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 .
Specification
The abstract was received on 09/02/2025. The abstract is now acceptable.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langille (US 20220330504 A) in view of Shappell (US 5606773 A).
Regarding claim 1, Langille discloses a vertical garden system installed on a wall segment (vertical hydroponic system 10; Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of foldable mounting panels (door frame 50, Fig. 2) mounted on at least one wall segment (Fig. 2 shows door frame 50 is mounted to vertical hydroponic system 10, wherein each of the mounting panels includes:
a front wall in which at least one pre-planted pixel is installed (Figs. 1 and 2 show each door frame 50 has tiles 100 mounted to a front wall), and
a rear wall in which at least one hinge mechanism is installed (Figs. 1 and 2 show hinge rails 56 mounted to each door frame 50 and extending to rear); and at least one support structure (¶ 0045, lines 1-3, “As previously described above, the support frame 20 that supports door frames 50 comprises edge components comprised of four rails”);
wherein each of the mounting panels can be mounted on, and is foldable with respect to, the support structure (¶ 0043, lines 4-8, “Each door comprises a three-sided door frame 50 with mounted tiles 100 and is hung on hinges attached at either the right or left sides of the support frame 20, with the doors opening out from the middle”);
wherein each hinge mechanism comprises a vertical bar (Figs. 1 and 2 show hinge rails 56 are vertical bars) with at least two primary hinge elements and at least two support and guide elements (¶ 0046, lines 3-9),
Langille, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein one respective fixing bolt can be moved downwards to an extended position and upwards to a retracted position through a respective primary hinge element and a respective support and guide element.
Shappell is in the field of hinges and teaches wherein one respective fixing bolt (Fig. 2 shows ratchet pin assembly comprising ratchet anchors 64 and 74, as well as fixed ratchet 84) can be moved downwards to an extended position and upwards to a retracted position through a respective primary hinge element (Col. 9, line 67 – Col. 10, line 3, “The ratchet pin assembly can then be pushed upwardly along the channel within the outermost sash 14A until it bottoms out upon contacting the top pivot assembly 96”) and a respective support and guide element (brackets 19 and 21; Fig. 2), and
wherein the fixing bolt is retractable by a pulling element (Col. 9, line 67 – Col. 10, line 3) which can be wound around a respective winding bolt, and the fixing bolt is extendable by an elastic element (compression springs 60 and 62; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hinges before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Langille such that one respective fixing bolt can be moved downwards to an extended position and upwards to a retracted position through a respective primary hinge element and a respective support and guide element, and wherein the fixing bolt is retractable by a pulling element which can be wound around a respective winding bolt, and the fixing bolt is extendable by an elastic element, as taught by the ratchet pin assembly of Shappell. This would improve the securing of the hinge mechanism, which would improve overall function of the rotation of the mounting panels. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Langille in view of Shappell discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the pulling element is operable by a tool (Shappell; Fig. 2 shows springs 60 and 62 can be operable by a tool).
Regarding claim 5, Langille in view of Shappell discloses the device of claim 1.
Langille discloses wherein each support structure comprises a vertical bar (Figs. 1 and 2 show hinge rails 56 are vertical bars) and at least two secondary hinge elements, wherein the secondary hinge elements are configured to correspond in shape with primary hinge elements of the hinge mechanism (¶ 0046, lines 3-9, “door closing rail 52 and door hinge rail 56 have keys and keyholes in their vertical inward-facing surfaces that mate with their opposite keyhole and key on the tile edges they are to be adjoined with. Door hinge rail 56 is adapted to accept one or more hinges, which in turn are hung upon a support frame rail”).
Regarding claim 7, Langille in view of Shappell discloses the device of claim 1.
Langille discloses wherein at least one inspection area is formed by selectively rotating left or right at least one of the mounting panels (Fig. 2 shows configuration with open door frame 50 forms an inspection area).
Regarding claim 11, Langille in view of Shappell discloses the device of claim 1.
Langille discloses further comprising a remote monitoring system that includes a first computer system in communication with a second computer system via a communication network (¶ 0017, “Another embodiment of the vertical hydroponic system is the automated pump control system comprises a computerized scheduler programmed to perform various hydroponic functions comprising watering at timed intervals, adding various fertilizers or nutrients to the water, detecting various chemicals in the water through sensors, and providing remote communication capability”).
Regarding claim 13, Langille in view of Shappell discloses the device of claim 11.
Langille discloses further comprising a first actuator (97) configured to control the turning on and off of a water pumping means (pump controller 400; Fig. 11; ¶ 0052, lines 25 and 26, “The volume of water is in turn controlled by the automated pump controller 400”).
Regarding claim 14, Langille in view of Shappell discloses the device of claim 11.
Langille discloses further comprising a second actuator configured to control the opening and closing of a stop valve (¶ 0054, lines 12-14, “Scheduler 450 turns pump relay 440 ON/OFF based on a user-programmable timetable that is setup via mobile app”).
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langille (US 20220330504 A) in view of Shappell (US 5606773 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen (WO 2014169707 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Langille in view of Shappell discloses the device of claim 1, including wherein each pre-planted pixel comprises, a fixing means (keys 150, 151, locking tabs 140, 141; Fig. 4), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose a bag and at least one plant or seedling.
Chen is in the field of vertical horticulture and teaches a bag (¶ 0040, line 29, “The plant planter 7 is composed of independent small planting bags”) and at least one plant or seedling (plant planter 7; ¶ 0040, line 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vertical horticulture before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Langille in view of Shappell to include a bag and at least one plant or seedling, as taught by the plant bags of Chen. This would improve the modularity of the overall device and promote water absorption. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Langille in view of Shappell discloses the device of claim 1, including further comprising an irrigation system having a plurality of hollow tubes or conduits (shelf straws 183, 184, 193, 194; Figs. 7 and 8; ¶ 0052), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose a plurality of sprinklers installed in at least one of the plurality of hollow tubes or conduits.
Chen teaches a plurality of sprinklers installed in at least one of the plurality of hollow tubes or conduits (¶ 0009, lines 5 and 6, “the spray device is connected to a water pump in the water tank through a pipe,” ¶ 0040, lines 19 and 20, “There are two spray devices 17, one spray device 17 waters the back of the plant planter 7, and the other spray device 17 waters the water curtain cloth 14”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vertical horticulture before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Langille in view of Shappell to include a plurality of sprinklers installed in at least one of the plurality of hollow tubes or conduits, as taught by the irrigation system of Chen. This would improve the water delivery mechanics of the device, which would improve plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Langille in view of Shappell and Chen discloses the device of claim 8, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches further comprising a tank or reservoir (Langille; ¶ 0053, lines 1-3, “The irrigation subsystem comprises a primary reservoir 330 with submersible pump 300 located in reservoir rail 25”), a water pumping means for supplying water through the plurality of sprinklers (Langille; pump controller 400; Fig. 11; ¶ 0052, lines 25 and 26), and a stop valve (Langille; pump relay 440; Fig. 11; ¶ 0054, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 10, Langille in view of Shappell and Chen discloses the device of claim 9, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches further comprising a water collection gutter in communication with the tank or reservoir (Chen; ¶ 0040, lines 30-32, “A circulating spraying device is used to recycle excess water into the water tank. After filtering out impurities through the filter, the water enters the spraying device again through the water pump and water pipe”) for collecting excess water, and at least one filtration means installed between the tank or reservoir (Chen; ¶ 0022, lines 1-3, “A circulating spraying device is used to recycle excess water into the water tank. After filtering out impurities through the filter, the water enters the spraying device again through the water pump and water pipe”) and the water collection gutter (Chen; ¶ 0040, lines 30-32).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langille (US 20220330504 A) in view of Shappell (US 5606773 A), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Scolari (US 20140259918 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Langille in view of Shappell discloses the device of claim 11, including further comprising a controller in communication with at least one of a water level sensor (¶ 0053, lines 9-12, “Submersible Pump 300 is typically equipped with a float switch 310 so that the level of water in the primary reservoir 330 may be monitored by the automated pump controller 400”), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose a humidity sensor and a flow sensor.
Scolari is in the field of horticulture control and teaches a humidity sensor and a flow sensor (¶ 0023, lines 8-12, “the watering system 24 can be controlled by one or more sensors such as a soil moister sensor that is placed in the unit, a rain gauge and/or a humidity sensor. In this embodiment, the flow of water is controlled in response to the sensors detecting predetermined criteria or a lack thereof”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of horticulture control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Langille in view of Shappell to include a humidity sensor and a flow sensor, as taught by the sensor system of Scolari. This would increase the data available to the control system, which would improve irrigation control. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on pages 3 and 4 that “The cited paragraph in Shappell explains, generally speaking, a reinstallation sequence of the top pivot assembly 96. In a deep analysis, there is neither disclosure or suggestion of a pulling action or mechanism, nor a winding action as required. This paragraph rather describes a completely distinct action: ‘...the ratchet pin assembly can then be pushed upwardly along the channel...’ Thus, Shappell fails to disclose or suggest ‘the fixing bolt is retractable by a pulling element which can be wound around a respective winding bolt, and the fixing bolt is extendable by an elastic element.’,” the Examiner submits that Shappell teaches the claimed structure of “wherein the fixing bolt is retractable by a pulling element which can be wound around a respective winding bolt, and the fixing bolt is extendable by an elastic element,” as Col. 9, line 67 – Col. 10, line 3 describes the retraction and extension movements of the pin assembly, with Fig. 2 showing compression springs 60 and 62 biasing pin assembly and wound around their respective bolts. Therefore, Shappell teaches the amended retractable and extendable structure of claim 1.
Regarding the argument on page 4 that “Moreover, although Shappell pertains to the field of hinges, the hinge mechanism disclosed is intended for ‘automatically closing a swingable door’ (column 1, lines 22-23). As applied to the instant invention, there is no motivation to use an automatically closing device for a door that is intended to remain open, as in the invention as claimed. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use the mechanism taught by Shappell that is intended to automatically close after opening, in a mounting panel or door that, once it has been opened (see Fig. 15), should remain in the open position. Applying the teachings of Shappell to the device of of Langille, et al. would teach away from the intended function of the present invention. Consequently, Applicant respectfully suggests that the combined disclosures of Langille, et al. in view of Shappell fail to teach the invention as now defined beginning with generic Claim 1,” 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, motivation to provide the device of Langille with the ratchet pin assembly of Shappell exists in Shappell itself, as Shappell highlights that the pin assembly would result in improvements in securing the hinge mechanism. This would result in a modification which would improve overall function of the rotation of the mounting panels. There is no evidence that the provision of the ratchet assembly of Shappell would teach away from the device of Langille, as the underlying function of the device of Langille would remain the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hinges before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Langille to include the ratchet pin assembly of Shappell with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Deutsch-Aboulmahassine, US 7627983 B1, discusses a modular, wall-mounted plant growing system.
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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642