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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 states “wherein the first extender portion is configured to extend and retract to cause a distal end of the first finger to undergo lateral displacement; rotate to cause the distal end of the first finger to undergo radial displacement relative to a central axis of the end effector; or both;” and “wherein the second extender portion is configured to extend and retract to cause a distal end of the second finger to undergo lateral displacement; rotate to cause the distal end of the second finger to undergo radial displacement relative to a central axis of the one or more end effectors; or both.” The specification states “In some implementations, end effector 1402 further includes an extender portion 1410 configured to extend or retract distal ends of end effector fingers 1202” in Paragraph [0073]. There is no mention of the extender portions being able to cause the fingers to undergo later or radial displacement. The specification only teaches extension or retraction, but does not mention in what direction. Additionally, Figures 14 and 15 fail to show the extension or retraction of extender portions 1410, and therefore do not support lateral or radial displacement of the extenders.
Claim 8 states “wherein laterally extending the first and second fingers engages the first and second fingers with the first and the second separable cup portions respectively, and retracting the first and second fingers separates the first and second fingers from the two separable cup portions.” There is no support for this claim in the specification or the Figures. Paragraph [0073] in the specification describes the extender portion being able to extend and retract, however, there is no support for lateral extension, or for engaging and disengaging the cups due to the extender.
Claim 18 states “the first extender portion is configured to extend and retract the distal end of the first finger without requiring extension or retraction of the second finger by the second extender portion.” However, there is no mention in the specification describing the first extender’s ability to move the first finger independently of the second extender and finger. The specification only mentions the extender in Paragraph [0073], stating “end effector 1402 further includes an extender portion 1410 configured to extend or retract distal ends of end effector fingers 1202.” The figures only show the extender portions moving in syn in Figures 14 and 15.
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 1-4, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teasdale et al. (US 2024/0349658) in view of Moiddin et al. (US 2021/0015025) and Bruygom (NL 2000471).
Regarding Claim 1, Teasdale discloses a system for manipulating plant growth media (Abstract), the system comprising:
one or more end effectors (device 100), each of the one or more robotic end effectors including a first finger and a second finger (first finger 1510 and second finger 1520; Figure 8);
a plant cup (plantlet holder 1) that includes a first and a second partially separable cup portions (left side 103 and right side 104) with respective edges positioned adjacent but not engaged with each other at a seam when in a joined position (embodiment 1D shown in Figures 4 and 23) that retains the plant growth media in the plant cup (plantlet 2 and plug 3; Figures 5 and 23) and the respective edges are separated at the seam when the plant cup is in a separated position that releases the plant growth media from the two, separable cup portions (Figure 2B and 7), the plant cup being configured to:
i) separate at the seam between the respective edges of the first and the second separable cup portions when a first finger and a second finger among the respective fingers move relative to each other from the joined position to the separated position to release the plant growth media (“a releasing configuration wherein gripping portions of the first and second fingers are apart for releasing the handling portion of the plantlet holder.” Paragraph [0051]; Figure 7, 20, and 23) and, after releasing the plant growth media, be cleaned for reuse (the plant cup is “configured” to be cleaned for reuse) or
ii) be held in the joined position either when the first finger and the second finger are positioned relative to each other to hold the first and the second separable cup portions together (“wherein the gripper is actuatable between a gripping configuration wherein gripping portions of the first and second fingers are together for securing the handling portion of the plantlet holder,” Paragraph [0051]; Figures 6 and 26), or as a result of the plant cup being placed into a plant tray to retain the edges of the first and the second separable plant cup portions adjacent but not engaged with each other and retain the plant growth media in the plant cup (Figure 10) the joined position and the separated position of the plant cup based on a position of the first finger relative to the second finger (Paragraph [0051]);
wherein the plant tray (culture tray 4) is configured to apply static retention forces on the first and the second separable cup portions to retain the edges of the first and the second, separable cup portions adjacent each other but not engaged with each other in the joined position when the plant cup is positioned in the plant tray (Figure 10).
Teasdale fails to disclose one or more robotic end effectors configured to move along multiple, different axes, a first separable cup portion and a second separable cup portion, the plant cup further includes respective openings on each of the first and the second separable cup portions to receive respective first and second fingers of the end effector, wherein the first finger and the second finger of the robotic end effector are configured to engage the first and the second separable cup portions, respectively, and to apply opposing lateral forces on the respective cup portions, via contact at the respective openings, to move the cup portions away from each other and cause the plant cup to transition to the separated position.
However, Bruygom discloses a similar plant cup that includes a first separable cup portion and a second separable cup portion with respective edges positioned adjacent but not engaged with each other when in a joined position that retains the plant growth media in the plant cup (holder parts 21 and 22; Figure 2), the plant cup further includes respective openings on each of the first and the second separable cup portions to receive respective first and second fingers of the end effector (Figure 2 shows where 23 and 24 are received), wherein the first finger and the second finger of the robotic end effector are configured to engage the first and the second separable cup portions, respectively (Figure 2 shows where 23 and 24 are received), and to apply opposing lateral forces on the respective cup portions, via contact at the respective openings, to move the cup portions away from each other and cause the plant cup to transition to the separated position (arrows P1 and P2; Page 4 Paragraph 6 of translation).
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 cup of Teasdale, to be fully separable and have the fingers apply lateral forces via the openings as taught by Bruygom, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure all medium in the cup can easily be removed during separation, and to have provided the cup and fingers of Teasdale, with the openings as taught by Bruygom, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the end effectors are in the proper position in relation to the cup, to help prevent any spilling of the media or plant matter.
Additionally, Moiddin teaches a system for manipulating plant growth media (sapling 107; Figure 4B), the system comprising: one or more robotic end effectors (retrieval apparatus 200) configured to move along multiple, different axes (Figures 6A-6G), each of the one or more robotic end effectors including a respective finger (flexible arms 225).
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 end effectors of Teasdale, to be robotic and move in multiple axes as taught by Moiddin, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow greater control over the planting process, and help ensure no plant material is lost during transportation by the effectors.
Regarding Claim 2, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 1. Teasdale further discloses the system, wherein the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion are configured to release the plant growth media when separated at the seam in the separated position (Figure 7 Paragraph [0093]; Figure 20 Paragraph [0106]).
Regarding Claim 3, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 2.
Teasdale fails to disclose the system, wherein the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion are configured to be respectively held and moved, independently of each other, via the first and second openings by the first and second fingers of the one or more end effectors.
However, Bruygom teaches the system, wherein the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion are configured to be respectively held and moved, independently of each other, via the first and second openings by the first and second fingers of the one or more end effectors (“…two casing part-shaped holder parts 21, 22. These are pivotable around holder part axes 23, 24 in accordance with the arrows P1, P2.” Page 4 Paragraph 6 of translation).
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 cup of Teasdale, to be fully individually separable as taught by Bruygom, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure all medium in the cup can easily be removed during separation.
Regarding Claim 4, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 2. Teasdale further discloses the system, wherein the plant cup includes apertures on each of the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion to allow plant roots to traverse from the plant growth media to outside the plant cup (face apertures 1081 and base aperture 1083 Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 1. Teasdale further discloses the system, wherein the plant cup further includes multiple tabs on an upper portion of the plant cup (top 105 of body projects outwards; Figures 1-4), and wherein at least one of the tabs is located on each of the first and the second separable cup portions of the plant cup (Figures 1-4).
Regarding Claim 25, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 23. Teasdale further discloses the system, wherein the multiple tabs includes a first tab located on an upper portion of the first separable cup portion, and a second tab located on an upper portion of the second separable cup portion (top 105 of body projects outwards and is on each half; Figures 1-4), the first tab located opposite the second tab when the edges of the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion are positioned adjacent but not engaged with each other at the seam in the joined position (shown in annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 26, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 1. Teasdale further discloses wherein the first finger and the second finger are configured to retain the respective edges of the first and the second separable cup portions of the plant cup in the joined position when the plant cup is removed from the plant tray (Figures 8, 10, 12, and 22).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teasdale et al. (US 2024/0349658) in view of Moiddin et al. (US 2021/0015025) and Bruygom (NL 2000471) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Germaine (WO 8601975).
Regarding Claim 7, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Teasdale fails to disclose the system, wherein the extender portion includes a first extender portion and a second extender portion, and wherein: the first extender portion is located between the first finger and an axial portion, wherein the first extender portion is configured to extend and retract to cause a distal end of the first finger to undergo lateral displacement; rotate to cause the distal end of the first finger to undergo radial displacement relative to a central axis of the end effector; or both; and the second extender portion is located between the second finger and the axial portion opposite the first extender portion, wherein the second extender portion is configured to extend and retract to cause a distal end of the second finger to undergo lateral displacement; rotate to cause the distal end of the second finger to undergo radial displacement relative to a central axis of the one or more end effectors; or both.
However, Germaine teaches a similar system, The system of claim 1 wherein the extender portion includes a first extender portion and a second extender portion, and wherein: the first extender portion (left guide tube 17) is located between the first finger (left needle 16) and an axial portion (support 9 with channel 13 and bolts 12),
wherein the first extender portion is configured to extend and retract to cause a distal end of the first finger to undergo lateral displacement; rotate to cause the distal end of the first finger to undergo radial displacement relative to a central axis of the end effector; or both (“the length of the guide tube 17 is such that in the retracted position of the piston rod 15, l the free end of the needle 16 is slightly set back inside the tube 17.” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation; “In the vicinity of each end of the cross-member 9 is fixed a plate 11, the plates 11 being adjustable as to their mutual spacing and to their orientation. The fixing of the plates 11 on the cross-member 9 is carried out by means of bolts 12 passing through a hole 13 in the cross-member 9.” Page 3 Paragraph 5 of translation “The piston rod 15 of each cylinder 14 is extended by a needle 16 extending in the direction of movement of the piston rod 15” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation); and the second extender portion (right guide tube 17) is located between the second finger (right needle 16) and the axial portion (support 9 with channel 13 and bolts 12) opposite the first extender portion (Figure 1), wherein the second extender portion is configured to extend and retract to cause a distal end of the second finger to undergo lateral displacement; rotate to cause the distal end of the second finger to undergo radial displacement relative to a central axis of the one or more end effectors; or both (“the length of the guide tube 17 is such that in the retracted position of the piston rod 15, the free end of the needle 16 is slightly set back inside the tube 17.” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation) in a lateral, radial, or both direction that is from the first extender portion extending and retracting the first finger (Page 3, Paragraphs 5 and 6 of translation; Figure 1).
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 end effectors and fingers of Teasdale, with the extenders of Germaine, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the fingers to easily attach and withdraw from the plant (Germaine Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation).
Regarding Claim 8, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 7.
Teasdale fails to disclose the system, wherein laterally extending the first and second fingers engages the first and second fingers with the first and the second separable cup portions respectively, and retracting the first and second fingers separates the first and second fingers from the first and the second separable cup portions.
However, Germaine teaches the system, wherein laterally extending the first and second fingers engages the first and second fingers with the plant respectively (Figure 1), and retracting the first and second fingers separates the first and second fingers from the plant (“the two guide tubes 17 in which the needles 16 are withdrawn, serve as a stop to prevent the root ball or part of the root ball from remaining attached to a needle 16.” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation).
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 fingers of Teasdale, with the extenders of Germaine, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the fingers to easily attach and withdraw from the plant (Germaine Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teasdale et al. (US 2024/0349658) in view of Moiddin et al. (US 2021/0015025) and Bruygom (NL 2000471) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2020/0337249).
Regarding Claim 9, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Teasdale fails to disclose the system, wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to place the first and second fingers in the joined position or the separated position by rotation about a central axis, and wherein the first and second fingers are substantially parallel with the central axis.
However, Wu teaches a similar system wherein the end portion (pneumatic cylinder 102) is configured to place the first and second fingers (holding pieces 103) in the joined position or the separated position by rotation about a central axis (Figures 9A and 9B).
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 fingers of Teasdale, with the central axis of Wu, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the fingers separate fully to remove all media from the cup.
Additionally, 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 central axis of Wu, to be parallel to the fingers, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the fingers separate fully to remove all media from the cup, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 10, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 9. Teasdale further discloses the system, wherein as a distance between the first and second fingers increases around the central axis, inversion of each part of the first and the second separable cup portions increases so as to allow plant growth media of each part of the first and the second separable cup portions to fall away from each part of the separable plant cup via gravity (Figures 7 and 20).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teasdale et al. (US 2024/0349658) in view of Moiddin et al. (US 2021/0015025) and Bruygom (NL 2000471) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Visser (NL 9000803).
Regarding Claim 27, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Teasdale fails to disclose, the system, wherein the first opening is shaped with at least one flat surface to complement a flat surface of the first finger and prevent the first separable cup portion from rotating around the first finger, and wherein the second opening is shaped with at least one flat surface to complement a flat surface of the second finger and prevent the second separable cup portion from rotating around the second finger.
However, Bruygom teaches wherein the first opening is shaped to complement the first finger wherein the second opening is shaped to complement the second finger (Figure 2 shows where 23 and 24 are received).
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 fingers of Teasdale, with the openings of Bruygom, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the end effectors are in the proper position in relation to the cup, to help prevent any spilling of the media or plant matter.
Additionally, Visser teaches a robotic end effector and plant system the first opening (cavity 38) is shaped with at least one flat surface (Figure 7) to complement a flat surface of the first finger (finger 25, Figure 3) and wherein the second opening (cavity 38) is shaped with at least one flat surface (Figure 7) to complement a flat surface of the second finger (finger 25, Figure 3).
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 fingers of Teasdale, to be flat and fit into flat openings as taught by Visser, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help create a more evenly distributed clamping force, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claims 16-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teasdale et al. (US 2024/0349658) in view of Bruygom (NL 2000471) and Germaine (WO 8601975).
Regarding Claim 16, Teasdale discloses a robotic end effector assembly (Figure 15) and separable plant cup, the robotic end effector assembly configured to manipulate each part of the separable plant cup (Abstract; plantlet holder 1) that includes a first and a second, partially separable cup portions (left side 103 and right side 104) with respective edges positioned adjacent but not engaged with each other at a seam when in a joined position (embodiment 1D shown in Figures 4 and 23) that retains the plant growth media in the plant cup (plantlet 2 and plug 3; Figures 5 and 23), and the respective edges are separated at the seam when the plant cup is in a separated position that releases the plant growth media from the first and second partially separable cup portions (Figure 2B and 7), the robotic end effector assembly comprising:
a first finger and a second finger (first finger 1510 and second finger 1520) and
an axial portion having central axis and configured to place the first and second fingers in a first joined state or a second separation state, wherein the first separation state corresponds to each part of the separable plant cup being joined together at the seam in a joined position (“wherein the gripper is actuatable between a gripping configuration wherein gripping portions of the first and second fingers are together for securing the handling portion of the plantlet holder,” Paragraph [0051]; Figures 6 and 26) and the second separation state corresponds to each part of the separable plant cup being separated from each other in a separated position (“a releasing configuration wherein gripping portions of the first and second fingers are apart for releasing the handling portion of the plantlet holder.” Paragraph [0051]; Figures 7, 20, and 23), the joined position and the separated position at different location around the central axis (Figures 7, 20, and 23)
wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to
lift the separable plant cup from plant tray for harvesting (plant tray 4; Figure 10),
open the separable plant cup to release the plant growth media resulting in an empty plant cup (Figure 7),
facilitate cleaning of the empty plant cup prior to reuse (opening the cup as in Figure 7 “facilitates” cleaning),
and return the empty plant cup to the plant tray (Figure 10; The effectors are “configured to” do so; Paragraph [0156]) such that a position of the empty plant cup in the plant tray holds each part of the separable plant cup together by static retention forces applied on the separable plant cup portions that retain the edges of the separable cup portion adjacent but not engaged with each other in the joined position (Figures 1 and 10).
Teasdale fails to disclose the plant cup having a first separable cup portion and a second separable cup portion, the plant cup having a first opening and a second opening, the first finger and the second finger each configured to engage respectively with the first opening and the second opening of the separable plant cup; an extender portion configured to move the first finger and the second finger of the one or more end effectors between a retracted position and an extended position, wherein the one or more end effector are configured to move the first finger and the second finger along multiple, different axes from a retracted position in which the first finger and the second finger are disengaged with the first opening and second opening, respectively, to an extended position in which the first finger and the second finger are engaged with the first opening and the second opening, respectively; wherein the first finger and the second finger are configured to apply opposing lateral forces on the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion, respectively, via contact at the first opening and the second opening, to move the first and second separable cup portions away from each other and cause the plant cup to transition to the separated position, and wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to transplant a plant growth media from a germination subsystem to the separable plant cup by lifting the plant media from the germination subsystem and transplanting the plant media to the separable plant cup positioned within a plant tray.
