Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/476,523

VERTICAL GROWING STRUCTURE INSERT

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Sep 28, 2023
Examiner
HAYES, KRISTEN C
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
0865894 B.C. Ltd.O/A Agreitech North
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
857 granted / 1250 resolved
+16.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1299
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§102
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§112
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1250 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 10is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al US 2018/0213734. Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a system for growing a plant, comprising: a vertical growing structure (2200) having a plurality of interconnected walls, the walls partially enclosing a cavity (Smith, Figure 22), an aperture (Smith, Figure 23) disposed through one of the plurality of interconnected walls, a growing media (2309) disposed in the cavity, wherein roots of the plant are growable into the growing media; and an insert (Smith, Figure 24) received through the aperture, the insert including a supporting member (2301) protruding from the aperture, a first wing (2403) extending transversely from the supporting member, a second wing (2403) extending transversely from the supporting member opposite the first wing, the first wing and the second wing trapped between the growing media and the one of the plurality of interconnected walls for retaining the insert in the aperture (Smith, Figure 23), the supporting member supporting stems of the plant and diverting water from the plant towards the cavity. Regarding claim 2, Smith further discloses an additional insert received in the aperture above the insert (Smith, Figure 22). Regarding claim 3, Smith further discloses the insert and the additional insert are vertically spaced apart from one another, the insert and the additional insert vertically surrounding the stems of the plant (Smith, Figure 22). Regarding claim 4, Smith further discloses the insert and the additional insert are vertically disposed against one another (Smith, Figure 22). Regarding claim 5, Smith further discloses the aperture is a vertical slit extending along a vertical length of the one of the plurality of walls (Smith, Figure 22). Regarding claim 10, Smith further discloses the supporting member slopes upwardly protruding from the aperture (Smith, ¶0008). 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al US 2018/0213734. Regarding claim 11, Smith further discloses the supporting member having a base portion (2401) disposed between the first and second wings. Smith fails to disclose a semi-circular cross section but discloses alternate embodiments of the invention having supporting members comprising semi-circular cross sections, and that the shape of the supporting member is not limited to the disclosed embodiments (Smith, ¶0069). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of an upper portion of the supporting member of Smith to be semi-circular depending on the desired orientation and display of the supporting member. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al US 2018/0213734 in view of Graber US 2016/0050863. Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses the system of claim 1 but fails to disclose the first and second wings being ribbed. Graber teaches first and second wings of a supporting member being ribbed (46, 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second wings of Smith so that they were ribbed as taught by Graber as to assist in a friction fit of the wings with the walls and media. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-9 are 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 prior art fails to disclose or suggest a system for growing a plant comprising cover plate as claimed. US 20190269080 discloses s system for growing a plant but differs from the instant invention in that first and second wings of support members are configured to be exterior to the wall and growing medium (US 20190269080, ¶0035), not trapped between the growing media and wall as claimed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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 first and second wing being trapped between the growing media and the plurality of interconnected walls for retaining the insert in the aperture) 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). Smith is capable of performing the broadly claimed functional retaining. The applicant states that Smith does not disclose edge features engaging the matrix media (Applicant’s response, ¶04 of page 5), however this limitation is not present in the claims. 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 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 KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm. 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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 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. /KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 26, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 18, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 31, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588603
INTERENGAGEABLE CONTAINERS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582850
CABLE SLEEVE FOR FALL PROTECTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582058
PRODUCTION FACILITY LAYOUTS FOR AUTOMATED CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT AGRICULTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575489
Weed Trimmer Mount Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575507
INSECT NETTING FOR A GREENHOUSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+21.4%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1250 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month