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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 62-73 & 83-88 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.
Priority
Applicant is reminded that in order for a patent issuing on the instant application to obtain priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b), based on priority papers filed in a parent or related Application No. PCT/SG22/50492 (to which the present application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or is a reissue application of a patent issued on the related application), a claim for such foreign priority must be timely made in this application. To satisfy the requirement of 37 CFR 1.55 for a certified copy of the foreign application, applicant may simply identify the parent nonprovisional application or patent for which reissue is sought containing the certified copy.
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.
Claim 86 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 86 recites the limitation of “said plurality of separate self-contained units are fluidically isolated from one another” which was not disclosed in the description filled on 1/12/2024.
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 85 & 87 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 85 recites the limitation "said water growing animal" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 87 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: what structure the raceway is intended to be (i.e. a tank).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 62-63, 67-69, & 87-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asperger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0338422 A1; herein Per.
Re claim 62, Per discloses a system, comprising:
(a) a plurality of separate self-contained units (50; the grow towers, fig. 3A-5B) configured for growth of at least one water-growing organism (para 53 & 65, wherein the grow tower is for hydroponic plants);
(b) a storage bay (20; the growing chamber, fig. 1-2);
(c) a harvesting station (32; the harvesting stations, fig. 1-2);
(d) a cleaning station (34; the washing station, fig. 1-2);
(e) a stocking station (36; the transplanter station, fig. 1-2); and
(f) an automated system configured to move a self-contained unit of said plurality of separate self-contained units between said storage bay, said harvesting station, said stocking station, and said cleaning station (para 54-55, 58, 60, 87, 131, via the conveyance systems described the grow towers are transferred from the growing chamber then from station to station and eventually back to the growing chamber) wherein said automated system is configured to move said self- contained unit to (i) said stocking station (para 131, via the transplanter infeed conveyor) to load said at least one water-growing organism into said self-contained unit (para 64 & 133, the transplanter station allows hydroponic plant to be applied to openings of the grow tower) (ii) said storage bay (43; the automated pickup (loading) station, fig. 1-2) to store said self-contained unit and permit growth of said at least one water-growing organism (para 60, the loading station allows the tower to traverse through the growth environment), (iii) said harvesting station (para 87 & 134, the automated laydown station; 41 transports the grow towers to the harvester station) to harvest said at least one water-growing organism from said self-contained unit (para 59, 135, & 137, the harvester acts to harvest the mature crop and secure it within the bins supplied), and (iv) said cleaning station (para 131, via the washer infeed conveyor) to clean said self-contained unit (para 132, via the mechanism therein for cleaning crop debris).
Re claim 63, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, direct said plurality of self-contained units between said storage bay, said harvesting station, said stocking station, and said cleaning station (para 178, wherein the program code executes the translation of the grow towers between each conveyor system).
Re claim 67, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per further discloses wherein said storage bay is configured to couple to an umbilical portion (52; the hook, fig. 3A-B, 5A-6, 8, 9, & 11A) of a self-contained unit of said plurality of self-contained units (fig. 3A-B, 5A-B, & 8 and para 53-55, 63, & 69, each grow tower/hook is mounted to the grow line within the storage bay).
Re claim 68, Per discloses the invention of claim 67, Per further discloses wherein said umbilical portion is configured to transmit liquids (fig. 11B and para 83-84, the funnel of the hook allows fluids to be distributed through the grow tower).
Re claim 69, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per further discloses wherein saltwater is not discharged during operation of the system (para 53, wherein the plants are vegetables, flowering crops, fruits, and the like not known as salt-water plants sine that would cause osmotic stress).
Re claim 87, as best understood, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per further discloses wherein said plurality of separate self-contained unit does not comprise a raceway tank (fig. 3A, each of the grow towers being rectangular).
Re claim 88, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per further discloses wherein a self-contained unit of the plurality of separate self- contained units comprises a lid (52; the hook, fig. 3A-B, 5A-6, 8, 9, & 11A, which acts as a removable cover via the mechanical fastener, see para 71).
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.
Claims 64 & 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Per as applied to claim 62 above.
Re claim 64, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per further discloses wherein said storage bay is located within a single tower (fig. 1-2).
Per discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said storage bay, said harvesting station, said stocking station, and said cleaning station are all located within a single tower. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have all the stations located in the same tower as the storage bay to control the environment the crops are in, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of essential working parts is generally held as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Re claim 70, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said plurality of self-contained units is explicitly 25 self-contained units. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have 25 or more grow towers to ensure a large growing operation, since it has been held that a mere duplication of essential working parts is generally held as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Re claim 71, the modification of Per discloses the invention of claim 70, Per discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said system comprises a plurality of storage bays, a plurality of harvesting stations, a plurality of stocking stations, or a plurality of cleaning stations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have a plurality of agriculture systems such that the conditions can be controlled independently for various crops being growth therein, since it has been held that a mere duplication of essential working parts is generally held as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claims 65-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Per as applied to claim 62 above, in view of Kuhn, U.S. Patent No. 3,717,953 A.
