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
It is noted that claim 28 is not treated because it depended on a canceled claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 26, 27, 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linneberg (US 2018/0263201) in view of CN 109315281 (CN’281).
For claim 1, Linneberg teaches a system for plant cultivation in a vertical arrangement, the system comprising: at least one vertical tower made from a first material, comprising: a first wall (91); a second wall (91) in continuation with and at an obtuse angle to the first wall; spaced multiple openings (94) vertically aligned in a single column on each of the first wall and second wall, wherein the multiple openings on the second wall are staggered relative to the multiple openings on the first wall;
a plurality of pods (80) wherein each of the plurality of pods is configured to hold a grow block adapted to cultivate a plant, wherein each of the plurality of pods is configured to be inserted into one of the spaced multiple openings (see Figure 6 for example).
However, Linneberg lacks to mention wherein each pod of the plurality of pods comprises a non-cylindrical body having a downward-sloped rear wall and angled sidewalls and is configured to force said pod into an acute angle orientation relative to the at least one vertical tower when received within one of the spaced multiple openings.
CN’281 teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide the use of cultivation pod (100) comprises a non-cylindrical body having a downward-sloped rear wall (104) and angled sidewalls (102,3,105) and is configured to force said pod into an acute angle orientation relative to the at least one vertical tower when received within one of the spaced multiple openings (see Figures 1-3 for example).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pod of Linneberg so as to include a cultivation pod comprises a non-cylindrical body having a downward-sloped rear wall and angled sidewalls, in a similar manner as taught in CN’281, so that the pod can be securely attached within the cultivation tower.
For claims 2 and 3, as described above, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on Linneberg) teach most of the claimed invention except for the use of a specific material such as steel for the first material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on Linneberg) so as to include the use of a steel material, since using another type of material is considered as a matter of design choice depended on its suitability for the intended use and/or environmental/cost advantages, wherein no stated problem is solved or any new or unexpected result achieved, since it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the type of material used in Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on Linneberg).
For claim 4, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on Linneberg) further teach wherein the spaced multiple openings are equally spaced (see Figure 1 for example).
For claim 26, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on CN’281) further teach wherein each pod of the plurality of pods comprises at least one tab (41,42) configured to engage with at least one pod bezel bonded to the at least one tower unit and configured to retain said each pod of the plurality of pods within one of the spaced multiple openings.
For claim 27, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on CN’281) further teach wherein the at least one tab (41,42) is configured to provide a snap-fit retention within the at least one pod bezel.
For claim 29, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on CN’281) further teach wherein said each pod of the plurality of pods comprises a front lip (101) configured to support a grow block.
For claim 30, as described above, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 teach most of the claimed invention except for the use of a low-water light.
However, an Official Notice is taken that using a light to provide a visual indication to notify low water levels is a well known technique used throughout the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Linneberg as modified by CN’281 so as to include the use of a low-water light indicator, in light of the Official Notice taken, so as to notify the user of low water level within the water reservoir.
For claim 31, as described above, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 teach most of the claimed invention except for the use of a level sensor assembly comprising a float and magnet is configured such that, when the water level decreases and the magnet reaches a range that activates a switch, power to the pump is interrupted.
However, an Official Notice is taken that using such level sensor assembly is a well known technique used throughout the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Linneberg as modified by CN’281 so as to include the use of a level sensor assembly, in light of the Official Notice taken, so as to control the fluctuation of water level within the water reservoir.
For claim 32, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on CN’281) further teach wherein each pod of the plurality of pods comprises a tapered lower portion configured to direct fluid flow downward along the first wall or the second wall.
For claim 33, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on CN’281) further teach wherein each pod of the plurality of pods comprises side surfaces (102) that slope inward toward the downward-sloped rear wall to provide clearance for insertion into one of the spaced multiple openings.
For claim 34, Linneberg as modified by CN’281 (emphasis on CN’281) further teach wherein the downward-sloped rear wall (104) of each pod of the plurality of pods is configured to position the grow block at the acute angle relative to the at least one tower.
Claims 5-7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 102187054 (KR’054).
For claim 5, as described above, the references as applied to claim 1 above disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the system further comprises a frame comprising:
a first side structure and a second side structure;
a top shelf fitted between, and at the top of, the first side structure and the second side structure, wherein the top shelf comprises at least two magnetic brackets configured to couple to the at least one vertical tower;
a base box fitted between, and at the bottom of, the first side structure and the second side structure, the base box comprising:
a water reservoir; and a pump, wherein the at least one tower is positioned within the frame between the first side structure and the second side structure, below the top shelf, and above the base box.
KR’054 teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide the system further comprises a frame comprising: a first side structure (12) and a second side structure (12); a top shelf (13) fitted between, and at the top of, the first side structure and the second side structure; a base box (11) fitted between, and at the bottom of, the first side structure and the second side structure, the base box comprising: a water reservoir (31); and a pump (50), wherein the at least one tower is positioned within the frame between the first side structure and the second side structure, below the top shelf, and above the base box (see Figures 1-4 for example).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of the references as applied to claim 1 above so as to include a frame comprising: a first side structure and a second side structure; a top shelf fitted between, and at the top of, the first side structure and the second side structure, wherein the top shelf comprises at least two magnetic brackets configured to couple to the at least one vertical tower; a base box fitted between, and at the bottom of, the first side structure and the second side structure, the base box comprising: a water reservoir; and a pump, wherein the at least one tower is positioned within the frame between the first side structure and the second side structure, below the top shelf, and above the base box, in a similar manner as taught in KR’054, in order to provide an automated arrangement for cultivating plants.
With respect to “wherein the top shelf comprises at least two magnetic brackets configured to couple to the at least one vertical tower”, it is noted that KR’054 teaches the use of fitting grooves (13a, 13b) to couple the top shelf to the vertical towers, which is considered as a coupling means functional equivalent to the two magnetic brackets as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use either KR’054’s fitting grooves or Applicant’s magnetic brackets in order to couple the top shelf to the vertical towers, since to do so would merely replace one old and well known coupling means with another art equivalent old and well known coupling means.
For claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1 above as modified by KR’054 (emphasis on KR’054) further teach wherein the first side structure and the second side structure comprise at least one light (70) coupled to each of the first side structure and the second side structure.
For claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1 above as modified by KR’054 (emphasis on KR’054) further teach wherein the at least one tower comprises a tubing (25) configured to carry water pumped by the pump (50) from the water reservoir (31) up to a top side of the at least one tower.
For claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1 above as modified by KR’054 (emphasis on KR’054) further teach a drain (16,39) positioned at a bottom of the at least one tower, wherein the drain is located above the base box and is configured to open into the water reservoir.
For claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1 above as modified by KR’054 (emphasis on KR’054) further teach wherein the base box further comprises a housing comprising electrical components (inherently included in members (35) and (50)), and wherein the housing is attached to a bottom side of the base box.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 26-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights