Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/922,273

MODULAR CONTROL-TYPE PLANT CULTIVATION DEVICE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 28, 2022
Examiner
DENNIS, KEVIN M
Art Unit
3647
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ag-Uni Co., LTD
OA Round
4 (Final)
34%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

34%
Career Allow Rate
64 granted / 186 resolved
Without
With
+48.9%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
47 pending
233
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§112
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 . Application Status Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are pending and have been examined in this application. Information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 05/03/2023 and 10/28/2022 and reviewed by the Examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 1-3 and 5-7 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. Claim 1 recites the phrase "the second fertilization pipe has a passage protection pipe surrounding an outside of the second fertilization pipe " in lines 39-40. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether the passage protection pipe is a separate structure from the pipe structure of the second fertilization pipe or if the passage protection pipe is the same structure as the pipe structure of the second fertilization pipe. Based on the Applicant’s Specification and Fig. 6, the passage protection pipe seems to be the same structure as the pipe structure of the second fertilization pipe. Therefore, it is unclear how the second fertilization pipe can also have a passage protection pipe which is surrounding an outside of the second fertilization pipe. Rather it seems from the Applicant’s Specification Page 30 lines 2-7, that the passage protection part surrounds the nutrient solution passage. This further supports the conclusion that the passage protection pipe and the second fertilization pipe are referencing the same pipe structure. Further clarification is required. Claim 1 recites the phrase “a plurality of openings” in line 42. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether or not the plurality of openings of the passage protection pipe is the same as the “second plurality of spray holes” in line 28 of claim 1. It seems that the aforementioned second plurality of spray holes and plurality of openings are referencing the same structure, based on the Applicant’s Fig. 6. This seems to be a double inclusion of the limitation. Further clarification is required. Similarly, it is unclear whether or not the recitation of “a plurality of spray holes” in line 4 of claim 5 is the same as the “first plurality of spray holes” and “second plurality of spray holes” in lines 24 and 28 of claim 1, respectively. This seems to be a double inclusion of the limitations. Further clarification is required. Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected based on their respective dependencies. Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-3 and 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Page 3 line 9 – Page 7 line 11, filed 03/06/2025, with respect to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-7 have been withdrawn. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of agricultural devices. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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. /KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647 /KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 30, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 15, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Oct 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 23, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 23, 2024
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 22, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 23, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 06, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12514236
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12490692
AUTONOMOUS ROBOTIC FOREST ROVER FOR AUTOMATED RESIN COLLECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12484560
MULTIPLE MODE ARTIFICIAL FISHING LURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12408636
FISH CAGE WITH IMPROVED WATER EXCHANGE AND FARMING CONDITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 09, 2025
Patent 12382956
ANTIMICROBIAL COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING PLANT DISEASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
34%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+48.9%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 186 resolved cases by this examiner