Re claim 65, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per fails to disclose wherein said storage bay and a second storage bay are stacked vertically such that said plurality of self-contained units are stored in a vertically stacked configuration. However, Kuhn discloses wherein a first storage bay (71; the channel-like chamber, fig. 2) and a second storage bay (72; the channel-like chamber, fig. 2) are stacked vertically such that a plurality of self-contained units (6; the stacks, fig. 2) are stored in a vertically stacked configuration (fig. 2).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said storage bay and a second storage bay are stacked vertically such that said plurality of self-contained units are stored in a vertically stacked configuration however, Kuhn discloses such separated storage bays. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of having a plurality of growing spaces taught by Kuhn to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the individual bays to be controlled at different configurations. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 66, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per fails to disclose wherein said storage bay and a second storage bay are stacked horizontally such that said plurality of self-contained units are stored in a horizontally stacked configuration. However, Kuhn discloses a first storage bay (7; the left most channel-like chamber, fig. 7-8B) and a second storage bay (7; the right most channel-like chamber, fig. 7, 9, & 15) are stacked horizontally such that a plurality of self-contained units (6; the stacks, fig. 7, 9, & 15) are stored in a horizontally stacked configuration (fig. 9 & 15, via the walls; 8).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said storage bay and a second storage bay are stacked horizontally such that said plurality of self-contained units are stored in a horizontally stacked configuration however, Kuhn discloses such separated storage bays. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of having a plurality of growing spaces taught by Kuhn to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the individual bays to be controlled at different configurations. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Per as applied to claim 62 above, in view of Bongartz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0259108 A1; herein Bon and Schreier et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0163952 A1, herein Reier.
Re claim 72, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per fails to disclose wherein a self-contained unit of said plurality of self-contained units is in fluid communication with a nitrification bed bioreactor, which nitrification moving bed bioreactor comprises a containment vessel configured to enclose biofiltration media and a fluidizing aeration source. However, Bon discloses a system where plants are grown in combination with a water growing animal that allows the plants to be watered by nutrient rich fish waste water (para 1732, the aquaponic farming system the allows the plants to be watered by nutrient rich fish waste water).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein a self-contained unit of said plurality of self-contained units is in fluid communication with a nitrification bed bioreactor, which nitrification moving bed bioreactor comprises a containment vessel configured to enclose biofiltration media and a fluidizing aeration source however, Bon discloses utilizing a water recycling system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the aquaponic farming system taught by Bon to the agriculture system of the prior art to yield the predictable result of an aquaponic farming system. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
The combination of Per and Bon fails to disclose wherein a self-contained unit of said plurality of self-contained units is in fluid communication with a nitrification bed bioreactor, which nitrification moving bed bioreactor comprises a containment vessel configured to enclose biofiltration media and a fluidizing aeration source. However, Reier discloses a nitrification bed bioreactor (14; the moving bed bioreactor, fig. 1), which nitrification moving bed bioreactor comprises a containment vessel (fig. 1, the body of the bioreactor) configured to enclose biofiltration media (para 24 & 67, the suspended media substrate for the growth of the nitrifying microorganisms) and a fluidizing aeration source (para 25, the aeration means for effective aerobic nitrification).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a self-contained unit of said plurality of self-contained units is in fluid communication with a nitrification bed bioreactor, which nitrification moving bed bioreactor comprises a containment vessel configured to enclose biofiltration media and a fluidizing aeration source however, Reier discloses such a nitrification moving bed bioreactor. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of utilizing a nitrification moving bed bioreactor as taught by Reier to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing for a water recirculation system thus minimizing the amount of fresh or “new” water required to be introduced to the system. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Per as applied to claim 62 above, in view of Bon and Chibras et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0055960 A1, herein Chi.
Re claim 73, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per fails to disclose wherein said at least one water-growing organism is grown at a feed conversion rate of at most 1.3. However, Bon discloses a system where plants are grown in combination with a water growing animal (para 1732, the aquaponic farming system the allows the plants to be watered by nutrient rich fish waste water).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said at least one water-growing organism is grown at a feed conversion rate of at most 1.3 Bon discloses utilizing a water recycling system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the aquaponic farming system taught by Bon to the agriculture system of the prior art to yield the predictable result of an aquaponic farming system. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
The combination of Per and Bon fails to disclose wherein said at least one water-growing organism is grown at a feed conversion rate of at most 1.3. However, Chi discloses at least one water-growing organism is grown at a feed conversion rate of at most about 1.3 (Table 2, secondary and tertiary species).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said at least one water-growing organism is grown at a feed conversion rate of at most about 1.3 however, Chi discloses such a feed conversion rate. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the primary, secondary, and tertiary species taught by Chi to the system of the prior art to yield the predictable result of lowering the feed conversion rate. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
The examiner also notes would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a feed conversion ratio as low as possible to increase profit margins on each organism, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Claims 83 & 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Per as applied to claim 62 above, in view of Bon.
Re claim 83, Per discloses the invention of claim 62, Per fails to disclose the system further comprising a water growing animal. However, Bon discloses a system where plants are grown in combination with a water growing animal (para 1732, the aquaponic farming system the allows the plants to be watered by nutrient rich fish waste water).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the system further comprising a water growing animal however, Bon discloses such a system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of aquaponic farming including plants and fish taught by Bon to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by utilizing the fish waste water as a natural fertilizer. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 85, as best understood, the combination of Per and Bon discloses the invention of claim 83, Bon further discloses wherein said water growing animal is fish (again see para 1732).
Claim 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Per in view of Bon as applied to claim 83 above, in further view of Mason et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,559,902 A; herein Mason.
Re claim 84, the combination of Per and Bon discloses the invention of claim 83, the combination fails to disclose wherein said water growing animal is shrimp. However, Mason discloses a method for cultivating shrimp (col 4; 30-38, the invention is suitable for cultivating shellfish including shrimp).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said water growing animal is shrimp however, Mason discloses a method for cultivating shrimp. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system by utilizing a simple substitution of the known water growing organism taught by the prior art for the shrimp from Mason in order to obtain the predictable result of cultivating a crop that has a high value. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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 J Michener can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642