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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 17-32 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the other growth modules" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant currently only has one growth module claimed, and should revise the limitation to include other growth modules if deemed necessary.
Claims 2-3, 17-32 are rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 17-18, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billingsley (GB 2503911 A) in view of Jagodzinsky (EP 0445320 A1) and Spiro (US 12063898 B2)
Regarding claim 1: Billingsley discloses a growth module arranged to support growing plants, wherein the growth modules (planter 1) comprises:
a frame (main body 2) for allowing the growth module to be arranged in a stack with the other growth modules (page 3 lines 4-6) in one of the columns (this could be met),
a vertically arranged growth board (mesh panel 5) for supporting plants in an orientation whereby the plants supported by the growth board can grow in a horizontal direction out from the growth board (this limitation is capable of being met),
the growth board being arranged to receive a growth medium (growth medium 3 has aperture 6) for planting and growing the plants, a watering trough arranged along an upper portion of the growth board (top 7),
the watering trough having water distribution holes (holes 8) for distributing water to the growth medium, and a longitudinal water collection trough arranged along a bottom edge of the growth board (trough seen at bottom of planter 1, Fig. 7) to collect water exiting from the growth medium;
wherein the frame (main body 2) comprises side support members (sides of 2, Fig. 7) for supporting the growth board in a vertical configuration within the growth module, wherein each side support member has a vertical guide, in the form of a slot, for receiving and supporting a portion of the growth board (retaining means 11,12, Fig. 7, page 5 lines 29-30).
Billingsley fails to teach wherein the longitudinal water collection trough comprises a centrally arranged opening, wherein the centrally arranged opening has a valve that is configured to open and permit water to flow out to a module positioned below the growth module when the growth module is arranged in the stack and configured to close when the growth module is lifted from the growth module positioned below it in the stack, each side support member having horizontally extended arms and feed on the top and bottom, respectively, the arms and feet comprising upper and lower edge surfaces, respectively, for engagement with corresponding edge surfaces of modules above and below for transferring load from module to module.
However, Jagodzinsky wherein teaches the longitudinal water collection trough comprising an opening, wherein the opening has a valve (20) that is configured to open and permit water to flow out to a module positioned below the growth module when the growth module is arranged in the stack and configured to close when the growth module is lifted from the growth module positioned below it in the stack (Figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the growth board openings as disclosed by Billingsley with the placement valve actuation as taught by Jagodzinsky with a reasonable expectation of success because by providing such actuation this can prevent any spillage from occurring when a growth board is removed from a stack, achieving the predictable result of minimizing water loss.
Spiro teaches each side support member (1) having horizontally extended arms and feet on the top and bottom, respectively, the arms and feet comprising upper and lower edge surfaces (best seen in Figs. 2), respectively, for engagement with corresponding edge surfaces of modules above and below for transferring load from module to module (functional limitation could be met by the structure of posts 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stackable planter as disclosed by modified Billingsley with the upper and lower surfaces as taught by Spiro with a reasonable expectation of success because providing extending upper and lower surfaces on the side support members would assist the sides with load distribution, decreasing the probability that the side supports are damaged as a result of too much force.
Billingsley as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the opening being centrally arranged. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the opening toward the center of the bottom trough, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Such modification to rearrange the positioning of the openings would be done in order to provide the greatest amount of drainage, allowing for the water from the center or the growth module to drain immediately as opposed to having to exit from another opening.
Regarding claim 2: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the valve (Jagodzinsky 20) comprises a liftable sealing member (Jagodzinsky 21) and the watering trough comprises an actuator (Jagodzinsky 24) arranged to cooperate with the sealing member of a growth module above, such that when arranged in a stack, the sealing member of the valve of the growth module will be pushed upward by the actuator of the growth module positioned below it in the stack, and wherein the sealing member is arranged to fall back into sealing engagement and close off the valve when the growth module is lifted from the stack growth module positioned below it in the stack (Jagodzinsky Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 17: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches the growth medium (Billingsley 3), wherein the growth medium has a property whereby when water is distributed through the growth medium, the water will drain from a lower portion of the growth medium (This limitation would be met as a result of gravity).
Regarding claim 18: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the frame further comprises engagement elements for engagement (Billingsley holes 13) of a gripping mechanism of a module handling vehicle arranged to lift or lower the growth module out of or into a column of the framework structure (This limitation is capable of being met, vehicle not positively recited).
Regarding claim 30: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, and Jagodzinsky further teaches wherein the actuator is in the form of an upwardly projecting pin (24, Fig. 7).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billingsley and Jagodzinsky as seen in claim 2 above, and further in view of Kolbeck (WO 2022123333 A1).
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Billingsley as modified fails to teach wherein the sealing member is a ball.
However, Kolbeck teaches wherein the sealing member is a ball (330, Figs. 35-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the valve as disclosed by modified Billingsley with the ball as taught by Kolbeck with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a ball to be the sealing member would assist the valve system with easier actuation and thus decrease the likelihood of spillage when the growth board is disconnected from the system.
Claims 19-25, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche (US 20240008425 A1) in view of Billingsley (GB 2503911 A) and Jagodzinsky (EP 0445320 A1).
Regarding claim 19: Kalouche teaches an automated vertical farming system including a framework structure including a plurality of upright members (116) arranged in a grid to form columns, and a plurality of growth modules (Fig. 2A) stacked in at least one of the columns (as discussed above in claim 1).
Kalouche fails to teach a plurality of growth modules according to claim 1.
Billingsley discloses a growth module for stacking with other growth modules in columns of a framework structure, the growth module arranged to support growing plants, wherein the growth modules (planter 1) comprises:
a frame (main body 2) for allowing the growth module to be arranged in a stack with the other growth modules (page 3 lines 4-6) in one of the columns (this could be met),
a vertically arranged growth board (mesh panel 5) for supporting plants in an orientation whereby the plants supported by the growth board can grow in a horizontal direction out from the growth board (this limitation is capable of being met),
the growth board being arranged to receive a growth medium (growth medium 3 has aperture 6) for planting and growing the plants, a watering trough arranged along an upper portion of the growth board (top 7),
the watering trough having water distribution holes (holes 8) for distributing water to the growth medium, and a water collection trough arranged along a lower portion of the growth board (trough seen at bottom of planter 1, Fig. 7) to collect water exiting from the growth medium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the farming system as disclosed by Kalouche with the planter as taught by Billingsley with a reasonable expectation of success because providing vertical planters as taught by Billingsley with the water distribution system would ensure that all of the plants within the stack gain the appropriate amount of irrigation
Jagodzinsky teaches the water collection trough having a valve (20) that is configured to open and permit water to flow out to a module positioned below the growth module when the growth module is arranged in the stack and configured to close when the growth module is lifted from the growth module positioned below it in the stack (Figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the growth board openings as disclosed by modified Kalouche with the placement valve actuation as taught by Jagodzinsky with a reasonable expectation of success because by providing such actuation this can prevent any spillage from occurring when a growth board is removed from a stack, achieving the predictable result of minimizing water loss.
Regarding claim 20: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 19 as shown above, and Kalouche further teaches wherein the framework structure comprises a grid rail system (Fig. 2a) supported on the plurality of upright members, the grid rail system comprising rails arranged in a first direction (122) and a second perpendicular direction (124) at an upper level of the framework structure.
Regarding claim 21: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 20 as shown above, and Kalouche further teaches one or more module handling vehicles (robots 200) arranged to travel and transport modules along the grid rail system, each module handling vehicle being equipped with a gripping mechanism (latches or hook 224) arranged to be lowered into a column, grip and lift or lower a growth module (110) into or out of a column (Fig. 6, para 49); and optionally a control system configured to control the travel and operation of the one or more module handling vehicles (para 27, computer 18).
Regarding claim 22: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 19 as shown above, and Jagodzinsky further teaches a plurality of water tank modules (1), each water tank module comprising: a frame configured to allow stacking of the water tank module upon an uppermost growth module of a stack of the plurality of growth modules in a column of the framework structure (Fig. 4); a water tank (2) held within the frame of the water tank module (Figs. 7-8, plurality of bodies 1 could be designated as water tank modules configured to hold water for the rest of the system while the modules 1 below can act as the plant units).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the growth modules as disclosed by modified Kalouche with the designated water tanks as taught by Jagodzinsky with a reasonable expectation of success because providing designated water tanks within the system would achieve the predictable result of assisting the overall system with watering, ensuring that all growth boards within a vertical stack have an appropriate amount of irrigation so that the plants may grow.
Regarding claim 23: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 22 as shown above, and further teaches wherein each water tank module (Jagodzinsky, designated water modules) is equipped with a valve (Jagodzinsky 20) that is arranged to be opened by an actuator (Jagodzinsky 24) of the uppermost growth module upon which the water tank module is placed (Jagodzinsky Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 24: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 22 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the water tank module (Jagodzinsky designated water tank modules) includes engagement elements (Billingsley holes 13) for engagement of a gripping mechanism of a module handling vehicle in order to lift or lower the water tank module out of or into a column of the framework structure of the automated vertical farming system (Kalouche robot 200).
Regarding claim 25: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 19 as shown above, and further teaches spacer modules (Billingsley Support feet 4) arranged at a base of each stack of growth modules to elevate the stacks of growth modules and thereby create a passage underneath a row of stacks of growth modules (Billingsley Fig. 1 would meet this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stack as disclosed by modified Kalouche with the feet as taught by Billingsley with a reasonable expectation of success because providing feed would achieve the predictable result of distancing the bottom of the stack from the ground, decreasing the likelihood that the stack is contaminated by external conditions.
Regarding claim 28: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 19 as shown above, and further teaches at least one lighting module for illuminating plants arranged in the growth modules and/or at least one ventilation module for ventilating the plants arranged in the growth modules (Kalouche para 30 describes lighting and HVAC, para 34 describes providing compressed air and gases).
Regarding claim 29: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 28 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the at least one lighting module is arranged to illuminate the plants growing in a stack of growth modules from the sides of the stack (Kalouche para 30, “Any one of vertical members 116, horizontal members 118 or horizontal members 120 may optionally include utilities to service the crops such as lights (LEDs, fluorescent lights, etc.)” would allow for illumination from the sides).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche Billingsley, Jagodzinsky, as seen in claim 25 above, and further in view of Park (WO 2005053378 A1).
Regarding claim 26: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 25 as shown above, and teaches each spacer module (Billingsley 4) comprises drainage holes (Billingsley holes 10 must pass through feet 4)
Kalouche as modified fails to teach wherein each spacer module comprises a drainage nozzle arranged to collect water exiting the water collection trough of a lowermost growth module of the corresponding stack, the drainage nozzle being connected to a drainage pipe arranged in the passage formed underneath the row of stacks of growth modules.
Park teaches wherein a drainage nozzle (76) arranged to collect water exiting the water collection trough, the drainage nozzle (76) being connected to a drainage pipe (75) arranged in the passage formed underneath.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the feet as disclosed by modified Kalouche with the drain system as taught by park with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a drain nozzle at the bottom of the vertical stack would allow for the water to be collected outside of the stack, allowing for a user to dispose or recycle as needed.
Regarding claim 27: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 26 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the spacer module (Billingsley 4) comprises engagement elements (Billingsley holes 13) for engagement of a gripping mechanism of a module handling vehicle in order to lift or lower the spacer module out of or into a column of the framework structure of the automated vertical farming system (this functional limitation is met).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billingsley in view of Jagodzinsky as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yap (WO 2011014124 A1).
Regarding claim 31: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 18 as shown above.
Billingsley as modified fails to teach wherein the engagement elements for engagement are provided as recesses in an upper edge surface of a side support member of the growth module for engagement of a gripping mechanism of a module handling vehicle in order to lift or lower the growth module.
However, Yap teaches wherein the engagement elements for engagement are provided as recesses (34, 54,56) in an upper edge surface of a side support member of the growth module for engagement of a gripping mechanism (28) of a module handling vehicle in order to lift or lower the growth module (the vehicle is not positively recited and thus not required by the claims, thus the limitation is met by the combination of art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the growth module as disclosed by modified Billingsley with the recesses as taught by Yap with a reasonable expectation of success because providing recesses would allow a greater amount of control when the growth module is manipulated by either a person, or robot/vehicle, achieving the predictable result of providing further stability during transportation or arrangement.
Regarding claim 32: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 31 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the recesses are provided in corner regions of an upper edge of the side support member for allowing part of the gripping mechanism to extend through a recess and grip another side of the upper edge (Yap has recesses 54,56 on both sides of the covers as illustrated in Figs. 7A-7B which would allow this limitation to be met). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange recesses to the corners, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Such arrangement would allow for easier manipulation of the growth modules when being actuated by a vehicle or persons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. The Office has introduced the prior art of Spiro to arrive at these limitations.
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 EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642