiner maintains that Paton discloses a hydroponic system, as Paton makes no mention of a “soil” or “substrate.” Examiner further notes that Applicant has previously acknowledged this fact, for instance in the response filed 06/12/2025, where Applicant recognized that “Paton teaches a hydroponic system that relies on direct contact with a liquid nutrient solution.”
Regarding the argument on page 8 that “Applicant believes that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Paton's system to incorporate Thoma's lid because such a lid would prevent the sun from reaching the soil and roots of the plants contained in Paton's system. This, as discussed above, would result in the presence of the excess moisture at the roots, increasing the chance for root rot. See MPEP 2143.42.01.V. In view of the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Paton's system using Thoma to obtain all the elements of amended claim 1. Grotenfelt fails to remedy the deficiencies in Paton and Thoma and is cited in the office action merely for its disclosure of a gutter displacer,” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, obviousness has been established by combining or modifying the teachings of Paton and Thoma to produce the claimed invention, where the motivation to do so is found in Thoma, as the lid structure of Thoma provides the additional benefit of providing further support for the plants within the system. There is no evidence that providing the lid structure of Thoma would interfere with the operation of the system disclosed by Paton or render the device unsuitable for its intended purpose, as there is no evidence that root rot would be a concern of Paton, since Paton discloses a hydroponic system and makes no mention of a soil or substrate where root rot would occur.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Kratky, US 5385589 A, discusses a non-circulating hydroponic plant growing system.
Umpstead, US 20160135395 A1, discusses a modular hydroponic growing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642