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 11/18/2025 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 41, 43, 46-47, 49, and 53-55 were amended, Claims 57-60 were withdrawn, and Claims 1-40 were canceled. Claims 41-56 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
402 in fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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.
Claims 41-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
For claim 41, applicant’s disclosure does not detail what the curved and flat portions of the plantlets are and therefore the claim language of alternating the plantlets in relation to the flat and curved ends is not disclosed and enabled by applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 42-56 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 49 is 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 49, the limitation “each of the plurality of plantlets” in line 2 is unclear because is it referring to a different each of the plurality of plantlets than what was stated in line 1? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same each of the plurality of plantlets and it is recommended that “said” be inserted before “each of the plurality of plantlets” in claim 49.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by HEUTERMAN (NL 1028486 C2 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 41, HEUTERMAN discloses a system for growing plants (figs. 1-3), comprising: a plurality of plantlets (5); a biodegradable chain linking (2 and 3) together the plurality of plantlets (fig. 1); wherein each plantlet of the plurality of plantlets comprises a flat end (the leaves of 5) and a curved end (the stalk portion of 5); and wherein the plurality of plantlets are arranged within the biodegradable chain in an alternating fashion (the plurality of plantlets are capable of being arranged within the biodegradable chain in an alternating fashion as fig. 1 of HEUTERMAN depicts the plurality of plantlets arranged in a row wherein the adjacent plantlets are positioned in an alternating fashion where the flat leaves face the curved stalks) such that the curved end of each plantlet faces the flat end of each adjacent plantlet (the curved end of the stalk faces the flat end of the leaves end of each adjacent plantlet) and such that the flat end of each plantlet faces the curved end of each adjacent plantlet (and the flat end of the leaves faces the curved end of the stalk of each adjacent plantlet).
Regarding claim 42, HEUTERMAN discloses the system of claim 41, 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, HEUTERMAN discloses the system of claim 42, 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.
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 44-48, 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEUTERMAN in view of KANTOLA (US 20180064046 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 44, HEUTERMAN teaches the system of claim 41, and the biodegradable chain (2 and 3).
However, HEUTERMAN is silent wherein a plurality of plant plugs are retained, wherein each of the plurality of plantlets is retained within a respective plant plug in the plurality of plant plugs.
KANTOLA teaches a plurality of plant plugs (74 76) are retained within the trough (10), wherein each of the plurality of plantlets (72) is retained within a respective plant plug in the plurality of plant plugs ([0031-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use plant plugs as taught by KANTOLA on the biodegradable chain of HEUTERMAN in order to ensure the plants remain in their designated locations and have correct spacing.
Regarding claim 45, HEUTERMAN teaches the system of claim 41, but is silent about further comprising a gutter that holds the plurality of plantlets, wherein the gutter further comprises; a trough; a first side wall extending upward from the trough; and a second side wall opposite the first side wall and extending upward from the trough.
KANTOLA 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).
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 gutter that holds the plurality of plantlets, wherein the gutter further comprises; a trough; a first side wall extending upward from the trough; and a second side wall opposite the first side wall and extending upward from the trough as taught by KANTOLA on the system of HEUTERMAN in order to convey irrigation water and nutrients to the plant ([0031] of KANTOLA).
Regarding claim 46, HEUTERMAN as modified by KANTOLA teaches the system of claim 45, and KANTOLA further teaches further comprising a plurality of plant plugs (74 76 and [0031-0032]), wherein each 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, HEUTERMAN teaches the system of claim 45, but is silent about wherein the plantlets are held between the first side wall and the second side wall of the gutter.
KANTOLA teaches wherein the plantlets (72) are held between the first side wall (52, 54) and the second side wall (48, 56) of the gutter (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plantlets are held between the first side wall and the second side wall of the gutter as taught by KANTOLA into the system of HEUTERMAN in order to convey irrigation water and nutrients to the plant ([0031] of KANTOLA).
Regarding claim 48, HEUTERMAN as modified by KANTOLA 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, HEUTERMAN as modified by KANTOLA 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, HEUTERMAN as modified by KANTOLA 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, HEUTERMAN as modified by KANTOLA teaches the system of claim 45, and KANTOLA 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 HEUTERMAN as modified by KANTOLA as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of King (US 20110120005 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 49, HEUTERMAN as modified by KANTOLA teaches the system of claim 47, but is silent wherein, each of the plurality of the plantlets having a bottom; wherein the bottom of each of the plurality of plantlets rests on the trough.
King teaches each of the plurality of the plantlets (52-56 and P) having a bottom (bottom of 52-56 and P), wherein the bottom of each of the plurality of plantlets (52-56 and P) 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 HEUTERMAN as modified by KANTOLA to be wherein each of the plurality of the plantlets having a bottom; wherein the bottom of each of the plurality of plantlets rests on the trough as taught by King in order to reduce the amount of space needed for the system.
Claims 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEUTERMAN as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Elazary (US 20180146618 A1).
Regarding claim 53, HEUTERMAN teaches the system of claim 41, HEUTERMAN teaches the biodegradable chain linking (2 and 3).
However, HEUTERMAN is silent about further comprising one or more grasping mechanisms configured to manipulate the biodegradable chain linking so that the space between the 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 plantlets is increased (Elazary is capable to have the grasping mechanisms manipulate the object so that the space between the 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 plantlets is increased as taught by Elazary into the system of HEUTERMAN in order to automatically tend to the plant without the use of a human ([0063] of Elazary).
Regarding claim 54, HEUTERMAN as modified by 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 , HEUTERMAN as modified by Elazary teaches the system of claim 53, and HEUTERMAN as modified by Elazary 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), said at least one processor configured to control the grasping mechanism (Elazary is capable of having the processor control the grasping mechanism (claims 1 and 4)); wherein the processor is configured to control the grasping mechanism 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 HEUTERMAN as modified by Elazary as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of SCHMITT (US 20220250246 A1).
Regarding claim 56, 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.
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 HEUTERMAN as modified by 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 filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Support for this amendment can be seen in Applicant's Fig. 4 as filed, which shows the claimed alternating arrangement. However, as can be seen in Heuterman's Fig. 1, Heuterman does not disclose this arrangement, but instead teaches that all of the plantlets face the same direction”
The examiner respectively disagrees. Please see the action above as HEUTERMAN still teaches the amendments wherein HEUTERMAN comprises of a flat end (the leaves of 5) and a curved end (the stalk portion of 5). Examiner would also like to state that HEUTERMAN does teach wherein the plurality of plantlets are arranged within the biodegradable chain in an alternating fashion as the plurality of plantlets are capable of being arranged within the biodegradable chain in an alternating fashion by adjusting the position of the plantlets within the biodegradable chain.
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claim 41 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 41.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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