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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/29/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 07/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each of the designated inventions are sufficiently related. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement was processed under unity of invention which is different than the US burden of excessive searching. The groups were found to lack unity of invention because as described by applicant, they are directed to sufficiently related structures, and these shared technical features are not considered special technical features in view of the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20130098091 A) in view of Schmitz (US 4474212 A).
Regarding claim: Kim discloses plant cultivation apparatus (1) comprising: a cabinet (11) which defines a growing spaces (111); a cultivation shelf (40) provided in the growing space and on which one or more plants for cultivation are seated, the cultivation shelf including a drain hole (31) configured to drain water supplied to the cultivation shelf; a cover (631) configured to open and close the drain hole (Fig. 4); and a driving device configured to open and close the cover (Figs. 4-5), wherein the driving device includes: a driving motor (621); a cam (62) rotated by the driving motor (621); a rod (61) coupled to the cam (62) and configured to be moved up and down by the cam (62) to open and close the cover(631) ; and a case configured to form an outer appearance of the driving device and to guide a movement of the rod (the walls of (1) form a casing which guides the movement of shaft (61) as visualized in Fig. 2).
Kim fails to teach a pinion rotated by the driving motor and having a pinion gear, a rod having a rack gear coupled to the pinion gear and configured to be moved up and down by the pinion to open and close the cover.
However, Schmitz teaches a pinion rotated by the driving motor (70) and having a pinion gear (Fig. 6), a rod (46) having a rack gear (74) coupled to the pinion gear and configured to be moved up and down by the pinion to open and close the cover (40, See Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cam as disclosed by Kim with the pinion and rack as taught by Schmitz with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a pinion gear would allow for actuation of the system while also decreasing the amount of footprint required by the actuation system within the cabinet. Furthermore a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 2: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kim further teaches wherein the case includes: an inner surface including a recess (R) that defines a guide extending in a vertical direction to guide the movement of the rod (See annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
309
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kim further teaches wherein an upper surface of the case includes a rod insertion opening (O) through which the rod passes (See annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kim further teaches wherein a lower surface of the case includes a through opening (TO) through which the rod passes (See annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 15: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the rod (Kim 61) includes: a body in which the rack gear (as modified by Schmitz 74) is formed; and a pressing protrusion (Kim 611) extending downward from a lower end of the body and in contact with the cover (Kim 631).
Regarding claim 16: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 15 as shown above.
Kim as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a lower surface of the body is larger than a lower surface of the pressing portion. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to scale the lower surfaces of the body and pressing portion, since 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. Such a modification in sizing would be done in order to insure that the pressing portion is able to fit within the body, protecting the rod when it is recessed within the body.
Regarding claim 18: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the driving device is provided above the cultivation shelf (Fig. 2).
Kim as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the driving device being provided at the rear of the cultivation space It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the driving device toward the rear of the cultivation space, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Such arrangement could be done in order to provide an ability for a worker to perform maintenance at the rear end of the cabinet without interfering the plants inside the cultivation space.
Regarding claim 19: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the cover (631) includes: a first wall (631b) extending in a first direction; a second wall (631a) extending from an end of the first wall in a second direction that differs from the first direction; and a seal provided on the second wall and facing the drain hole (31), and wherein the cover (631) is hingedly connected to the cultivation shelf, and wherein the first wall is configured to be moved by the rod (61) such that the seal is moved relative to the drain hole (Figs. 4-5).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Schmitz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yonghyun (KR 20200100496 A).
Regarding claim 9: Kim as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kim as modified fails to teach wherein a side surface of the case includes a side cutout.
However, Yonghyun teaches wherein a side surface of the case (80) includes a side cutout (821).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cabinet as disclosed by modified Kim with the cutout as taught by Yonghyun with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a cutout would allow for a worker to perform easier maintenance within the cabinet by quickly accessing any structural components that are positioned within the cover.
Regarding claim 10: Kim as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kim as modified fails to teach wherein the case includes a fastening extension protruding from a surface of the case and having a fastening hole through which a fastener passes.
However, Yonghyun teaches wherein the case (80) includes a fastening extension (816) protruding from a surface of the case and having a fastening hole through which a fastener passes (Fig. 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cabinet as disclosed by modified Kim with the fastening ends as taught by Yonghyun with a reasonable expectation of success because providing fastening ends would achieve the predictable result of having a cover which protects the structural elements of the valve actuation system while at the same time decreasing the footprint of the structure by having it coupled to a wall of the cabinet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 11-14, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of plant cabinets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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 at 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642