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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on February 23, 2026. Claims 1 and 25 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 21-22, 24, and 28 have been canceled. Claims 1-6, 9, 13, 16, 18-20, 23, and 25-27 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
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)(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) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parapatits (US 2021/0368703 A1), hereinafter Parapatits.
Regarding claim 25, Parapatits discloses a method of delivering nutrition to a crop (130) in an intelligent aeroponic microgravity and earth nutrient delivery (I-AMEND) system (100) (fig. 1; abstract), the method comprising:
(a) providing the crop (130) in the system (100) such that a root of the crop (130) is at least partially within an aeroponic chamber (110) of the system (100) (plant support plane 8 and lower portion of “frame structure” form aeroponic chamber; para [0085]; fig. 1, see similar embodiment in fig. 2);
(b) introducing a liquid to the aeroponic chamber (110), upstream of the root, via a liquid nutrient emitter (150) (spray lance 3; para [0071]; fig. 1b, liquid is introduced into the aeroponic chamber upstream of the root when the spray lance 3 is positioned at the leftmost side of the chamber, as shown in fig. 1b);
(c) introducing air or oxygen-enriched air or carbon-dioxide-enriched air, or a combination thereof, upstream of the root via an air emitter (160) (spray lance 3; para [0087]-[0088]; fig. 1b, air is introduced into the aeroponic chamber upstream of the root when the spray lance 3 is positioned at the leftmost side of the chamber, as shown in fig. 1b); and
(d) introducing an air gust into the aeroponic chamber (110), upstream of the root, via the air emitter (160) (spray lance 3; para [0087]; fig. 1b, air is introduced into the aeroponic chamber upstream of the root when the spray lance 3 is positioned at the leftmost side of the chamber, as shown in fig. 1b), so as to direct the liquid onto a surface of the root in one bulk direction (direction inwards toward plants in support plane 8; fig. 1a; the Examiner notes that liquid would naturally be directed towards roots by air gusts when spray lances 3 emitting liquid and air are used as described in paragraphs [0071] and [0087]);
wherein one or more of the emitters (spray lances 3) has a movable position in the aeroponic chamber (110) (plant support plane 8 and lower portion of “frame structure” para [0085]) such that the one or more emitters are slidable along only a longitudinal direction of the aeroponic chamber (110) (para [0067], spray lances 3 are slidable in only a vertical direction via connectors 7).
Regarding claim 26, Parapatits discloses the method of claim 25, and further discloses wherein the method additionally comprises introducing an additional air gust into the root in the aeroponic chamber (110) (plant support plane 8 and lower portion of “frame structure” para [0085]; fig. 1) from either upstream of the root, downstream of the root, or both upstream and downstream of the root (para [0087], air gust is introduced via gas outlet openings on spray lances 3 either upstream or downstream of root), so as to remove at least a portion of the liquid from the surface of the root and move it downstream (para [0087]-[0088], the Examiner notes that use of the disclosed system over time would naturally constitute introduction of multiple gusts of air).
Regarding claim 27, Parapatits discloses the method of claim 26, and further discloses wherein multiple air gusts are introduced either simultaneously or sequentially (para [0087]-[0088], air gusts are introduced via gas outlet openings on spray lances 3; the Examiner notes that introduction of multiple air gusts sequentially would occur naturally over time with continued use of the disclosed system).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 13, 16, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parapatits (US 2021/0368703 A1), hereinafter Parapatits, in view of Jollie (US 2017/0347548 A1), hereinafter Jollie.
Regarding claim 1, Parapatits discloses an intelligent aeroponic microgravity and earth nutrient delivery (I-AMEND) system (100) (fig. 1; abstract), the system (100) comprising:
(a) an aeroponic chamber (110) (plant support plane 8 and lower portion of “frame structure” form aeroponic chamber; para [0085]; fig. 1) comprising:
(i) one or more sidewalls (112) (sides of “frame structure” para [0085]; fig. 1) having an upstream end (leftmost end, shown in fig. 1b) and a downstream end (rightmost end, shown in fig. 1b); and
(ii) a top (114) (plant support plane 8), supported by the sidewalls (112) (fig. 1);
(b) one or more plant ports (120) (openings in plant support plane 8 through which plants extend, shown in similar embodiment in fig. 2) in the top (114) (fig. 2), each configured to support a plant (130) such that a top portion of the plant (130) extends upwardly from the top (114), and a root portion of the plant (130) extends downwardly into the aeroponic chamber (110) (fig. 2);
(c) one or more liquid nutrient emitters (150) (spray lances 3) supported by the aeroponic chamber (110) (plant support plane 8 and lower portion of “frame structure” para [0085]; fig. 1) and having one or more liquid nutrient pores (spray nozzles 4) configured to emit a liquid into the aeroponic chamber (110) (para [0071]) such that the liquid is directed to the one or more plants (130) in one bulk direction (direction inwards toward plants in support plane 8; fig. 1a) from the upstream end to the downstream end (fig. 1b, liquid is directed toward plants from the upstream end to the downstream end as connector 7 carrying spray lances 3 is moved along direction of movement 5 via guide rail 2); and
(d) one or more air emitters (160) (spray lances 3) supported by the aeroponic chamber (110) (plant support plane 8 and lower portion of “frame structure” para [0085]; fig. 1) and having one or more air pores (“gas outlet openings” para [0087]) configured to emit air into the aeroponic chamber (110) (para [0087]-[0088]) such that the air directs the liquid to the one or more plants (130) in one bulk direction (direction inwards toward plants in support plane 8; fig. 1a) from the upstream end to the downstream end (fig. 1b, air is directed toward plants from the upstream end to the downstream end as connector 7 carrying spray lances 3 is moved along direction of movement 5 via guide rail 2);
wherein one or more of the emitters (spray lances 3) has a movable position in the aeroponic chamber (110) (plant support plane 8 and lower portion of “frame structure” para [0085]) such that the one or more emitters are slidable along only a longitudinal direction of the aeroponic chamber (110) (para [0067], spray lances 3 are slidable in only a vertical direction via connectors 7).
Parapatits does not appear to specifically disclose:
wherein the aeroponic chamber is an enclosed aeroponic chamber; and
wherein the top is a top lid.
However, Jollie is in the field of aeroponic delivery systems (title; abstract) and teaches:
wherein the aeroponic chamber (enclosure 32) is an enclosed aeroponic chamber (fig. 1-3); and
wherein the top (lid 148) is a top lid (fig. 2; para [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aeroponic delivery system of Parapatits to have made the aeroponic chamber as an enclosed aeroponic chamber as taught by Jollie with a reasonable expectation of success to provide more effective climate control to plants within the aeroponic chamber and to limit exposure of plants within the aeroponic chamber to outside contaminants.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aeroponic delivery system of Parapatits to have made the top as a top lid as taught by Jollie with a reasonable expectation of success to allow a user to adjust the spacing between plants (para [0049]), thereby allowing the system to accommodate a greater variety of plant species.
Regarding claim 2, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the liquid nutrient emitters (150) (spray lances 3) are fluidly connected with a liquid nutrient supply system (“lines” para [0071]) configured to supply the liquid to the liquid nutrient emitters (150) (para [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the air emitters (160) (spray lances 3) are fluidly connected with an air or gas supply system (“gas supply lines” para [0088]) configured to supply the air or gas to the air emitters (160) (para [0087]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, and further discloses wherein one or more of the emitters (spray lances 3) is a single emitter that is configured to emit only the liquid or air (para [0087], a spray lance 3 may comprise either liquid spray nozzles 4 or gas outlet openings that emit only either liquid or air, respectively).
Regarding claim 6, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, and further discloses wherein one or more of the emitters (spray lances 3) is a concatenated emitter (180) (para [0087], a spray lance 3 may comprise both liquid spray nozzles 4 and gas outlet openings).
Regarding claim 13, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, and further discloses wherein one or more of the emitters (spray lances 3) has a uniform pattern of pores (spray nozzles 4; fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 16, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, and further discloses wherein one or more of the emitters (spray lances 3) is configured to provide a continuous or an intermittent flow (para [0068] and [0071], spray lances 3 are capable of operating at least intermittently).
Regarding claim 20, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the aeroponic chamber (110) (plant support plane 8 and lower portion of “frame structure” para [0085]; fig. 1) has both a liquid nutrient emitter (150) and an air emitter (160) (spray lances 3) upstream of each plant port (120) (openings in plant support plane 8 through which plants extend, shown in similar embodiment in fig. 4; see also fig. 1b, spray lances 3 capable of emitting both liquid nutrient and gas are upstream of each plant port when at leftmost end of frame structure, as shown in fig. 1b and 4).
Regarding claim 23, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a small sensor, a camera, or another electronic device (“actuators, sensors, or cameras” para [0011]) is installed within the aeroponic chamber (110) (para [0011], installed on spray lance 3) or outside the aeroponic chamber (110) if the aeroponic chamber (110) is made of transparent material, for data collection so as to enable data analytics, artificial intelligence or automation for optimization of crop growth performance, or nutrient usage (para [0011]-[0013]).
The Examiner notes that claim 23 can be broadly interpreted to require “a small sensor, a camera, or another electronic device” only conditionally (i.e., “if the aeroponic chamber (110) is made of transparent material”). Thus, the Examiner notes that if the aeroponic chamber is not made of transparent material, then a sensor, camera, or another electronic device is not required. Since Parapatits as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the aeroponic chamber is made of transparent material, the Examiner notes that it is not required that the prior art of Parapatits as modified also teach a small sensor, camera, or another electronic device.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Parapatits (US 2021/0368703 A1), hereinafter Parapatits, in view of Jollie (US 2017/0347548 A1), hereinafter Jollie, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vickers et al. (US 2009/0293357 A1), hereinafter Vickers.
Regarding claim 5, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein one or more of the emitters is a composite emitter (170) that is configured to emit both liquid and air.
However, Vickers is in the field of aeroponic delivery systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein one or more of the emitters (nozzle 301) is a composite emitter (170) that is configured to emit both liquid and air (para [0042], nozzle 301 emits both liquid droplets and air).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aeroponic delivery system with emitters of Parapatits as modified to incorporate the composite emitter as taught by Vickers with a reasonable expectation of success to more effectively control liquid droplet size and air to water ratio of liquid emitted, thereby enhancing growth the plants within the aeroponic chamber (para [0004] and [0014]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Parapatits (US 2021/0368703 A1), hereinafter Parapatits, in view of Jollie (US 2017/0347548 A1), hereinafter Jollie, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 20160053399 A), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein one or more of the emitters has a rotational emission direction.
However, Lee is in the field of aeroponic delivery systems (abstract) and teaches wherein one or more of the emitters (nozzles 142b) has a rotational emission direction (see eleventh paragraph of page 12/14, “nozzle 142b rotates in a sprinkler type”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aeroponic delivery system with emitters of Parapatits as modified to have the emitters operate with a rotational emission direction as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for more even and thorough distribution of liquid on the roots of cultivated plants (see eleventh and twelfth paragraphs of page 12/14 of Lee).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Parapatits (US 2021/0368703 A1), hereinafter Parapatits, in view of Jollie (US 2017/0347548 A1), hereinafter Jollie, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noble et al. (WO 2020/252364 A1), hereinafter Noble.
Regarding claim 18, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the system (100) is configured to provide alternating flow through the liquid nutrient emitters (150) and the air emitters (160).
However, Noble is in the field of aeroponic delivery systems (abstract) and teaches wherein the system (100) (horticulture system 10) is configured to provide alternating flow through the liquid nutrient emitters (150) (sprayer heads 52b) and the air emitters (160) (“blower”, see first paragraph of page 12/28; see third paragraph of page 10/28 through second paragraph of page 11/28, “entire horticulture system 10…is meant to be run by a computer that monitors and controls every aspect from start to harvest”, thus the computer-driven system is considered capable of providing alternating flow through sprayer heads 52b and blower).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aeroponic delivery system with liquid nutrient emitters and air emitters of Parapatits as modified to have made the emitters capable of providing alternating flow as taught by Noble with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for further flexibility of use by allowing each type of emitter to be used individually. Furthermore, use of a computer-driven system as taught by Noble would allow for automation of and greater control over the aeroponic delivery system.
Regarding claim 19, Parapatits as modified discloses the system (100) of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the system (100) is configured to provide simultaneous flow through the liquid nutrient emitters (150) and the air emitters (160).
However, Noble is in the field of aeroponic delivery systems (abstract) and teaches wherein the system (100) (horticulture system 10) is configured to provide simultaneous flow through the liquid nutrient emitters (150) (sprayer heads 52b) and the air emitters (160) (“blower”, see first paragraph of page 12/28; see third paragraph of page 10/28 through second paragraph of page 11/28, “entire horticulture system 10…is meant to be run by a computer that monitors and controls every aspect from start to harvest”, thus the computer-driven system is considered capable of providing simultaneous flow through sprayer heads 52b and blower).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aeroponic delivery system with
liquid nutrient emitters and air emitters of Parapatits as modified to have made the
emitters capable of providing simultaneous flow as taught by Noble with a reasonable
expectation of success to allow for further flexibility of use by allowing each type of
emitter to be used together. Furthermore, use of a computer-driven system as taught by
Noble would allow for automation of and greater control over the aeroponic delivery
system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 2-7 of 8), filed February 23, 2026, regarding the rejection of claim(s) at least claims 1 and 25 under § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art does not disclose “wherein one or more of the emitters has a movable position in the aeroponic chamber (110) such that the one or more emitters are slidable along only a longitudinal direction of the aeroponic chamber (110)”.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the significance of the inventive feature of the instant invention have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that claimed features are inventive because they “allow for the system of the present invention to generate a bulk flow of liquid toward one net forward direction”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Dearinger (US 2018/0338440 A1), hereinafter Dearinger, have been fully considered, but they are moot as in the instant rejection, Parapatits (US 2021/0368703 A1), hereinafter Parapatits, as modified by Jollie (US 2017/0347548 A1), hereinafter Jollie, has been substituted for Dearinger.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Parapatits have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Parapatits does not teach “emitters with a movable position locked to one axis”, referring to the “emitters [that] are slidable along only a longitudinal direction of the aeroponic chamber” as described in claims 1 and 25. Applicant further asserts that the system of Parapatits comprises “emitters that are slidable along a longitudinal and a latitudinal axis”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that the emitters of Parapatits (spray lances 3) are slidable only in a vertical direction via connector 7. The emitters (spray lances 3) are fixed to connector 7 at various heights and are thus only capable of moving up and down along connector 7 and are not capable of moving side-to-side without movement of the connector 7 as a whole along guide rail 2 (para [0067]). Therefore, the emitters (spray lances 3) themselves are capable of moving along only one axis (i.e., a vertical axis along the length of the connector 7). As such, the prior art of Parapatits is considered to meet the aforementioned limitations of claims 1 and 25.
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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights