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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means” as it appears in claims 7 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 6 and 9-10 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 6 recites the limitation "the cultivated crop" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The last clause of claim 6 includes controlling the height actuator system based on a signal to minimize changes in height relative to the floor or crop but is silent regarding what might cause such variations. As best understood the claim is intended to minimize variations that might be caused by the movement of the gantry but this is not clear from the claim. Clarification is necessary.
Claims 9 includes “run essentially over the floor.” This unclear as it is not apparent if the wheels must run directly on the floor or in what manner the term “essentially” modifies such a requirement. Clarification is necessary.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-13, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,854,209 to Van Horssen.
Regarding claim 1 Van Horssen discloses a nursery assembly for use in a nursery, wherein the assembly comprises: a cultivation floor (30); a gantry construction comprising a gantry beam (10), a first gantry upright and a second gantry upright (11), which gantry uprights support the gantry beam at a distance above the cultivation floor, a tool (20/21), and a manipulator for moving the tool with respect to the gantry beam (16/17); and a rail system (8) along which the first gantry upright is displaceable; wherein the rail system is arranged along the cultivation floor and is configured as a guide of the first gantry upright when displacing the first gantry upright along the rail system (see figure 1); wherein the manipulator is configured to be able to displace the tool along the gantry beam and/or to be able to rotate said tool with respect to the gantry beam (see e.g., figure 2); wherein the gantry beam extends in a direction transverse to the rail system (see figure 1); and wherein the gantry uprights are each provided, at the bottom ends thereof, with a gantry drive, which gantry drives are configured to be able to displace the gantry construction in a longitudinal direction of the rail system (12 and col. 4 lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 2 Van Horssen discloses the rail system and/or the first gantry upright are configured in such a way that the rail system is a rail system over which the first gantry upright is displaceable (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7 Van Horssen discloses the first gantry upright is provided with one or more first upright wheels and the first gantry upright runs on the rail system by means of one or more of the first upright wheels (see 12 and 8, figure 1).
Regarding claim 8 Van Horssen discloses the first gantry drive of the first gantry upright is connected in terms of drive to one or more of the first upright wheels (see col. 4 lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 9 Van Horssen discloses the second gantry upright is provided with one or more second upright wheels which run essentially over the cultivation floor (see figure 1 and col. 4 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 10 Van Horssen discloses the second gantry drive of the second gantry upright is connected in terms of drive to one or more of the second upright wheels (col.4 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 11 Van Horssen discloses the assembly further comprises a multiplicity of plant containers, such as plant pots, containing plants, said containers being positioned on the cultivation floor (29/38).
Regarding claim 12 Van Horssen discloses the tool comprises a gripper which is configured to grip, displace, and unload one or more plant containers or plants (20/21 lift and transfer plants).
Regarding claim 13 Van Horssen discloses the manipulator is configured to: be able to use the gripper to pick up one or more plant containers or plants from a pick-up point, be able to use the gripper to deposit the one or more picked-up plant containers or plants at an unloading point, and be able to displace the gripper between the pick-up point and the unloading point (20/21 lift and transfer plants, see also col. 5 lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 16 Van Horssen discloses the assembly further comprises a conveyor which extends along the rail system; and wherein the conveyor is provided with the rail system (see e.g., 14/15 or alternatively benches 3).
Regarding claim 17 Van Horssen discloses the conveyor comprises a conveyor belt (see 14-15).
Regarding claim 18 Van Horssen discloses the conveyor is provided with a conveyor control system which is configured to control a conveyor drive so as to bring plant containers or plants to the gantry construction by means of the conveyor and to, at the gantry construction, position them at a predetermined position with respect to the gantry construction (see col. 4 lines 45-55 or col. 5 lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 19 Van Horssen discloses the tool comprises one or more of the following tools: a sensor, a gripper (20/21), a sprayer, a blade, a cutter.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Horssen in view of US 9,622,398 to Gaus.
Regarding claim 3 Van Horssen further discloses a gantry position sensor system configured to generate a gantry position signal (col. 4 lines 1-5) but does not explicitly disclose a gantry position sensor system configured to generate a gantry position signal which is representative of a horizontal angular position of the gantry beam with respect to the rail system; and a gantry position controller configured to, when the gantry construction is being displaced along the rail system, control the first gantry drive and the second gantry drive in dependence on the gantry position signal in such a way that changes in the horizontal angular position of the gantry beam with respect to the rail system are counteracted or minimized.
Gaus teaches a gantry system including a gantry position sensor system (30) configured to generate a gantry position signal which is representative of a horizontal angular position of the gantry beam with respect to the rail system; and a gantry position controller configured to, when the gantry construction is being displaced along the rail system, control the first gantry drive and the second gantry drive in dependence on the gantry position signal in such a way that changes in the horizontal angular position of the gantry beam with respect to the rail system are counteracted or minimized (col. 4 lines 5-15 drives controlled to prevent any twisting etc.) in order to ensure the gantry moves in a straight line (col. 4 lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Van Horssen to include a gantry position sensor system configured to generate a gantry position signal which is representative of a horizontal angular position of the gantry beam with respect to the rail system; and a gantry position controller configured to, when the gantry construction is being displaced along the rail system, control the first gantry drive and the second gantry drive in dependence on the gantry position signal in such a way that changes in the horizontal angular position of the gantry beam with respect to the rail system are counteracted or minimized, as taught by Gaus, in order to ensure the gantry moves in a straight line.