However, Bruygom teaches a similar assembly comprising a plant cup that includes a first separable cup portion and a second separable cup portion with respective edges positioned adjacent but not engaged with each other when in a joined position that retains the plant growth media in the plant cup (holder parts 21 and 22; Figure 2), the plant cup having a first opening and a second opening, the plant cup having a first opening and a second opening, a first finger and a second finger that are each configured to engage respectively with the first opening and the second opening of the separable plant cup (Figure 2 shows where 23 and 24 are received); wherein the first finger and the second finger are configured to apply opposing lateral forces on the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion, respectively, via contact at the first opening and the second opening (Figure 2 shows where 23 and 24 are received), to move the first and second separable cup portions away from each other and cause the plant cup to transition to the separated position (arrows P1 and P2; Page 4 Paragraph 6 of translation), and wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to transplant a plant growth media from a germination subsystem to the separable plant cup by lifting the plant media from the germination subsystem and transplanting the plant media to the separable plant cup positioned within a plant tray (“The planting can, for example, take place in the open ground, in a greenhouse floor prepared for this purpose, in separate soil parts such as separately pots or divided soil segment” Page Paragraph 3 of translation, the end effectors are “configured” to do this).
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 cup of Teasdale, to be fully separable and have the fingers apply lateral forces via the openings as taught by Bruygom, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure all medium in the cup can easily be removed during separation, and to have provided the cup of Teasdale, with the openings of Bruygom, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the end effectors are in the proper position in relation to the cup, to help prevent any spilling of the media or plant matter.
Additionally, Germain teaches a similar system comprising an extender portion (guide tubes 17) configured to move the first finger (left needle 16) and the second finger (right needle 16) of the one or more end effectors between a retracted position and an extended position (“the length of the guide tube 17 is such that in the retracted position of the piston rod 15, l the free end of the needle 16 is slightly set back inside the tube 17.” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation), wherein the one or more end effector are configured to move the first finger and the second finger along multiple, different axes from a retracted position in which the first finger and the second finger are disengaged with the first opening and second opening, respectively, to an extended position in which the first finger and the second finger are engaged with the first opening and the second opening, respectively (“In the vicinity of each end of the cross-member 9 is fixed a plate 11, the plates 11 being adjustable as to their mutual spacing and to their orientation. The fixing of the plates 11 on the cross-member 9 is carried out by means of bolts 12 passing through a hole 13 in the cross-member 9.” Page 3 Paragraph 5 of translation “The piston rod 15 of each cylinder 14 is extended by a needle 16 extending in the direction of movement of the piston rod 15” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation);
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 fingers of Teasdale, with the extenders of Germaine, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the fingers to easily attach and withdraw from the plant (Germaine Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation).
Regarding Claim 17, Teasdale as modified teaches the robotic end effector assembly of claim 16.
Teasdale fails to disclose the robotic end effector assembly of claim 16, wherein the extender portion includes: a first extender portion between the first finger and the axial portion, wherein the first extender portion is configured to extend and retract a distal end of the first finger between a retracted position and an extended position, and wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to move the first finger along the multiple different axes; and a second extender portion between the second finger and the axial portion, wherein the second extender portion is configured to extend and retract a distal end of the second finger between a retracted position and an extended position, and wherein the end effectors are configured to move the second finger along the multiple different axes.
However, Germaine teaches a robotic end effector, wherein the extender portion includes: a first extender portion (left guide tube 17) between the first finger (left needle 16) and the axial portion (support 9 with channel 13), wherein the first extender portion is configured to extend and retract a distal end of the first finger between a first retracted position and an extended position, and wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to move the first finger along the multiple different axes (Page 3 Paragraphs 5 and 6 of translation; Figure 1); and a second extender portion (right guide tube 17) between the second finger (right needle 16) and the axial portion (support 9 with channel 13), wherein the second extender portion is configured to extend and retract a distal end of the second finger between a retracted position and an extended position, and wherein the end effectors are configured to move the second finger along the multiple different axes (Page 3 Paragraphs 5 and 6 of translation).
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 fingers of Teasdale, with the extenders of Germaine, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the fingers to easily attach and withdraw from the plant (Germaine Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation).
Regarding Claim 20, Teasdale as modified teaches the assembly of claim 16. Teasdale further discloses the assembly wherein as a distance between the first and second fingers increases around the central axis, inversion of each part of the separable plant cup increases so as to allow contents of each part of the separable plant cup to fall away from each part of the separable plant cup via gravity (Figures 7 and 20), wherein the contents include roots and remaining plant growth media, and the separable plant cup is configured such that the roots and remaining plant growth media are removable via inversion prior to reuse of the separable plant cup (Paragraph [0156]).
Regarding Claim 21, Teasdale discloses a system for manipulating plant growth media, the system comprising:
one or more end effectors (gripper 150), each of the one or more end effectors having a first finger and a second finger (first finger 1510 and second finger 1520);
a plant cup (plantlet holder 1) that includes a first and a second partially separable cup portions (left side 103 and right side 104) with respective edges positioned adjacent but not engaged with each other at a seam when the plant cup is in a joined (embodiment 1D shown in Figures 4 and 23, plantlet 2 and plug 3; Figures 5 and 23),
the plant cup configured to separate at the seam between the respective edges of the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion from a joined position to a separated position (“a releasing configuration wherein gripping portions of the first and second fingers are apart for releasing the handling portion of the plantlet holder.” Paragraph [0051]; Figure 7, 20, and 23);
a plant tray having a cavity and configured to apply static retention forces on the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion when the plant cup is placed in the cavity (plant tray 4; Figures 10 and 32).
Teasdale fails to disclose an extender portion that is configured to move the first finger and the second finger of the one or more end effectors between a retracted position and an extended position, and wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to move the first finger and the second finger along multiple different axes from a retracted position to an extended position, a first separable cup portion and a second separable cup portion the plant cup further includes a first opening to receive the first finger and a second opening to receive the second finger when the extender portion extends the first finger and the second finger, respectively, from the retracted position to the extended position, wherein the first finger and the second finger are configured to apply opposing lateral forces on the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion, respectively, via contact at the first opening and the second opening, to move the first and second separable cup portions away from each other and cause the plant cup to transition to the separated position.
However, Bruygom teaches a similar plant cup that includes a first separable cup portion and a second separable cup portion with respective edges positioned adjacent but not engaged with each other when the plant cup is in a joined position (holder parts 21 and 22; Figure 2), the plant cup further includes a first opening to receive the first finger and a second opening to receive the second finger (Figure 2 shows where 23 and 24 are received), wherein the first finger and the second finger are configured to apply opposing lateral forces on the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion, respectively, via contact at the first opening and the second opening (Figure 2 shows where 23 and 24 are received), to move the first and second separable cup portions away from each other and cause the plant cup to transition to the separated position (arrows P1 and P2; Page 4 Paragraph 6 of translation).
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 cup of Teasdale, to be fully separable and have the fingers apply lateral forces via the openings as taught by Bruygom, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure all medium in the cup can easily be removed during separation, and to have provided the cup of Teasdale, with the openings of Bruygom, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the end effectors are in the proper position in relation to the cup, to help prevent any spilling of the media or plant matter.
Additionally, Germaine teaches a similar system comprising an extender portion (guide tubes 17) that is configured to move the first finger (left needle 16) and the second finger (right needle 16) of the one or more end effector between a retracted position and an extended position (“the length of the guide tube 17 is such that in the retracted position of the piston rod 15, l the free end of the needle 16 is slightly set back inside the tube 17.” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation), and wherein the one or more end effectors are configured to move the first finger and the second finger along multiple different axes from a retracted position to an extended position (“In the vicinity of each end of the cross-member 9 is fixed a plate 11, the plates 11 being adjustable as to their mutual spacing and to their orientation. The fixing of the plates 11 on the cross-member 9 is carried out by means of bolts 12 passing through a hole 13 in the cross-member 9.” Page 3 Paragraph 5 of translation “The piston rod 15 of each cylinder 14 is extended by a needle 16 extending in the direction of movement of the piston rod 15” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation), when the extender portion extends the first finger and the second finger, respectively, from the retracted position to the extended position (Page 3 Paragraphs 5 and 6 of translation).
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 end effectors and fingers of Teasdale, with the extenders of Germaine, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the fingers to easily attach and withdraw from the plant (Germaine Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation).
Regarding Claim 22, Teasdale as modified teaches the system of claim 21. Teasdale further discloses the system, wherein the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion of the plant cup are further configured to separate at the seam between the respective edges of the first separable cup portion and the second separable cup portion along a lateral axis, a radial axis (Figures 7 and 20 show separation along a radial axis) or both a lateral and a radial axis.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teasdale et al. (US 2024/0349658) in view of Bruygom (NL 2000471) and Germaine (WO 8601975) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Alexander et al. (US 2022/0007590).
Regarding Claim 18, Teasdale as modified teaches the robotic end effector assembly of claim 17.
Teasdale fails to disclose the robotic end effector assembly, the first extender portion is configured to extend and retract the distal end of the first finger without requiring extension or retraction of the second finger by the second extender portion.
However, Alexander teaches a similar robotic end effector assembly, wherein the first extender portion is configured to extend and retract the distal end of the first finger without requiring extension or retraction of the second finger by the second extender portion (“an end effector 154 configured to engage plant cups 112 and supporting one or more optical sensors 152; and multiple independently-operable links and joints that couple between the base to the end effector 154 and that cooperate to navigate the end effector 154 across full lengths and widths of plant slots” Paragraph [0036]).
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 end effectors and fingers of Teasdale, with the independently maneuverable parts as taught by Alexander, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for greater control over the system, and help prevent any plant matter from spilling out of the plant cup.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teasdale et al. (US 2024/0349658) in view of Bruygom (NL 2000471) and Germaine (WO 8601975) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2020/0337249).
Regarding Claim 19, Teasdale as modified teaches the robotic end effector assembly of claim 16.
Teasdale fails to disclose the robotic end effector assembly, wherein the axial portion is configured to place the first and second fingers in the joined position or the separated position by rotation about the central axis, and wherein the first and second fingers are substantially parallel with the central axis.
However, Wu teaches a robotic end effector, wherein the axial portion (pneumatic cylinder 102) is configured to place the first and second fingers (holding pieces 103) in the joined position or the separated position by rotation about the central axis (Figures 9A and 9B) and wherein the first and second fingers are substantially parallel with the central axis.
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 fingers of Teasdale, with the central axis of Wu, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the fingers separate fully to remove all media from the cup.
Additionally, 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 central axis of Wu, to be parallel to the fingers, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the fingers separate fully to remove all media from the cup, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-12 that the specification and Figures have sufficient written description for the limitations in claims 7, 8, and 18 (see 112(a) rejection above). The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant states “Here, FIGS. 14 and 15, copied below, show that the first extender portion extends and retracts to cause the distal end of the first finger to undergo lateral displacement and that it can rotate to cause the distal end of the first finger to undergo radial displacement relative to a central axis.” However Applicant goes on to say that the circled portions of the Figures are the arms of the invention. The circled portions are not the extenders as claimed in claims 7 and 18. Claim 7 explicitly states that it is the extender, not the arm or the effector, that is configured to cause the fingers to undergo lateral and/or radial displacement. The extenders, shown in Figure 14 as reference number 1410, do not show that they are able to cause the fingers to undergo lateral and/or radial displacement. Reference number 1410, is nowhere near the circled portions in the remarks. Additionally, while the specification does have a clear description of the extenders being able to extend or retract in Paragraph [0073], there is no mention of this extension or retraction in any specific direction or axis.
Applicant argues on pages 14-15, and later on pages 18-20, that Teasdale in view of Bruygom fails to disclose “a first separable cup portion and a second separable cup portion with respective edges positioned adjacent but not engaged with each other at a seam when in a joined position…. Although Bruygom describes plant holders that can be separated, the context is insertion of plugs into soil using stabilizer members.” The Office respectfully disagrees. While Bruygom does mention the use of stabilizers, for example stabilizing plate 33, there is no discussion of how this fails to teach the above-mentioned limitation. Bruygom clearly shows the two cups adjacent but not engaged with one another in Figure 2, without the use of the stabilizing plate 33. Additionally, Teasdale teaches an embodiment in Figure 4 that shows that seams of the cup portions are adjacent but not engaged with one another, while Bruygom is merely teaching that the cups are fully separable, as discussed in the currently presented rejection above.
Applicant argues on page 15, and later on page 20, that the limitation of “the plant tray is configured to apply static retention forces on the first and the second separable cup portions to retain the edges...adjacent each other but not engaged with each other in the joined position when the plant cup is positioned in the plant tray” is not taught by the prior art. The Office respectfully disagrees. The language of “configured to” is met by the prior art so long as the required structure of the limitation is being met. Since Teasdale has a tray where the edges of the tray are in contact with the two portions of the separable cup, they would inherently be placing a force on the cup portions. Since this required structure is met, Teasdale teaches the entirety of the limitation.
Applicant argues on page 19 that “None of the cited art discloses or suggests this integrated life cycle of transplant, harvest, release, clean, reuse.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant only has claims directed towards apparatuses and does not have any method claims. Therefore so long as the structure of the claims are met, then the prior art teaches the claims.
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