DETAILED ACTION
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
As per the submission to the Office filed on 05/15/2026 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 41, 45-47, 49, 53, 55-56 were amended, Claims 57-60 were withdrawn, and Claims 1-40 were canceled. Claims 41-56 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 46, the limitation “airgap” in line 7 should read –air gap--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 45-56 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.
For claim 45, the limitation “a gutter” in line 1 is unclear if it is referring to the first gutter and second gutter that was stated in claim 41, line 4.
For claims 45-47 and 51, the limitation “the gutter” lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 53, the limitation “the space” in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
For claims 54 and 56, the limitation “the grasping mechanism” in line 1 lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 55, the limitation “the grasping mechanism” in lines 5-6 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 48-50, and 52 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 41-48, 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANTOLA (US 20180064046 A1 as cited in IDS) in view of HEUTERMAN (NL 1028486 C2 as cited in IDS) and Hsueh (US 20190246584 A1).
Regarding claim 41, KANTOLA teaches a system (figs. 1-4 and abstract) for growing plants (title and abstract), comprising: a plurality of plantlets (72); and a gutter system (figs. 1-4) having a first gutter (10 on the left side in fig. 4) and a second gutter (10 on the right side in fig. 4), wherein: the first gutter has a first plant substrate density (fig. 3 and [0031] as grooves 12 and 14 in the first gutter will comprise of the plants 72 which will comprise of the first plant substrate density), the second gutter has a second plant substrate density (fig. 3 and [0031] as grooves 12 and 14 in the second gutter will comprise of the plants 72 which will comprise of the second plant substrate density).
However, KANTOLA does not teach a biodegradable chain linking together the plurality of plantlets; the first plant substrate density differs from the second plant substrate density, and real-time adjustment of plant substrate density occurs.
HEUTERMAN teaches a biodegradable chain (2 and 3 and see machine translation “FIG. 1 shows a strip 1 which is composed of a cardboard carrier strip 2 and a self-adhesive paper cover strip 3.”) linking together the plurality of plantlets (5 and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a biodegradable chain linking together the plurality of plantlets as taught by HEUTERMAN into the system of KANTOLA in order to provide a convenient form of planting the plurality of plantlets as a chain that can naturally decompose (see machine translation “FIG. 1 shows a strip 1 which is composed of a cardboard carrier strip 2 and a self-adhesive paper cover strip 3.” of HEUTERMAN).
Hsueh teaches wherein the first plant substrate density (abstract and [0039] as the first plant substrate density is the plant substrate density placed in the tray 300 where 320 is pointing towards in fig. 4) differs from the second plant substrate density (abstract and [0039] as the second plant substrate density is the plant substrate density placed in the other tray 300 where 310 is pointing towards in fig. 4 wherein the plants can be spaced according to the desired plant density and so will have a different plant substrate density than the first plant substrate density), and real-time adjustment of plant substrate density occurs (abstract and [0039] and fig. 4 as the real-time adjustment of plant substrate density occurs when the plants are spaced in the various tub/tray assembly 300).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN to include wherein the first plant substrate density differs from the second plant substrate density, and real-time adjustment of plant substrate density occurs as taught by Hsueh based on the user’s desired plant density preference ([0039] of Hsueh).
Regarding claim 42, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 41, and HEUTERMAN further teaches wherein the biodegradable chain linking is comprised of one or more biodegradable cellulose materials (2 is made of cardboard and 3 is made of paper, fig. 1 and pages 3-4 as paper and cardboard are cellulose).
Regarding claim 43, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 42, and HEUTERMAN further teaches wherein the one or more biodegradable cellulose materials include at least one of paper (2 and pages 3-4), straw, cardboard (3 and pages 3-4), wood, hemp, giant reed, miscanthus, and/or eucalyptus.
Regarding claim 44, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 41, and KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh further teaches wherein a plurality of plant plugs (74 76) are retained within the biodegradable chain (2 and 3), wherein each of the plurality of plantlets (72) is retained within a respective plant plug in the plurality of plant plugs ([0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 45, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 41, and KANTOLA further teaches comprising a gutter (10) that holds the plurality of plantlets (72, fig. 3), wherein the gutter further comprises: a trough (figs. 1-6, grooves 12 and 14); a first side wall (52, 54) extending upward from the trough (fig. 1); and a second side wall (48, 56) opposite the first side wall and extending upward from the trough (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 46, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 45, and KANTOLA further teaches further comprising a plurality of plant plugs (74 76 and [0031-0032]), wherein each plantlet of the plurality of plantlets is retained within a respective plant plug in the plurality of plant plugs ([0031-0032]), and wherein each respective plant plug in the plurality of plant plugs is retained in the gutter via at least one of: a friction fit between the respective plant plug, the first side wall, and the second side wall (fig. 3, [0031-0032] and [0048]); and/or a surface (60) provided on a bottom of the gutter (fig. 1) having an airgap (24 and 26) defined around said surface (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 47, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 45, and KANTOLA further teaches wherein the plurality of plantlets (72) is held between the first side wall (52, 54) and the second side wall (48, 56) of the gutter (10).
Regarding claim 48, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 47, and KANTOLA further teaches wherein there is an air gap (24 and 26) underneath each of the plurality of plantlets (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 50, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 45, and KANTOLA further teaches wherein water and/or plant nutrients are configured to run through the trough ([0005], [0046] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 51, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 45, and KANTOLA further teaches wherein the gutter further comprises a first leg (44) and a second leg (42) extending downwards from the trough (fig. 1 and [0035-0036]).