Regarding claim 4 Gaus teaches the gantry position controller is configured to, when the gantry construction is being displaced along the rail system, control the first gantry drive and the second gantry drive in dependence on the gantry position signal in such a way that the gantry beam is held perpendicular to the rail system (col. 4 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 6 Van Horssen discloses all the limitations of the claim except a height sensor system configured to generate a height signal which is representative of the vertical height of the tool with respect to the cultivation floor and/or is representative of the vertical height of the tool with respect to the top of the cultivated crop, a height actuator system configured to be able to change the vertical height of the tool with respect to the cultivation floor and/or the vertical height of the tool with respect to the top of the cultivated crop, a height controller configured to control the height actuator system in dependence on the height signal in such a way that changes in the vertical height of the tool with respect to the cultivation floor and/or changes in the vertical height of the tool with respect to the top of the cultivated crop are counteracted or minimized.
Regarding claim 6 Gaus teaches a height sensor system (col. 2 lines 55-60) configured to generate a height signal which is representative of the vertical height of the tool with respect to the cultivation floor and/or is representative of the vertical height of the tool with respect to the top of the cultivated crop, a height actuator system (col. 3 lines 60-65) configured to be able to change the vertical height of the tool with respect to the cultivation floor and/or the vertical height of the tool with respect to the top of the cultivated crop a height controller (col. 3 lines 60-65, computer control) in order to measure and adjust the height for different application (col. 3 lines 50-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Van Horssen to include a height sensor system configured to generate a height signal which is representative of the vertical height of the tool with respect to the cultivation floor and/or is representative of the vertical height of the tool with respect to the top of the cultivated crop, a height actuator system configured to be able to change the vertical height of the tool with respect to the cultivation floor and/or the vertical height of the tool with respect to the top of the cultivated crop a height controller, as taught by Gaus, in order to measure and adjust the height for different application.
Gaus does not specifically teach the height controller configured to control the height actuator system in dependence on the height signal in such a way that changes in the vertical height of the tool with respect to the cultivation floor and/or changes in the vertical height of the tool with respect to the top of the cultivated crop are counteracted or minimized.
That said, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Van Horssen and Gaus to include the height controller configured to control the height actuator system in dependence on the height signal in such a way that changes in the vertical height of the tool with respect to the cultivation floor and/or changes in the vertical height of the tool with respect to the top of the cultivated crop are counteracted or minimized because Gaus already teaches such control for the gantry drive (see discussion claim 3 above) and applying the same principle to the height would allow for the spacing from the floor or crop to remain constant during travel of the gantry.
Regarding claim 20 Van Horssen discloses all the limitations of the claim except the sensor comprises a camera and/or a temperature gauge.
Gaus teaches the sensor comprises a camera (col. 2 lines 55-60) and/or a temperature gauge in order to facilitate remote/automatic operation (col. 5 lines 17-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Van Horssen, to include a camera and/or a temperature gauge, as taught by Gaus, in order to facilitate remote/automatic operation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Horssen in view of US 12,250,906 to Ortiz.
Regarding claim 5 Van Horssen discloses all the limitations of the claim except a level sensor system configured to generate an inclination signal which is representative of an inclination of the gantry beam with respect to the horizon, an inclination actuator configured to be able to change the inclination of the gantry beam with respect to the horizon, and an inclination controller configured to control the inclination actuator in dependence on the inclination signal in such a way that changes in the inclination of the gantry beam with respect to the horizon are counteracted or minimized.
Ortiz discloses a gantry including a level sensor (col. 5 lines 53-55) system configured to generate an inclination signal which is representative of an inclination of the gantry beam with respect to the horizon, an inclination actuator (col. 5 lines 43-50) configured to be able to change the inclination of the gantry beam with respect to the horizon, and an inclination controller configured to control the inclination actuator in dependence on the inclination signal in such a way that changes in the inclination of the gantry beam with respect to the horizon are counteracted or minimized (col. 5 lines 53-56) in order to maintain a level orientation while moving over uneven ground (col. 5 lines 43-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Van Horssen, to include, a level sensor system configured to generate an inclination signal which is representative of an inclination of the gantry beam with respect to the horizon, an inclination actuator configured to be able to change the inclination of the gantry beam with respect to the horizon, and an inclination controller configured to control the inclination actuator in dependence on the inclination signal in such a way that changes in the inclination of the gantry beam with respect to the horizon are counteracted or minimized, a taught by Ortiz, in order to maintain a level orientation while moving over uneven ground.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Horssen in view of US 7,681,357 to Dyas.
Regarding the claim Van Horssen discloses the gripper comprises a fork with a multiplicity of teeth configured to grip a row of plant pots (see 20/21); but does not disclose the gripper is rotatable with respect to the gantry beam about a vertical axis between a cultivation floor position, in which the teeth of the fork are transverse to the gantry beam, and a rail position, in which the teeth of the fork are transverse to the rail system.
Dyas teaches a system including the gripper is rotatable with respect to the gantry beam about a vertical axis between a cultivation floor position, in which the teeth of the fork are transverse to the gantry beam (see figure 63e), and a rail position, in which the teeth of the fork are transverse to the rail system (see figure 63c) in order to provide additional flexibility and options for loading and handling the pots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Van Horssen, to include the gripper is rotatable with respect to the gantry beam about a vertical axis between a cultivation floor position, in which the teeth of the fork are transverse to the gantry beam, and a rail position, in which the teeth of the fork are transverse to the rail system, as taught by Dyas, in order to provide additional flexibility and options for loading and handling the pots.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the arrangement of claim 15 with the first gantry upright supported by a second gantry with an inside width that is greater than the width of the gripper such the gripper fits within the second gantry differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other gantry arrangements including those for use in nursery environments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights