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
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.
Claims 2, 5, 16 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 2 recites “the cross-member”, it is unclear whether this limitation is in reference to “a cross-member” introduced earlier in claim 1, or if this is meant to be a separate element. For the purpose of Examination, the lateral interpretation has been used to examine the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the cross-member”, it is unclear whether this limitation is in reference to “a cross-member” introduced earlier in claim 1, or if this is meant to be a separate element. For the purpose of Examination, the lateral interpretation has been used to examine the claim.
Claim 16 recites “the cross-member”, it is unclear whether this limitation is in reference to “a cross-member” introduced earlier in claim 1, or if this is meant to be a separate element. For the purpose of Examination, the lateral interpretation has been used to examine the claim.
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, 6-9, 13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche (US 20240008425 A1) in view Billingsley (GB 2503911 A).
Regarding claim 1: Kalouche discloses a modular vertical farming system, comprising: a framework structure (14) comprising upright members arranged in rows and columns in a grid pattern, the framework structure having a grid rail system supported on the 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 (Fig. 6), the rails and upright members defining columns in which stackable modules (110) may be stacked (Fig. 6); one or more module handling vehicles (200) arranged to travel and transport modules along the rail system, each module handling vehicle being equipped with a gripping mechanism (latches or hooks 224) arranged to be lowered into a column, grip and lift or lower a module (11)) into or out of a column (para 49); a control system configured to control the travel and operation of the one or more module handling vehicles (para 44); and a plurality of stackable modules (110) having a footprint corresponding to that of a column of the framework structure (Fig. 6), such that the stackable modules may be arranged in stacks in the columns (para 42).
Kalouche fails to teach wherein the stackable modules each comprise a load-bearing frame comprising upper and lower load-transferring edge surfaces, a first support member and a second support member held in a spaced apart and parallel configuration by a cross-member, and wherein the cross-member is a water tank or water tank assembly, thus forming a water tank module.
However, Billingsley teaches wherein the stackable modules each comprise a load-bearing frame (2) comprising upper and lower load-transferring edge surfaces (upper and lower edges), a first support member and a second support member (sides of 2) held in a spaced apart and parallel configuration by a cross-member (5), and wherein the cross-member is a water tank or water tank assembly, thus forming a water tank module (uppermost module could be used to hold water and thus 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 growth containers as disclosed by Kalouche with the support frames as taught by Billingsley with a reasonable expectation of success because providing frames for the growth containers would achieve the predictable result of protecting the vegetation from outside forces and allow for a greater control of the conditions in which the plants are being grown in.
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches recesses (Kalouche 158) arranged to be engaged by a gripping mechanism of a module handling vehicle of the vertical farming facility (Kalouche para 49).
Kalouche as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the upper load-transferring edge surface is provided with recesses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the recesses on the upper surface since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Arranging the recesses in such a way would achieve the predictable result quicker engagement from a vehicle and allow for faster transportation of the growth modules.
Regarding claim 7: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the first support member and second support member are each side support members (Billingsley sides of 2), optionally in the form of a strut, and optionally wherein the side support members have an I-shaped outline.
Regarding claim 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kalouche as modified by Billingsley discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first support member, second support member, and cross-member comprise disassembled parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the prior art so that the elements are disassembled parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. The benefit of having dissembled sections would result in the predictable result of having easier means of transportation and storage of the growth system.
Regarding claim 9: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 8 as shown above, and further teaches wherein a second plate-shaped member for supporting a second light source module and the growth board is the same component (Billingsley 5 could be used to support both growth medium and lights, thus meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 13: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the water tank module is provided at an uppermost position in a stack of growth modules in a column (as discussed above, the uppermost module could be used to provide water to the lower modules thus teaching this limitation).
Regarding claim 15: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the water tank module is mounted between side support members by a water tank bracket (Sides of modified Kalouche’s modules would teach this bracket).
Regarding claim 16: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, and further teaches a stackable module wherein the cross-member is a plate-shape member arranged for supporting a light source module, thus forming a stackable lighting module (Kalouche’s module would be able to support a light source thus teaching this limitation).
Claims 2-3, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche and Billingsley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jagodzinsky (EP 0445320 A1).
Regarding claim 2: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches a stackable module wherein the cross-member is a plate-shaped member arranged as a substrate for supporting a growth medium (Billingsley mesh panel 5), thus forming a growth module; wherein the plate-shaped member arranged for supporting the growth medium is a growth board with a watering trough (Billingsley top 7) arranged along an upper edge of the growth board, the watering trough having water distribution holes (Billingsley holes 8) for distributing a portion of the water introduced into the trough to the growth medium, a water collection trough arranged along a lower edge of the growth board to collect the portion of the water exiting from the growth medium and the portion of the water passing through the drain (Billingsley, trough seen at bottom of planter 1, Fig. 7).
Kalouche as modified fails to teach a drain with an elevated inlet in the watering trough with a liquid passage bypassing the growth medium, arranged such that a portion of the water introduced into the watering trough will enter the drain, the water collection trough having a valve that is configured to open and permit water to flow out to a module positioned below when the growth module is arranged in a stack and configured to close when the growth module is lifted from the stack by a module handling vehicle
However, Jagodzinsky teaches a drain (overflow 9, elbow 12) with an elevated inlet in the watering trough with a liquid passage bypassing the growth medium, arranged such that a portion of the water introduced into the watering trough will enter the drain (this limitation is capable of being met dependent on the amount of medium provided), the water collection trough having a valve (20) that is configured to open and permit water to flow out to a module positioned below when the growth module is arranged in a stack and configured to close when the growth module is lifted from the stack (Figs. 7-8) by a module handling vehicle (this limitation is met as there is no positive recitation of the vehicle).
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 system as disclosed by modified Kalouche with the watering arrangement as taught by Jagodzinsky with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the watering arrangements would allow for water to be routed in a way to avoid overwatering of the vegetation within the system as well as preventing spillage from occurring when a module is disconnected from the stack of growth modules.
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the growth board (Billingsley 5) is the plate-shaped member for supporting a light source module when the stackable module is arranged as a stackable lighting module (Billingsley 5 could meet this arrangement, thus arriving at the limitations).
Regarding claim 14: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kalouche as modified fails to teach wherein the water tank module is equipped with a water tank valve that is activated into an open position by a pin of an uppermost growth board of the stack on which the water module is placed.
However, Jagodzinsky teaches wherein the water tank module is equipped with a water tank valve (20) that is activated into an open position by a pin (23) of an uppermost growth board of the stack on which the water module is placed (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 uppermost modules as disclosed by modified Kalouche with the valve actuation as taught by Kalouche with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a pin-actuated valve in the upper most module would allow for water to only be distributed to the lowermost modules when stacked, decreasing the likelihood that water undesireably leaks from the designated water tank module.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche and Billingsley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindbo (US 20190241362 A1).
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kalouche as modified fails to teach wherein a light source module comprises electrical connectors along upper and lower edges of the light source module, the connectors arranged such that, when a plurality of stackable modules comprising light source modules are arranged in a stack, the connector of a first light source module will engage the connector of a vertically adjacent light source module.
However, Lindbo teaches wherein a light source module comprises electrical connectors (17,40) along upper and lower edges of the light source module (Figs. 6A-6B), the connectors arranged such that, when a plurality of stackable modules comprising light source modules are arranged in a stack, the connector of a first light source module will engage the connector of a vertically adjacent light source module (paras 54. 57).
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 electrical connectors as taught by Lindbo with a reasonable expectation of success because providing connections between the growth containers would decrease the amount of energy consumption by having disconnected containers not use electricity during transportation/maintenance, further optimizing the system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalouche, Billingsley, and Lindbo as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220192114 A1).
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 4 as shown above, and further teaches a stackable module wherein the cross-member is a spacer frame, thus forming a spacer module (Lindbo 76), wherein the spacer frame (Lindbo 76) comprise an electrical connector in connection with a power cable arranged to connect to the electrical connector of a lowermost light source module in the event a stack of stackable modules comprising light source modules is arranged above the spacer frame (Lindbo Figs. 10-11, paras 58-59 show connectors 72 for connecting to the light source modules of the containers).
Kalouche as modified fails to teach spacer frame comprises a drainage device arranged to connect to a valve of a lowermost growth module in the event a stack of growth modules is arranged above the spacer frame.
However, Lee teaches space frame (3) comprises a drainage device (33) arranged to connect to a valve of a lowermost growth module in the event a stack of growth modules is arranged above the spacer frame (para 105).
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 base as disclosed by modified Kalouche with the drain as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a drain would allow for the water to exit the system and either be disposed or recirculated as deemed fit by the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Kalouche does not disclose a water tank module. The Office respectfully disagrees, as the apparatus claims only require that there is a module capable of serving this intended function. As such, because multiple modules of modified Kalouche could be used to stack on top of each other, the uppermost module could be designated as a water tank module so that it’s main purpose is to distribute fresh water to the lower modules. So even though Kalouche has different forms of suppling water to the system, this designation would teach the limitations as currently recited.
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, knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art would be applied as side members are known to provide further stability to the intermediary structure of the growth modules, decreasing the likelihood that failure occurs as a result of multiple modules being stacked on top of each other.
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
Prosecution Insights