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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on July 23, 2026. Claims 1, 7, 9, 16, 18-19, and 22-23 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 2-6, 8, and 14 have been canceled. Claims 1, 7, 9-13, and 15-23 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sensor for capturing data associated with the crops” described in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, lines 2-3, it appears the phrase “at last one nozzle” should read as --at least one nozzle--.
In claim 23, line 1, it is suggested to amend the phrase “The robot farming system” to --The robotic farming system-- to utilize more consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20, lines 1-2, recites “further comprising another service effector, wherein the another service effector includes a robotic arm…”. However, the claims do not appear to previously recite an initial “service effector”. It is therefore unclear what “another” means in the context of the claims. The structure of the mobile robot is thus also unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim et al. (WO 2020/094336 A1), hereinafter Austrheim, in view of Djuve et al. (WO 2019/179856 A1), hereinafter Djuve.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Austrheim Fig. 7, Mobile Robot with Plate (Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 7, Austrheim discloses a robotic farming system (storage system 1, system 1 is capable of being used for farming), comprising:
a storage structure (framework 100) including a first set of rails extending in a first direction (parallel rails 110) and a second set of rails extending in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction (parallel rails 111), the first and second set of rails defining grid spaces (grid cell 122), the storage structure arranged to accommodate crops in a plurality of horizontal rows arranged in a vertical direction (fig. 1A, framework 100 is capable of accommodating crops);
containers (storage containers 106, including target container 6) arranged in vertical stacks (fig. 1A), each vertical stack arranged underneath a respective one of the grid spaces (fig. 1A); and
a mobile robot (vehicle 30; fig. 7-9) comprising:
a body (carrier section 35);
a mobility assembly (wheel arrangement 32) including a plurality of wheels (shown in fig. 7) to move the body along the first set of rails and along the second set of rails (page 16/40, lines 17-21); and
a plate (container lifting frame 54) having at least three lateral sides (see annotated fig. 1) and being extendable in the vertical direction relative to the body through one of the grid spaces (fig. 7-9), the plate including an engagement device (connection interface CI) configured to engage and lift at least one of the containers (fig. 7-9).
Austrheim does not appear to specifically disclose the plate including a sensor for capturing data associated with the crops.
However, Djuve is in the field of storage systems (title; abstract) and teaches the plate (base plate 31b) including a sensor (camera 21; fig. 5) for capturing data associated with the crops (page 17/42, lines 9-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic system with mobile robot having a plate of Austrheim to incorporate the sensor as taught by Djuve with a reasonable expectation of success to observe and record images of contents of a container (page 17/42, lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 9, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the containers (storage containers 106, including target container 6) are configured to accommodate the crops within the containers (fig. 1 and 8, storage containers 106 are capable of accommodating crops within).
Regarding claim 11, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 9, and further discloses wherein at least one of the containers (storage containers 106, including target container 6) has an aperture, a perforation, or an open sidewall (fig. 8, the top wall may be broadly interpreted as one of six sides of the rectangular-prism-shaped container 6, thus the open top may be considered an “open sidewall”).
Regarding claim 12, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 7, and further discloses wherein at least one of the containers (storage containers 106, including target container 6) is formed as a growing wall component (any solid sidewall of containers 106 or 6 may be broadly interpreted as a growing wall component, as it is capable of allowing plants to grow thereon).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Austrheim et al. (WO 2020/094336 A1), hereinafter Austrheim, in view of Djuve et al. (WO 2019/179856 A1), hereinafter Djuve, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Clarke et al. (US 2020/0130934 A1), hereinafter Clarke.
Regarding claim 10, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 9, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein at least one of the containers is formed from a transparent material.
However, Clarke is in the field of storage systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein at least one of the containers (containers 10’) is formed from a transparent material (fig. 6; para [0042], container 10’ may have “transparent sides”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic system with containers of Austrheim as modified to have made the containers from a transparent material as taught by Clarke with a reasonable expectation of success to allow a user to more easily view the contents of the bins.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Austrheim et al. (WO 2020/094336 A1), hereinafter Austrheim, in view of Djuve et al. (WO 2019/179856 A1), hereinafter Djuve, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bertram et al. (US 2019/0159415 A1), hereinafter Bertram.
Regarding claim 13, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 7, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the storage structure further comprises at least one supply line and a plurality of valves, each of the plurality of valves having a closed condition in which the at least one supply line is in isolation from an outside environment and an open condition in which the at least one supply line is in communication with the outside environment.
However, Bertram is in the field of storage systems (title; abstract; fig. 20) and teaches wherein the storage structure further comprises at least one supply line (“distribution line” para [0150]; fig. 24) and a plurality of valves (solenoid valves 2402), each of the plurality of valves having a closed condition in which the at least one supply line is in isolation from an outside environment and an open condition in which the at least one supply line is in communication with the outside environment (para [0149]-[0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic system with storage structure and containers of Austrheim as modified to incorporate the supply line and valves as taught by Bertram with a reasonable expectation of success to enable cleaning of the storage structure and/or containers (para [0152]) or to put out fires in emergency situations.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Austrheim et al. (WO 2020/094336 A1), hereinafter Austrheim, in view of Djuve et al. (WO 2019/179856 A1), hereinafter Djuve, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lindbo et al. (US 2015/0127143 A1), hereinafter Lindbo.
Regarding claim 17, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the at least three lateral sides (shown in annotated fig. 1) collectively define an aperture (access opening OA; fig. 7).
Austrheim as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein at least one of the containers is configured to pass through the aperture of the plate when the plate is lowered in the vertical direction.
However, Lindbo is in the field of storage systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein at least one of the containers (bins 110) is configured to pass through the aperture (aperture between telescoping arms 162) of the plate (telescoping arms 162) when the plate is lowered in the vertical direction (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic system with containers and mobile robot comprising a plate having an aperture of Austrheim as modified to have allowed the containers to pass through the aperture of the plate as taught by Lindbo with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize mechanisms well-understood in the art to lift a plurality of containers from the storage structure simultaneously (fig. 7; para [0108]).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Austrheim et al. (WO 2020/094336 A1), hereinafter Austrheim, in view of Djuve et al. (WO 2019/179856 A1), hereinafter Djuve, and Lindbo et al. (US 2015/0127143 A1), hereinafter Lindbo, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Prout (US 10,407,243 B1), hereinafter Prout.
Regarding claim 19, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 17, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the plate further comprises a service effector including a robotic arm having a manipulator tool and/or a pruning tool.
However, Prout is in the field of storage systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the plate (body 20, fig. 2) further comprises a service effector (any of arms 120) including a robotic arm having a manipulator tool and/or a pruning tool (fig. 2; col 4, lines 48-57, arms 120 may have “clamps” or “claws”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic system with plate of Austrheim as modified to incorporate the service effector with robotic arm as taught by Prout with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for monitoring and manipulation of contents within containers (col 4, lines 58-62).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 17, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising another service effector, wherein the another service effector includes a robotic arm having a manipulator tool and/or a pruning tool coupled to the body and spaced away from the plate.
However, Prout is in the field of storage systems (title; abstract) and teaches further comprising another service effector (any of arms 120), wherein the another service effector includes a robotic arm having a manipulator tool and/or a pruning tool (fig. 2; col 4, lines 48-57, arms 120 may have “clamps” or “claws”) coupled to the body (lift module 150, arms 120 are at least indirectly coupled to lift module 150) and spaced away from the plate (body 20; fig. 2 and 4, arms 120 are not directly attached to body 20 are thus broadly interpreted as being “spaced away from” body 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic system with body and plate of Austrheim as modified to incorporate the service effector with robotic arm as taught by Prout with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for monitoring and manipulation of contents within containers (col 4, lines 58-62).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention. Specifically, Grossman et al. (US 2019/0013775 A1), hereinafter Grossman, discloses a mobile robot (robotic cleaning device 200) for cultivating crops secured to or housed within a container (device 200 is capable of cultivating crops housed within a container by watering via spraying mechanism), the mobile robot comprising:
a body (frame 202);
a wheel assembly coupled to the body (wheel 1113/1213; fig. 8 and 11-12), the wheel assembly including a plurality of wheels (comprises wheels 1113 and 1213);
a plate (end plate 214) provided with a service effector (first liquid-dispensing unit 421) for servicing the crops (fig. 3-4; unit 421 is positioned at least indirectly on end plate 214 and is capable of servicing crops via dispensation of water); and
a coupler (water fill port 1408) having a mating end (shown in fig. 14) arranged to selectively engage and disengage a valve (solenoid valve 1612; para [0080]) to access a fluid supply from an external fluid supply source (reservoir 1604; para [0080]; fig. 16).
However, the prior art of Grossman does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically:
the plate being extendable in a vertical direction relative to the body, wherein the plate has at least three lateral sides that collectively define an aperture such that the container is configured to pass through the aperture of the plate when the plate is lowered in the vertical direction; and
wherein the service effector comprises a first nozzle in communication with the coupler and a second nozzle in communication with the coupler, and wherein the first nozzle is provided on a first one of the at least three lateral sides of the plate and the second nozzle is provided on a second one of the at least three lateral sides of the plate different than the first one of the at least three lateral sides.
Although the mobile robot of Grossman teaches a general plate and service effector for servicing crops, it does not teach the claimed structure and functionality of the plate, nor wherein the service effector is positioned on the plate in the manner claimed.
Claims 15-16 and 18 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.
Claims 21-23 remain allowed for the reasons presented in the Non-Final Rejection, filed on January 23, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 2 of 3), filed July 23, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 7 under §103 have been fully considered, but they 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.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Austrheim et al. (WO 2020/094336 A1) as modified by Prout (US 10,407,243 B1) does not teach “a sensor for capturing data associated with the crops” (Remarks, page 2 of 3). However, in the instant rejection, Djuve et al. (WO 2019/179856 A1) has been substituted for Prout for teaching the limitation in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against Austrheim as modified moot.
Regardless, Applicant’s arguments pertaining to “the claimed sensor…provided on the plate for monitoring the crops…without extracting the containers” (Remarks, page 2 of 3) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a sensor for monitoring crops within a container without extracting the container) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments that “a POSITA would not be motivated to modify the lifting frame 54 of Austrheim to include a sensor for capturing data associated with the crops” (Remarks, page 2 of 3) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the robotic system with mobile robot having a plate of Austrheim to have the sensor as taught by Djuve with a reasonable expectation of success to observe and record images of contents of a container (see Djuve, page 17/42, lines 9-20).
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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
