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 August 20, 2025. Claims 5, 7, 9-10, and 12 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 13-19 remain withdrawn per the Response to Election/Restriction filed on December 26, 2024. Claims 1-19 are currently pending. This action is made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “520” described in paragraph [0048].
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 5B, it is not clear what the reference “S” refers to. It is suggested that this reference be removed or relabeled accordingly.
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 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 4, it is suggested to amend the phrase “the vertical micro-farm” to --the vertical micro-farm system-- to maintain terminology more consistent with that of claim 1, line 1.
In claim 11, line 2, it is suggested to amend the phrase “with compliant cover” to --with a compliant cover-- or --with compliant covers-- to improve clarity of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12, line 5, recites the limitation “using a visual sensor”. However, the original disclosure appears to merely describe use of “information-monitoring devices such as a camera, a stereo camera, etc.” (para [0080]). The term “visual sensor” is not considered synonymous with the disclosed “information-monitoring devices such as a camera, a stereo camera, etc.”, as visual sensors may also include non-camera devices such as infrared- and lidar-based visual sensors, which have not been disclosed in the original disclosure. The limitation “using a visual sensor” is considered broader in scope than that which has been disclosed in the original disclosure; thus, the limitation is considered new matter. It is suggested to amend the limitation to read as either --using an information-monitoring system-- (which may be interpreted under 112(f) as referring to a camera) or --using a camera--.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srikumar (WO 2022/040818 A1), hereinafter Srikumar, in view of Coffin et al. (US 2022/0007601 A1), hereinafter Coffin.
Regarding claim 1, Srikumar discloses a vertical micro-farm system (double rail system 200; fig. 11), the system comprising:
a nursery (germination shelf 72) for an initial growth process (page 16/43, lines 16-17);
a plurality of grow towers (grow towers 5) for a second growth process (page 17/43, lines 10-11);
an autonomous robot (harvester system 400 and placing unit 74) configured to move baby plants from the nursery to the plurality of grow towers after completion of the initial growth process (page 12/43, fifth paragraph and page 17/43, last paragraph through page 18/43, first paragraph; fig. 1-2 and 111); and
a produce processing and packing machine (packaging and storage unit 23) for receiving matured plants for processing after the baby plants have completed the second growth process in the plurality of grow towers (fig. 11; page 16/43, lines 12-15),
wherein the matured plants are transferred from the plurality of grow towers to the produce processing and packing machine by the autonomous robot (fig. 11; page 16/43, second paragraph, harvesting system 400 collects matured plants from grow towers 5 and transfers them to packaging and storage unit 23 via produce conveyor 114).
Srikumar does not appear to specifically disclose an external structure.
However, Coffin is in the field of vertical micro-farm systems (abstract; fig. 2 and 26) and teaches an external structure (para [0178], “production facility 2600 may be housed within a warehouse building or any other suitable building structure”); the nursery (propagation space 2602) positioned inside the external structure (fig. 26); and the plurality of grow towers (grow towers 50) inside the external structure (fig. 26, grow towers 50 located within growing chamber 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 vertical micro-farm system of Srikumar to incorporate the external structure as taught by Coffin with a reasonable expectation of success to better control the environmental conditions, such as temperature, lighting, gas concentration, and humidity, in which plants grow (para [0049] and [0178]).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srikumar (WO 2022/040818 A1), hereinafter Srikumar, in view of Coffin et al. (US 2022/0007601 A1), hereinafter Coffin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh (WO 2015/190634 A1), hereinafter Oh.
Regarding claim 2, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the external structure comprises:
an outer dome, wherein the outer dome comprises at least one plastic film;
a floor, wherein the floor is joined to the outer dome; and
a double door airlock that allows entrance into the vertical micro-farm.
However, Oh is in the field of farming systems (fig. 10) and teaches wherein the external structure (air house 100) comprises:
an outer dome (coating layer 112c; page 32/37, tenth paragraph, “coating layer 112c may be formed on the outer surface of the second film 112”; fig. 2 and 13), wherein the outer dome comprises at least one film (fig. 13);
a floor (weight body 1202), wherein the floor is joined to the outer dome (fig. 7); and
a double door airlock (doors 113 and 114) that allows entrance into the vertical micro-farm (fig. 4).
Srikumar as modified by Coffin and Oh teaches wherein the external structure comprises an outer dome comprising at least one film but does not appear to specifically teach wherein the at least one film is a plastic film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the at least one film of plastic, with the motivation of utilizing a lightweight insulating material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Furthermore, 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 vertical micro-farm system with external structure of Srikumar as modified to incorporate the outer dome, floor, and double door airlock as taught by Oh with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize a building structure that is relatively easy to install and can regulate air conditions within the structure (see Oh, “Tech-Problem” section and “Advantageous-Effects” section).
Regarding claim 3, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 2, and further discloses further comprising:
a frame (from Oh, structure comprising spacers 115), wherein the frame comprises sealed inflatable beams (from Oh, spacers 115; fig. 2-3; page 28/37, tenth paragraph); and
an insulation layer (from Oh, comprises first film 111 and second film 112), wherein the insulation layer comprises two layers of plastic films (see Oh fig. 2), with a first plastic film layer (from Oh, first film 111) tangent to an inner side of the frame (see Oh fig. 2) and a second plastic film layer (from Oh, second film 112) tangent to an outer side of the frame (see Oh fig. 2),
wherein a still air gap (from Oh, gaps between spacers 115, shown in fig. 10) is created between the two layers of plastic films to provide insulation to the vertical micro-farm system (see Oh fig. 10; page 28/37, eleventh paragraph, “air is filled between the spacer 115 and the films 111 and 112”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srikumar (WO 2022/040818 A1), hereinafter Srikumar, in view of Coffin et al. (US 2022/0007601 A1), hereinafter Coffin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itoh et al. (US 2018/0035624 A1), hereinafter Itoh.
Regarding claim 4, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nursery (germination shelf 72) comprises:
a growth system (individual shelves/levels of germination shelf 72, shown in fig. 11), wherein the growth system is an area of the nursery that cultivates the seeds through the initial growth process, wherein the seeds grow into the baby plants on completion of the initial growth process (page 16/43, lines 16-17, germination shelf 72 comprises a “seeder”).
Srikumar as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the nursery comprises:
a conveyor system for receiving seed trays arriving at the nursery, wherein each seed tray contains seeds.
However, Itoh is in the field of micro-farm systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the nursery (“plant cultivation device” para [0016]) comprises:
a conveyor system (“conveyance unit” para [0016]) for receiving seed trays (“cultivation trays” para [0016]) arriving at the nursery, wherein each seed tray contains seeds (para [0016], cultivation trays may contain seedlings or seeds).
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 vertical micro-farm system with nursery of Srikumar as modified to incorporate the conveyor system for receiving seed trays as taught by Itoh with a reasonable expectation of success to more automatically move plants into and throughout the nursery, thereby reducing the amount of user time and energy required to cultivate plants.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srikumar (WO 2022/040818 A1), hereinafter Srikumar, in view of Coffin et al. (US 2022/0007601 A1), hereinafter Coffin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cross (US 11,310,976 B1), hereinafter Cross.
Regarding claim 5, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of grow towers (from Coffin, grow towers 50) comprises:
a top plate (from Coffin, funnel structure 902; fig. 8);
a plurality of inner plates (from Coffin, plug holders 158; fig. 4D), wherein the plurality of inner plates is positioned inside the elongated cylinder and evenly spaced (see Coffin fig. 4C-4D),
wherein the grow tower has a plurality of slots (from Coffin, cut-outs 105) for baby plants to be inserted (see Coffin fig. 4C-4D, cut-outs 105 are capable of receiving baby plants), and
wherein the plurality of inner plates is configured to provide support for roots of baby plants inserted into the plurality of slots (see Coffin para [0078], roots of a planted crop may sit at the ends of plug holders 158).
Srikumar as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of grow towers comprises:
a bottom plate;
a plastic sheet, wherein the plastic sheet is rolled into an elongated cylinder with the top plate attached to a first opening of the elongated cylinder and the bottom plate attached to a second opening of the elongated cylinder;
However, Cross is in the field of vertical micro-farm systems (title; abstract; fig. 42) and teaches wherein each of the plurality of grow towers (propagation modules 200) comprises:
a bottom plate (cap assembly 205 at bottom of propagation module 200; fig. 5A);
a plastic sheet (outer surface of tube segment 203; col 16, line 19, segment 203 may be made of PVC), wherein the plastic sheet forms an elongated cylinder (tube segment 203) with the top plate (cap assembly 205 at top end) attached to a first opening (opening covered by distribution cap 410) of the elongated cylinder (fig. 5A-5B) and the bottom plate (cap assembly 205 at bottom end) attached to a second opening (opening covered by distribution cap 410) of the elongated cylinder (fig. 5A-5B).
Srikumar as modified by Coffin and Cross does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the plastic sheet is rolled into an elongated cylinder. However, the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 162 USPQ 221, 223. Furthermore, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
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 vertical micro-farm system with grow towers of Srikumar as modified to incorporate the bottom plate and plastic sheet as taught by Cross with a reasonable expectation of success to make the grow tower more durable, lightweight, and easy to maneuver.
Regarding claim 6, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 5, and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of grow towers (from Coffin, grow towers 50) further comprises:
a water inlet (from Coffin, collector 901) formed on the top plate (from Coffin, funnel structure 902; para [0078]), wherein water is pumped from a tank or a reservoir into the top plate through the water inlet to perform irrigation (see Coffin para [0079] and [0179], aqueous nutrient solution is delivered to collector 910 of funnel structure 902 via irrigation line 802 connected to “fluid tank”).
Regarding claim 7, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 5, and further discloses further comprising:
at least one tower frame (frames holding grow towers 5, shown in fig. 11);
a pair of rails (parallel beams of rails 4; system 200 comprises at least a pair of parallel beams of rails 4) running above the at least one tower frame (fig. 11-12 and 14); and
a plurality of rail extensions extending from ends of the pair of rails (rounded connecting portions extending from ends of parallel rails 4, shown in fig. 11) to allow the autonomous robot (harvester system 400 and placing unit 74) to travel between the nursery (germination shelf 72), the plurality of grow towers (grow towers 5), and the produce processing and packing machine (packaging and storage unit 23; fig. 11 and 13),
wherein the at least one tower frame comprises a plurality of beams (nutrient delivery channels 37) that are parallelly arranged (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 8, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the plurality of grow towers (from Coffin, grow towers 50) is arranged in a staggered fashion on the plurality of beams (from Coffin, grow lines 202; fig. 2 and 5A).
The Examiner notes that Coffin teaches grow lines 202 arranged parallel to one another and grow towers 50 moveably arranged on grow lines 202. Since grow towers 50 are able to be in motion along grow lines 202, they will, at some points in time, be arranged in a staggered fashion where at least some of the grow towers 50 will be arranged in a staggered fashion relative to other grow towers 50 on other grow lines 202. It would further be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange grow towers 50 in a staggered fashion in order to allow grow towers 50 to have more uniform access to surrounding light.
Regarding claim 9, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 8, and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of grow towers (from Cross, propagation modules 200) further comprises a motor (from Cross, hanger rotator 2630 comprising “hanger rotator motor”) connected to the top plate (from Cross, cap assembly 205; fig. 26), wherein the motor rotates an associated grow tower to allow plants on the associated grow tower to receive even distribution of sunlight to promote optimized photosynthesis and growth (see Cross col 28, line 66-col 29, line 14).
Regarding claim 10, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the autonomous robot (harvesting system 400 and placing unit 74) comprises:
a bridge (vertical members 6) with motor driven wheels (wheels 203 and 207) that operate on the pair of rails (parallel beams of rails 4) and the rail extensions (rounded connecting portions extending from ends of parallel rails 4; fig. 12; page 17/41, fourth paragraph), wherein the bridge is positioned perpendicular to the pair of rails and the rail extensions (fig. 12);
a trolley (comprises camera 73, place arm 123, and element 121, shown in fig. 14) that is mounted on and moves along the bridge (fig. 14; page 17/43, second paragraph; camera 73, place arm 123, and element 121 are mounted to and move along place pole 119 which is mounted in parallel orientation relative to vertical members 6);
a telescopic arm (place arm 123) that is mounted on the trolley (fig. 13-14), wherein the telescopic arm provides upward and downward movements for the autonomous robot (fig. 13, place arm 123 provides upward and downward movements by moving autonomously along place pole 119);
a joint (pivot 113) connected to an end of the telescopic arm (fig. 13);
a reach (extended portions at the ends of gears 18, shown in fig. 16-17) that extends from the end of the telescopic arm through the joint (fig. 16-17); and
an end effector (jaws 93) connected to an end of the reach (fig. 16-17), wherein the end effector is configured to perform plant grasping (fig. 16-17).
While Srikumar alone does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the joint is a yaw joint, the prior art of Coffin discloses wherein an autonomous robot is a “six-degrees of freedom robotic arm” (para [0051]). The six degrees of freedom as are commonly understood in the art are forward/backward, up/down, left/right, yaw, pitch, and roll. Therefore, the robotic arm taught by Coffin is disclosed as having a yaw joint. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the yaw joint taught by Coffin to the autonomous robot disclosed by Srikumar with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of creating a more versatile and flexible robot that can more easily adapt and move relative to its surroundings.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srikumar (WO 2022/040818 A1), hereinafter Srikumar, in view of Coffin et al. (US 2022/0007601 A1), hereinafter Coffin, and Cross (US 11,310,976 B1), hereinafter Cross, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Davies (GB 2586808 A), hereinafter Davies.
Regarding claim 11, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the end effector (jaws 93) comprises a fingered gripper having a plurality of fingers (each of two individual jaws 93, shown in fig. 15-17).
Srikumar does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the end effector comprises a compliant cover on the plurality of fingers.
However, Davies is in the field of robotic plant handling (abstract) and teaches wherein the end effector (comprises finger grippers 7 and polymeric foam material 8) comprises a compliant cover (polymeric foam material 8) on the plurality of fingers (finger grippers 7; fig. 1; page 8/13, last paragraph, “finger grippers 7 are lined with a polymeric foam material 8”).
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 vertical micro-farm system comprising an autonomous robot with fingered gripper of Srikumar as modified to incorporate the compliant cover as taught by Davies with a reasonable expectation of success to allow the fingered gripper to grasp plants gently without damaging the plants (page 8/13, last paragraph).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Srikumar (WO 2022/040818 A1), hereinafter Srikumar, in view of Coffin et al. (US 2022/0007601 A1), hereinafter Coffin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alexander et al. (US 2022/0007590 A1), hereinafter Alexander.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) issue identified above, Srikumar as modified discloses the system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the produce processing and packing machine (from Coffin, comprises harvester station 32 and post-harvest processing space 2604) comprises:
a root cutting area (from Coffin, harvester area 32) for removing roots of the matured plants (see Coffin para [0159], crops may be removed from grow towers 50 but roots may remain in place);
a detection area (see Coffin para [0183], “product quality equipment”);
a washing and drying area (see Coffin para [0183], “crop washing and drying equipment”) for:
for each leaf having leaf quality that passes a scoring threshold, washing and drying each leaf (see Coffin para [0183]3); and
for each leaf having leaf quality that does not pass the scoring threshold, discarding each leaf (see Coffin para [0183]3); and
a packing area (see Coffin para [0183], “product packaging equipment”) for packing washed and dried leaves into one of a single serve container or a batch container (see Coffin para [0183], plant products are “packaged” and may be acted upon by “package palletizing equipment”, which strongly suggests placement of plant products in batch containers).
Srikumar does not appear to specifically disclose the detection area for determining plant type associated with each of the matured plants, and determining leaf quality of each leaf of the matured plants using a visual sensor.
However, Alexander is in the field of micro-farm systems (abstract) and teaches the detection area for determining plant type associated with each of the matured plants (para [0065]), and determining leaf quality of each leaf of the matured plants using a visual sensor (para [0046]-[0049] and [0075], “minimum threshold ‘heath’ check performed by “module-level optical scan” utilizes camera, which is interpreted as a form of “visual sensor”).
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 vertical micro-farm system with root cutting area, detection area, washing and drying area, and packing area of Srikumar as modified to incorporate the teachings of a visual sensor as taught by Alexander with a reasonable expectation of success to automate an otherwise manual process of determining plant quality (para [0013]), thereby reducing the amount of manual labor required to grow plants in the micro-farm system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 2-4), filed August 20, 2025, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the “proposed combination of multiple references appears to be based on improper hindsight rather than what the references actually teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art” (Remarks, page 2 of 4).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant further asserts that the prior art “fails to teach or suggest the specific integrated configuration of an autonomous robot that is configured to move baby plants from the nursery to the plurality of grow towers after completion of the initial growth process and transfer matured plants from the plurality of grow towers to the produce processing and packing machine as recited by claim 1” (Remarks, pages 2-3 of 4).
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., “integrated” configuration of the autonomous robot) 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). In the instant case, the claims are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation such that Srikumar reads upon the claims by teaching placing unit 74 and harvester 400, which are together considered an “autonomous robot”. In claim 1, no specific structural details are included in the claims that require the robot to have an “integrated” configuration. Furthermore, the autonomous robot of Srikumar (comprising placing unit 74 and harvester 400) is capable of performing the claimed functions based on the teachings of Srikumar, as is further detailed in the above rejection.
Applicant further asserts that the “Examiner has not provided adequate reasoning with rational underpinning to support why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine these fundamentally systems to arrive at the claimed invention” (Remarks, page 3 of 4).
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 the instant case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vertical micro-farm system disclosed by Srikumar to have an external structure as taught by Coffin with the motivation of providing better control over environmental conditions, such as temperature, lighting, gas concentration, and humidity, in which plants grow (para [0049] and [0178]).
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
1 A first embodiment of Srikumar (shown in fig. 1-2) shows an autonomous robot with extendable arm 81 and jaws 93 that move germinated plants from germination shelf 72 to grow towers 2. A second embodiment of Srikumar (shown in fig. 11-15) teaches a similar autonomous robot (harvester system 400 and placing unit 74) with extendable arm 81 and jaws 93 that place germinated plants in grow towers 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the autonomous robot of the second embodiment would also be capable of retrieving baby plants from the nursery (germination shelf 72) in order to subsequently move them into grow towers 5.
2 The Examiner interprets weight body 120 of Oh to be a “floor” as it is located at the bottom of the dome structure and can considered to be a floor to the hollow multi-layer film structure comprising first film 111 and second film 112.
3 The Examiner notes that the functions of “for each leaf having leaf quality that passes a scoring threshold, washing and drying each leaf” and “for each leaf having leaf quality that does not past the scoring threshold, discarding each leaf” are able to be performed at the “crop washing and drying equipment” taught by Coffin, as a user located within post-harvest processing space 2604 would be able to perform these functions and make the determination manually while using the “product quality equipment” and “crop washing and drying equipment”. The Examiner notes that no structural limitations are claimed which require sensors, cameras, or other physical equipment for making the determination as to whether or not a leaf has a leaf quality passing a scoring threshold.