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 Request for Continued Examination filed on October 06, 2025. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-13, 15-17, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 2-3, 6, 8, and 14 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-13, and 15-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 06, 2025 has been entered.
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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In claim 22, “a regulator on a surface of at least one of the first set of rails or the second set of rails, wherein the valve actuator of the mobile robot is configured to cooperate with the regulator to simultaneously open or close the plurality of valves”.
In claim 23, “a regulator disposed on at least one of the plurality of valves, wherein when the valve actuator of the mobile robot is configured to cooperate with the regulator to open or close the at least one of the plurality of valves”.
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
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, lines 1-2, it is suggested to amend the phrase “the containers are configured to accommodate the crops…” to --wherein the containers are configured to accommodate the crops…-- to maintain more consistent claim structure throughout the claim set.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grossman et al. (US 2019/0013775 A1), hereinafter Grossman.
Regarding claim 1, 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 service effector (first liquid-dispensing unit 421) for servicing the crops (fig. 4; unit 421 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).
Regarding claim 4, Grossman discloses the mobile robot of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the service effector (first liquid-dispensing unit 421) comprises a first nozzle (see claim 10) in communication with the coupler (fig. 4 and 14; para [0049] and [0080]).
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 Prout (US 10,407,243 B1), hereinafter Prout.
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 having a service effector for servicing the crops.
However, Prout is in the field of storage systems (title; abstract) and teaches the plate (body 20, fig. 2) having a service effector (any of arms 120) for servicing the crops (col 4, lines 58-62, arms 120 may “grab, move, rotate, check, monitor, etc. the package(s), product(s), item(s), etc. that may be stored or located at a particular spot or within a bin or pod” and thus are capable of servicing crops).
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 comprising storage structure, mobile robot, and plate of Austrheim to incorporate the service effector 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 9, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 7, and further discloses 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 Prout (US 10,407,243 B1), hereinafter Prout, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Clarke et al. (US 2020/0130934 A1), hereinafter Clarke.
Regarding claim 10, Austrheim 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 Prout (US 10,407,243 B1), hereinafter Prout, 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 and 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 Prout (US 10,407,243 B1), hereinafter Prout, 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]).
Regarding claim 19, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the service effector (from Prout, any of arms 120) comprises a robotic arm having a manipulator tool and/or a pruning tool coupled to the plate (from Prout, body 20; fig. 2, arms 120 are at least indirectly coupled to body 20).
Regarding claim 20, Austrheim as modified discloses the system of claim 17, and further discloses further comprising another service effector (from Prout, different one of arms 120), wherein the another service effector includes a robotic arm having a manipulator tool and/or a pruning tool (from Prout, fig. 2) coupled to the body (from Prout, lift module 150, arms 120 are at least indirectly coupled to lift module 150) and spaced away from the plate (from Prout, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 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 are 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, Bertram (US 2019/0159415 A1), hereinafter Bertram, discloses a robotic farming system (title; abstract), comprising:
a storage structure (growth structure 101) including vertical members (uprights 103, 104), a first set of rails extending in a first direction (shown in fig. 17), and a second set of rails extending in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction (shown in fig. 17), the first and second set of rails collectively defining grid spaces (shown in fig. 17);
a fluid supply line (“distribution lines” para [0150]) embedded within or attached to an external surface of the storage structure (para [0149]) and a plurality of valves (solenoid valves 2402) transitionable between an open position and a closed position to regulate fluid flow from the fluid supply line (para [0150]);
containers (growth modules 410) arranged in vertical stacks underneath a respective one of the grid spaces (fig. 2-4 and 20), the containers configured to accommodate crops within the containers (fig. 4 and 20); and
a mobile robot (frog 600) comprising:
a body (outer frame 601, inner frame 607) and a mobility assembly (comprises wheels 610, 611) including a plurality of wheels to move the body along the first set of rails and along the second set of rails (fig. 6 and 17).
However, the prior art of Bertram does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, the mobile robot comprising a plate extendable in a vertical direction relative to the body, the plate including an engagement device configured to engage and lift at least one of the containers; and a valve actuator configured to transition at least one of the plurality of valves between the open position and the closed position to regulate the fluid flow from the fluid supply line to the crops.
Although the robotic farming system of Bertram teaches a mobile robot having a body, a mobility assembly, and an engagement device, it does not teach wherein the plate includes the engagement device, nor does it teach the plate including a valve actuator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 1-6 of 7), filed October 06, 2025, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) 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, with regard to independent claim 7, Applicant argues that Lindbo et al. (US 2015/0127143 A1) does not teach “a plate having at least three lateral sides and being extendable in the vertical direction relative to the body through one of the grid spaces, the plate including an engagement device configured to engage and lift at least one of the containers and a service effector for servicing the crops” (Remarks, page 2-6 of 7). However, in the instant rejection, Austrheim et al. (WO 2020/094336 A1) as modified by Prout (US 10,407,243 B1) has been substituted for Lindbo for teaching the limitation in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against Lindbo moot.
Additionally, with regard to independent claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art, including Lindbo et al. (US 2015/0127143 A1) and Austrheim et al. (WO 2019/233749 A1), does not teach “a coupler having a mating end arranged to selectively engage and disengage a valve to access a fluid supply from an external fluid supply source” (Remarks, page 6 of 7). However, in the instant rejection, Grossman et al. (US 2019/0013775 A1) has been used for teaching the limitation in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against Lindbo and Austrheim moot.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1 and 7.
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