Regarding claim 52, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 45, and KANTOLA further teaches wherein each of the first side wall and the second side wall is a double walled structure having a hollow interior defined within said double walled structure (figs. 1-6, see hollow interiors between walls 50, 52, and between walls 56, 64 and between walls 48, 46).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of King (US 20110120005 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 49, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 47, but is silent wherein each plantlet of the plurality of the plantlets has a bottom that rests on the trough.
King teaches wherein each plantlet of the plurality of the plantlets (52-56 and P) has a bottom (bottom of 52-56 and P) that rests on the trough (60; fig. 3, [0030] as substrate 56 is set on the bottom of 62 of tray 60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh to be wherein each plantlet of the plurality of the plantlets has a bottom that rests on the trough as taught by King in order to reduce the amount of space needed for the system as it is well known in the art.
Claims 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Elazary (US 20180146618 A1).
Regarding claim 53, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh teaches the system of claim 41, HEUTERMAN further teaches the biodegradable chain linking (2 and 3).
However, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh is silent about further comprising one or more grasping mechanisms configured to manipulate the biodegradable chain linking so that the space between the plurality of plantlets is increased.
Elazary teaches one or more grasping mechanisms (1010 and 1030) configured to manipulate the object (figs. 10a-10b as the grasping mechanisms manipulates the object near the plant) so that the space between the plurality of plantlets is increased (Elazary is capable to have the grasping mechanisms manipulate the object so that the space between the plurality of plantlets is increased as the grasping mechanisms is capable of moving the grippers of 1030 from an open and closed position [0063] and figs. 10a-10b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more grasping mechanisms configured to manipulate the biodegradable chain linking so that the space between the plurality of plantlets is increased as taught by Elazary into the system of KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN and Hsueh in order to automatically tend to the plant without the use of a human ([0063] of Elazary).
Regarding claim 54, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN, Hsueh and Elazary teaches the system of claim 53, and Elazary further teaches wherein the grasping mechanism comprises one or more pushing fingers (1030 and figs. 10a-10b).
Regarding claim 55 , KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN, Hsueh and Elazary teaches the system of claim 53, and KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN, Hsueh and Elazary further teaches further comprising: one or more sensors (figs. 10a-10b depict the sensor 3 on top of the robotic arm as stated in the abstract of Elazary) configured to monitor one or more plantlets in the plurality of plantlets to determine at least one sensor reading (abstract, [0072] and claims 2-4 of Elazary), said at least one sensor reading comprising a measured growth of the one or more plantlets (abstract, [0072] and claims 2-4 of Elazary); and at least one processor (claims 1 and 4 of Elazary) configured to control the grasping mechanism (Elazary is capable of having the processor control the grasping mechanism (claims 1 and 4)) to manipulate (Elazary is capable of having the processor control the grasping mechanism to manipulate an object (claims 1-4)) the biodegradable chain linking (2 and 3 of HEUTERMAN) at least based on the measured growth of the one or more plantlets (abstract, [0072] and claims 1-4 of Elazary).
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN, Hsueh and Elazary as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of SCHMITT (US 20220250246 A1).
Regarding claim 56, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN, Hsueh and Elazary teaches the system of claim 55, and Hsueh further teaches the real-time adjustment varies spacing between plant substrates ([0039] and fig. 4 as the real-time adjustment of plant substrates occurs when the plants are spaced in the various tub/tray assembly 300).
However, KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN, Hsueh and Elazary is silent wherein the grasping mechanism is further controlled by at least an Al.
SCHMITT teaches wherein the grasping mechanism (4) is further controlled by at least an Al ([0178]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grasping mechanism of KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN, Hsueh and Elazary to be controlled by at least an Al as taught by SCHMITT in order for the robotic arm to perform the desired action without a user ([0178] of SCHMITT).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 41-55 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues “Claim 56, as amended, recites: "the grasping mechanism is further controlled by at least an AI and the real-time adjustment varies spacing between plant substrates." The Specification discloses an exemplary embodiment may also include robotics that can be autonomously controlled by the control unit to take actions based on the received data, such as, for example, increasing a spacing between plant substrates.
The Office Action conceded Heuterman "as modified by Elazary teaches the system of claim 55, but is silent wherein the grasping mechanism is further controlled by at least an Al." To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner relied upon paragraph [0178] of Schmitt. While Schmitt discloses AI, it involves a punishment/reward system for each plant, rather than real-time adjustment that varies spacing between plant substrates.
Hence, Schmitt does not remedy the deficiencies of the other references of record. The Office Action did not present a prima facie case for claim 56.”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Please see rejection above as Hsueh is relied upon to teach the real-time adjustment varies spacing between plant substrates ([0039] and fig. 4 as the real-time adjustment of plant substrates occurs when the plants are spaced in the various tub/tray assembly 300) and Elazary teaches one or more grasping mechanisms (1010 and 1030) configured to manipulate the object (figs. 10a-10b as the grasping mechanisms manipulates the object near the plant) so that the space between the plurality of plantlets is increased (Elazary is capable to have the grasping mechanisms manipulate the object so that the space between the plurality of plantlets is increased as the grasping mechanisms is capable of moving the grippers of 1030 from an open and closed position [0063] and figs. 10a-10b). The one or more grasping mechanisms of KANTOLA as modified by HEUTERMAN, Hsueh and Elazary is further amended with SCHMITT to teach the use of the grasping mechanism (4) is further controlled by at least an Al ([0178]) in order for the robotic arm to perform the desired action without a user ([0178] of SCHMITT).
Also, 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., “The Specification discloses an exemplary embodiment may also include robotics that can be autonomously controlled by the control unit to take actions based on the received data, such as, for example, increasing a spacing between plant substrates”) 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights