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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 48 and 49 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The inventions lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these inventions require the technical feature of a plurality of water collecting tanks, each said water collecting tank having a floor, an outer peripheral wall, a water port opening through said outer peripheral wall at a first height above said floor, and a drain opening through said outer peripheral wall at a second height above said first height, at least one photovoltaic plate comprising at least one photovoltaic cell configured to produce photovoltaic energy, and water port of each said water collecting tank in fluid communication with the water port of an adjacent said water collecting tank, each said water collecting tank retains water below said first height, water between said first height and said second height is distributed among said water collecting tanks in fluid communication, and water above said second height is discharged from said water collecting tank through said drain, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Ho (US 20200128768 A1) and Rubanenko et al. (US 20200008375 A1) hereinafter Rubanenko, as the inventions described in the listed prior art contain the technical feature of a plurality of water collecting tanks in fluid communication with drains and water ports.
Regarding the shared technology, Ho teaches a plurality of water collecting tanks, each said water collecting tank having a floor, an outer peripheral wall, a water port opening through said outer peripheral wall at a first height above said floor (first box 1, first through hole 12; Figs. 1 and 3), and the water port of each said water collecting tank in fluid communication with the water port of an adjacent said water collecting tank (Fig. 3), each said water collecting tank retains water below said first height, water between said first height and said second height is distributed among said water collecting tanks in fluid communication (Figs. 1-4),
Ho, however, fails to specifically disclose at least one photovoltaic plate comprising at least one photovoltaic cell configured to produce photovoltaic energy, and a drain opening through said outer peripheral wall at a second height above said first height, and water above said second height is discharged from said water collecting tank through said drain.
Hinson teaches at least one photovoltaic plate comprising at least one photovoltaic cell configured to produce photovoltaic energy (Figs. 1-3 show multiple solar panel assemblies 10 supported above and spanning multiple plant 13 assemblies)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ho to include at least one photovoltaic plate comprising at least one photovoltaic cell configured to produce photovoltaic energy, as taught by the arrayed agro-photovoltaic system of Hinson. This would allow for electricity generation and plant cultivation to occur in the same space, while providing shade to the plant modules in the system when applicable to improve plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Rubanenko teaches a drain opening through said outer peripheral wall at a second height above said first height, and water above said second height is discharged from said water collecting tank through said drain (water outlet 188; Fig. 2; ¶ 0038, lines 5-11, “After several, e.g., 3-4, applications of the nutrient solution, the solution level in the solution compartment 108 increases to the level of the water outlet 188 and is discharged through the water outlet and into a conduit [not shown] which is in fluid communication with the fluid supply conduit 181. Thus, the outlet 188 is advantageously positioned vertically above the inlet 182”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ho in view of Hinson to include a drain opening through said outer peripheral wall at a second height above said first height, and water above said second height is discharged from said water collecting tank through said drain, as taught by the drain configuration of Rubanenko. The location of the drain opening would allow for discharge of fluid above a certain level within the water collecting tank, which would result in improved fluid conveyance. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 48 and 49 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 37-42, 44, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 20200128768 A1) in view of Hinson (US 9509247 B1), and Rubanenko (US 20200008375 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Ho discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of water collecting tanks including a first, a second and a third water collecting tank, each said water collecting tank having a floor, an outer peripheral wall (first box 1; Figs. 1 and 3), a water port opening through said outer peripheral wall at a first height above said floor (first through hole 12; Fig. 1),
a plurality of growing trays, one said growing tray being detachably supported by each said water collecting tank, and each said growing tray having side walls along a periphery, a bottom surface, a growing bed for enabling the growth of one of plants or animals (second box 4; Figs. 1, 3, and 4), and a drainage port in said bottom surface draining into its said water collecting tank (second through holes 42; Fig. 1);
wherein the water port of each said water collecting tank is in fluid communication with the water port of an adjacent said water collecting tank, such that water in each said water collecting tank below said first height is retained therein, water between said first height and said second height is distributed among said water collecting tanks in fluid communication (Fig. 4), wherein said at least two growing trays abut one another along respective sides thereof (Fig. 3); and water is received in said spanned growing trays and drains through said drainage ports thereof into said water collecting tanks (Figs. 1-4);
wherein each said growing tray is removable from its said water collecting tank while said water collecting tank remains in fluid communication with said adjacent water collecting tank and retains water below said first height (Fig. 1);
Ho, however, fails to specifically disclose an agro-photovoltaic system and a drain opening through said outer peripheral wall at a second height above said first height; at least one photovoltaic plate comprising at least one photovoltaic cell configured to produce photovoltaic energy, said photovoltaic plate being supported above and spanning at least two of said growing trays; and water above said second height is discharged from said water collecting tank through said drain; wherein said at least two growing trays spanned by said photovoltaic plate abut one another along respective sides thereof so as to extend continuously beneath said photovoltaic plate, such that water flowing off said photovoltaic plate is received in said spanned growing trays and drains through said drainage ports thereof into said water collecting tanks; and wherein said photovoltaic plate is connectable to like photovoltaic plates to form a series circuit, a parallel circuit or series of any combination thereof.
Hinson is in the field of plant cultivation systems and teaches an agro-photovoltaic system at least one photovoltaic plate comprising at least one photovoltaic cell configured to produce photovoltaic energy, said photovoltaic plate being supported above and spanning at least two of said growing trays; wherein said at least two growing trays spanned by said photovoltaic plate abut one another along respective sides thereof so as to extend continuously beneath said photovoltaic plate (Figs. 1-3 show multiple solar panel assemblies 10 supported above and spanning multiple plant 13 assemblies), such that water flowing off said photovoltaic plate is received in said spanned growing trays and drains through said drainage ports thereof into said water collecting tanks (Figs. 1-3 show water can flow off of solar panel assemblies into water collection tanks of plant assemblies); and wherein said photovoltaic plate is connectable to like photovoltaic plates to form a series circuit, a parallel circuit or series of any combination thereof (abstract, lines 6-9, “The array is a photo-voltaic module to convert solar energy into electrical energy to power the greenhouse, other onsite devices, or to export excess energy to a local electrical grid”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ho to include an agro-photovoltaic system, at least one photovoltaic plate comprising at least one photovoltaic cell configured to produce photovoltaic energy, said photovoltaic plate being supported above and spanning at least two of said growing trays; wherein said at least two growing trays spanned by said photovoltaic plate abut one another along respective sides thereof so as to extend continuously beneath said photovoltaic plate, such that water flowing off said photovoltaic plate is received in said spanned growing trays and drains through said drainage ports thereof into said water collecting tanks; and wherein said photovoltaic plate is connectable to like photovoltaic plates to form a series circuit, a parallel circuit or series of any combination thereof, as taught by the arrayed agro-photovoltaic system of Hinson. This would allow for electricity generation and plant cultivation to occur in the same space, while providing shade to the plant modules in the system when applicable to improve plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Rubanenko is in the field of plant cultivation systems and teaches a drain opening through said outer peripheral wall at a second height above said first, and water above said second height is discharged from said water collecting tank through said drain (water outlet 188; Fig. 2; ¶ 0038, lines 5-11, “After several, e.g., 3-4, applications of the nutrient solution, the solution level in the solution compartment 108 increases to the level of the water outlet 188 and is discharged through the water outlet and into a conduit [not shown] which is in fluid communication with the fluid supply conduit 181. Thus, the outlet 188 is advantageously positioned vertically above the inlet 182”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ho in view of Hinson to include a drain opening through said outer peripheral wall at a second height above said first, and water above said second height is discharged from said water collecting tank through said drain, as taught by the drain configuration of Rubanenko. The location of the drain opening would allow for discharge of fluid above a certain level within the water collecting tank, which would result in improved fluid conveyance. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 38, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 37.
Ho discloses wherein each said growing tray has a polygonal periphery and abuts an adjacent said growing tray along a respective side of said polygonal periphery (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 39, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 38, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein each said growing tray has a hexagonal periphery and abuts six adjacent said growing trays.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko such that each said growing tray has a hexagonal periphery and abuts six adjacent said growing trays, in order to allow for fluid entrance from additional adjacent units, which would improve fluid conveyance in the system. Additionally, 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.
Regarding claim 40, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 37, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein said water port and said drain of each said water collecting tank are disposed in oppositely facing portions of said outer peripheral wall.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko such that said water port and said drain of each said water collecting tank are disposed in oppositely facing portions of said outer peripheral wall, in order to reduce interference between fluid flows. Additionally, 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 41, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 37, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein said photovoltaic plate is supported above and spans at least three of said growing trays (Hinson; Figs. 1-3 show multiple solar panel assemblies 10 supported above and spanning at least three plant beds of plant 13 assemblies).
Regarding claim 42, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 37.
Ho discloses wherein the water port of the first water collecting tank is connectable to a water line for receiving water into said first water collecting tank (¶ 0020, lines 6-8, “A connecting pipe 6 configured to connect to an external water source is connected to one of the first boxes 1 through the first through holes 12”).
Regarding claim 44, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 37.
Ho discloses wherein each said growing tray is received within said outer peripheral wall of its said water collecting tank so as to close an open upper end thereof (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 47, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 37, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein said drain of each said water collecting tank discharges externally of said water collecting tanks (Rubanenko; water outlet 188; Fig. 2 shows water outlet 188 discharges water externally of water collecting tank).
Claims 43 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 20200128768 A1) in view of Hinson (US 9509247 B1), and Rubanenko (US 20200008375 A1), as applied to claim 37, and further in view of Lee (KR 20140081651 A).
Regarding claim 43, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 37, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the bottom surface of each said growing tray is inclined toward said drainage port thereof, and said drainage port comprises a filter for preventing a majority of the growing bed from entering its said water collecting tank.
Lee is in the field of plant cultivation systems and teaches wherein the bottom surface of each said growing tray is inclined toward said drainage port thereof, and said drainage port comprises a filter for preventing a majority of the growing bed from entering its said water collecting tank (inclined bottom surface 110; Fig. 3; ¶ 0037, “Meanwhile, in this embodiment, the cover [138] is designed to cover the water tank [132] together with the drainage delay maze [134], and the portion corresponding to the water tank [132] is formed with a filter screen [138a] in the form of a relatively dense mesh that can block foreign substances from entering the water tank [132], thereby facilitating drainage cleaning work and preventing a situation where the drainage delay maze [134] is blocked by foreign substances and hindered from drainage”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko such that the bottom surface of each said growing tray is inclined toward said drainage port thereof, and said drainage port comprises a filter for preventing a majority of the growing bed from entering its said water collecting tank, as taught by the tray inclination and filter of Lee. The incline would improve drainage, and the filter would block foreign substances from entering the water tank, thereby facilitating drainage. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 46, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 37, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein each said growing tray is divided into a plurality of individual growing units, at least a portion of each said individual growing unit extending below said first height into water retained in its said water collecting tank, and each said individual growing unit having at least one hole admitting said retained water thereinto.
Lee teaches wherein each said growing tray is divided into a plurality of individual growing units, at least a portion of each said individual growing unit extending below said first height into water retained in its said water collecting tank, and each said individual growing unit having at least one hole admitting said retained water thereinto (Fig. 3 shows multiple pots 11 in a single tray, where the pots 10 extend below port 20 into water retained in its said water collecting tank).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko such that each said growing tray is divided into a plurality of individual growing units, at least a portion of each said individual growing unit extending below said first height into water retained in its said water collecting tank, and each said individual growing unit having at least one hole admitting said retained water thereinto, as taught by the tray and growing unit configuration of Lee. The multiple growing units in a single tray would further facilitate the growth of multiple plants within a single tray, and their extension into the water would improve water delivery to each plant. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 20200128768 A1) in view of Hinson (US 9509247 B1), and Rubanenko (US 20200008375 A1), as applied to claim 44, and further in view of Wolverton et al. (US 20030217507 A1), hereinafter Wolverton.
Regarding claim 45, Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko discloses the device of claim 44, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein each said water collecting tank further comprises an air hole disposed at an upper portion of said outer peripheral wall above said drain.
