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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitation “lighting means”, “support means”, and “sensor means” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1,2, 5-20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Sensing means: page 16, “typically, the sensing means may be digital sensors”.
Support means: page 4, “support means may comprise one or more trestles”
Lighting means: page 14, “the lighting means may comprise frequency controllable energy efficient lighting means”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17 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 17 recites the limitations “communication means” and “connecting means”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of any structure corresponding to the claimed communication means. Does the hood comprise an antennae? Is the communications means a controller? Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagadome; Ryuji et al. (US 20150014440 A1), in view of Grohs; Dihl et al. (US 20220117178 A1).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood Nagadome discloses a hood (Fig. 4; 127) for a farming system growing floor booth, wherein the hood is positioned in combination with, and substantially above, a support means (corresponding to the frame); [0029] configured for receiving a growing tray (102); a fluid inlet (Fig. 4; 128); [0045] for receiving re-circulated fluid from a growing tray, wherein the fluid inlet is configured to be raised and lowered with the mechanism [0046].
Nagadome does not disclose the hood comprising: a lighting means; a fluid outlet. Grohs teaches a hood comprising: a lighting means (Fig. 19; 48, 49); a fluid outlet (Fig. 21; 40B) for providing irrigation to a growing tray.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hood of Nagadome to include a lighting means; a fluid outlet for providing irrigation to a growing tray, as taught by Grohs, in order to provide additional fluid outlets for thorough saturation, as well as improved light refraction. The device, when combined, would result in a hood wherein the fluid outlet is configured to be raised and lowered with the mechanism.
Regarding claim 6 as best understood Nagadome, in view of Grohs, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Nagadome further discloses wherein the hood is substantially static and moveable to a height dependent on an intended crop growing in a tray (Fig. 5-Fig. 6); (corresponding to the hood of Nagadome capable of moving to a height).
Regarding claim 7 as best understood Nagadome, in view of Grohs, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Nagadome further discloses wherein the hood is arranged to be accessible from a maintenance area (104); (hood can be accessed inside the building).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagadome; Ryuji et al. (US 20150014440 A1), in view of Grohs; Dihl et al. (US 20220117178 A1), in view of Shelor; F. Mack et al. (US 20150351325 A1)
Regarding claim 2 as best understood Nagadome, in view of Grohs, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Nagadome in view of Grohs does not disclose a servomotor. Shelor teaches a servomotor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mechanism of Nagadome and Grohs to be a servomechanism, as taught by Shelor, in order to provide more precise control [0032] for alignment of the hood.
Regarding claims 3 and 17 as best understood Nagadome, in view of Grohs, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Nagadome further discloses a camera means (119); communication means for receiving commands and or transmitting data (control unit); [0036], but lacks wherein the hood comprises a camera means; communication means.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hood of Nagadome and Grohs to include a camera means; communication means, in order to provide an all in one hood device for promoting plant growth.
Nagadome in view of Grohs lacks a sensing means; a control facility. Shelor teaches a sensing means [0037]; a control facility (155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hood of Nagadome and Grohs to include a sensing means; a control facility, in order to provide an all in one hood device for promoting plant growth.
Regarding claim 4 as best understood Nagadome, in view of Grohs, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Nagadome in view of Grohs does not disclose a frequency controllable energy efficient light. Shelor teaches a frequency controllable energy efficient light [0054] and [0058].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lighting means of Nagadome in view of Grohs to be a frequency controllable energy efficient light, as taught by Shelor, in order to ensure efficient illumination as desired based on the needs of the plant [0058].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the 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, adding additional fluid and lighting sources is well known to one of ordinary skill within the art, providing the predictable result of enhanced watering and light intensity.
In response to applicant's argument that “There is physically no way to provide additional fluid outlets in the bottom aperture of the hood of Nagadome (as it is open space) and placing any outlets in the sides of the hood would be counter to Nagadome's stated purpose of "preventing the liquid discharged from the nozzle from splattering around the container".”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
One of ordinary skill in the art would not be so limited to only place the fluid outlets in the bottom aperture of the hood of Nagadome, and placing the fluid outlets on the sides of the hood does not inherently mean the fluid would splatter around the container, as contended by applicant. The teaching of adding additional fluid and lighting sources is well known within the art.
Additionally, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Concerning the recited fluid inlet and fluid outlet of the claim, only the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet are positively required by the claims. The additional recited functional language, such as “for providing irrigation”, “configured to be raised and lowered”, etc.. only requires the capability of the fluid inlet and fluid outlet to perform the recited functions. However, applicant’s arguments appear to be narrowly construing the functional features of the claim, and thus arguing the combination of references would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill. This is not persuasive, since the combination of references provide the proper motivation to combine, and the combination would be structurally capable of performing the functions recited in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644