Wolverton is in the field of plant cultivation systems and teaches wherein each said water collecting tank further comprises an air hole disposed at an upper portion of said outer peripheral wall above said drain (water holes 7, air holes 8a; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ho in view of Hinson and Rubanenko such that each said water collecting tank further comprises an air hole disposed at an upper portion of said outer peripheral wall above said drain, as taught by the air holes of Wolverton. The air holes would promote air cleaning, which would improve the positive environmental impact of the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on pages 10 and 11 that “Rubanenko discloses no second container with which its connector could mate. The Office Action finds that outlet 188 with outlet connector 198 ‘is configured for receiving connection from a like water collecting tank in an overlapping engagement.’ Office Action, p. 6. Rubanenko discloses a single cultivation container 102. Its FIG. 3 is described as ‘a perspective, exploded view of an end portion of the container of FIG. 1 illustrating inlet and outlet ports and respective inlet conduit and outlet conduit adapters,’ that is, fittings on the end wall of that same container. Rubanenko, para. [0007]. Paragraph [0038] states that the solution discharged through the water outlet passes ‘into a conduit (not shown) which is in fluid communication with the fluid supply conduit 181’ so that it ‘can be recirculated.’ The outlet of Rubanenko returns liquid to the container it came from. The like water collecting tank on which the finding depends appears nowhere in the reference. D. The reason articulated for combining Rubanenko does not support the combination. The Office Action combines Rubanenko in order to supply ‘at least one connector integral with and extending outward from the at least one outer peripheral wall,’ reasoning that "the integral nature and outer wall location of the connector configuration would further facilitate circulation within the system, which would result in improved fluid conveyance.’ Office Action, p. 6. Two difficulties follow. First, claim 37 recites no connector; it recites two apertures at two elevations. The teaching for which Rubanenko was combined is therefore not a teaching claim 37 requires, and the Office Action articulates no other reason for its inclusion. Second, circulation within the system is what the outlet of Rubanenko accomplishes, and it accomplishes it within a single container. A reason directed to improving circulation inside one vessel does not explain why the artisan would create a hydraulic connection between two vessels. An obviousness rejection requires ‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion,’ and that reasoning must support the modification actually proposed. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); M.P.E.P. § 2143,” and on pages 13 and 14 that “The outlet elevation of Rubanenko is selected by reference to a single vessel and governs recirculation, not discharge. Rubanenko positions its water outlet 188 below the level of the bottom surfaces 152, 154 of the root compartments ‘so that the fluid level in the solution compartment 108 does not rise to a level that reaches the root compartment,’ whereby ‘the roots of a plant in one of the root compartments will thereby be prevented from becoming submerged in the nutrient solution, thus preventing root rot.’ Rubanenko, para. [0038]. That elevation is chosen by reference to the root depth of the plants in that same container. Nothing in Rubanenko suggests that an elevation so chosen should also govern transfer to a different vessel, and nothing suggests adding a second, higher aperture to establish a discharge threshold above it. The elevation of outlet 188 governs recirculation within that container rather than discharge from the system, since the liquid leaving the outlet is returned to the container's own fluid supply conduit. Rubanenko discloses no second aperture above outlet 188, and therefore no threshold at which liquid leaves the system at all,” the Examiner submits that Rubanenko is not relied upon to teach a connection from a like water collecting tank in an overlapping engagement or a transfer to a different vessel, but is instead relied upon in the current rejection to teach “a drain opening through said outer peripheral wall at a second height above said first,” as demonstrated by water outlet 188 of Fig. 2. Rubanenko also demonstrates that water above said second height is discharged from said water collecting tank through said drain, as ¶ 0038, lines 5-11, details that the solution level in the solution compartment 108 increases to the level of the water outlet 188 and is discharged through the water outlet and into a conduit which is in fluid communication with the fluid supply conduit 181. Thus, the outlet 188 is advantageously positioned vertically above the inlet 182. Furthermore, 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, the motivation to modify the device of Ho in view of Hinson with the drain configuration of Rubanenko is present in Rubanenko, which demonstrates that the location of the drain opening would allow for discharge of fluid above a certain level within the water collecting tank, which would result in improved fluid conveyance.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Newitt, US 20200163297 A1, discusses a full environment flow aeroponics 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
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights