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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim set is misnumbered. Claim 4 appears twice. The second occurrence of claim 4 has been renumbered to claim 5, with the number of each subsequent claim being adjusted accordingly (claim 6 is now claim 7, claim 14 has been renumbered to claim 15, and so on). Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 3 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 2 recites the limitation "the organism" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An organism is previously functionally claimed, making it unclear if the applicant intends to include an organism as part of the claimed system.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Material is previously functionally claimed, making it unclear if the applicant intends to include an organism as part of the claimed system.
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) 1-4, 6-8, 11-15, and 17-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zelkind et al US 2021/0137028.
Regarding claims 1-3, 20 and 21, Zelkind discloses a system for regulating growth of an organism, the device comprising: a growth capsule (602-5); one or more biovoxels (606) located in the growth capsule, each biovoxel being configured to surround the organism and to include material for the growth of the organism; at least one sensor (Zelkind, Figure 6A) configured to monitor at least one environmental condition in each biovoxel and output sensed signals (Zelkind, ¶0073); at least one actuator configured to be actuated in response to actuation signals (Zelkind, ¶0106), wherein the actuator is a blower (610); and a processor (620) configured to receive the sensed signals and output the actuation signals to actuate the at least one actuator to change the at least one environmental condition in response to the sensed signals; and adjust using artificial intelligence a parameter of the at least one actuator in response to the sensed signals (Zelkind, ¶0025-0026, ¶0107). Zelkind is further capable of performing the functional language of claims 2, 3, 20 and 21.
Regarding claim 4, Zelkind further discloses the sensor being an air flow sensor (Zelkind, Figure 6A).
Regarding claim 6, Zelkind further discloses a display configured to output information sensed by the sensor (Zelkind, ¶0070).
Regarding claim 7, Zelkind further discloses the actuator being a robot (104).
Regarding claim 8, Zelkind further discloses artificial intelligence which adjusts the environmental condition inside each biovoxel via a feedback loop (Zelkind, ¶0130-0132)
Regarding claim 11, Zelkind further discloses the intelligent skin comprises a system of structural support (Zelkind, Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 12, Zelkind further discloses each biovoxel provides a self-contained growth microenvironment to the organism contained therein independently of adjacent biovoxels (Zelkind, ¶0072).
Regarding claim 13, Zelkind further discloses each biovoxel is modular and comprises interchangeable components (Zelkind, Figure 6A).
Regarding claim 14, Zelkind further discloses at least one biovoxel comprises a microcontroller configured for communicating sensed signals from the sensor to the processor and receiving actuation signals to change the at least one environmental condition (Zelkind, ¶0079).
Regarding claim 15, Zelkind further discloses the one or more biovoxels are mounted on a rack or shelf affixed to the intelligent skin (Zelkind, Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 17, Zelkind further discloses the biovoxel comprising a microcontroller (622).
Regarding claim 18, Zelkind further discloses a robotic arm (104).
Regarding claim 19, Zelkind further discloses the biovoxels are interconnected (Zelkind, ¶0072).
Regarding claim 22, Zelkind discloses a method for regulating growth of an organism, the method comprising steps of: providing biovoxels (606) in a growth capsule (602-5); monitoring at least one environmental condition in each biovoxel by at least one sensor configured to output sensed signals (Zelkind, ¶0098); providing at least one blower (610) actuator (Zelkind, ¶0106); receiving the sensed signals by a processor (620); and providing to the at least one actuator actuation signals by the processor to actuate the at least one actuator to change the at least one environmental condition in response to the sensed signals (Zelkind, ¶0079, 0107); and adjust using artificial intelligence a parameter of the at least one actuator in response to the sensed signals (Zelkind, ¶0025-0026, ¶0107).
Regarding claim 23, Zelkind further discloses the actuation signals being provided by artificial intelligence.
Regarding claim 24, Zelkind discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (Zelkind, ¶0081-0083) storing computer instructions, which when executed by a processor, configure the processor to perform a method for regulating growth of an organism, the method comprising steps of: providing biovoxels (606) in a growth capsule (606-5), each biovoxel being configured to surround the organism and to include material for the growth of the organism; monitoring at least one environmental condition in each biovoxel by at least one sensor configured to output sensed signals (Zelkind, ¶0098); providing at least one actuator (Zelkind, ¶0106); receiving the sensed signals by a processor (620); and providing to the at least one actuator actuation signals by the processor to actuate the at least one actuator to change the at least one environmental condition in response to the sensed signals (Zelkind, ¶0079, 0107).
Regarding claim 25, Zelkind further discloses the computer-readable medium is further configured for communicating with artificial intelligence for adjustment of actuation signals (Zelkind, Figure 7).
Regarding claim 26, Zelkind further discloses a memory configured to store information of desired environmental conditions (Zelkind, ¶0107).
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) 1-5, 7, 10-14, 17-22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Whelan US 2022/0217919 in view of Zelkind et al US 2021/0137028.
Regarding claims 1-3, 20 and 21, Whelan discloses a system for regulating growth of an organism, the device comprising: a growth capsule (Whelan, ¶0036); one or more biovoxels (10) located in the growth capsule, each biovoxel being configured to surround the organism and to include material for the growth of the organism; at least one sensor (Whelan, ¶0055-0058) configured to monitor at least one environmental condition in each biovoxel and output sensed signals; at least one blower actuator configured to be actuated in response to actuation signals (Whelan, ¶0059); and a processor (Whelan, ¶0023) configured to receive the sensed signals and output the actuation signals to actuate the at least one actuator to change the at least one environmental condition in response to the sensed signals. Whelan fails to disclose the processor configured to adjust a parameter of an actuator using artificial intelligence. Zelkind teaches a processor using artificial intelligence to adjust a parameter of the at least one actuator in response to the sensed signals (Zelkind, ¶0025-0026, ¶0107). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the processor of Whelan so that it was capable of performing the function of using artificial intelligence to adjust a parameter of the actuator as taught by Zelkind as to allow the system of Whelan to more quickly adjust to changing conditions. Whelan in view of Zelkind is further capable of performing the functional language of claims 2, 3, 20 and 21.
Regarding claim 4, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses the sensor being a temperature (Whelan, ¶0055).
Regarding claim 7, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses the actuator being a blower (Whelan, ¶0059).
Regarding claim 10, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses the growth capsule having an intelligent skin (16) comprising an infrastructure port (Whelan, ¶0036).
Regarding claim 11, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses the intelligent skin (16) comprising a system of structural support (Whelan, Figures 8a and 10)
Regarding claim 12, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses each biovoxel provides a self-contained growth microenvironment to the organism contained therein independently of adjacent biovoxels (Whelan, ¶0084).
Regarding claim 13, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses each biovoxel is modular and comprises interchangeable components (Whelan, ¶0086, 0092).
Regarding claim 14, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses at least one biovoxel comprises a microcontroller configured for communicating sensed signals from the sensor to the processor and receiving actuation signals to change the at least one environmental condition (Whelan, ¶0055).
Regarding claim 17, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses the biovoxel comprising a microcontroller (Whelan, ¶0055).
Regarding claim 18, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses a robotic arm (100).
Regarding claim 19, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses the biovoxels are interconnected (Whelan, ¶0089-0090).
Regarding claim 22, Whelan in view of Zelkind discloses a method for regulating growth of an organism, the method comprising steps of: providing biovoxels (10) in a growth capsule (Whelan, ¶0036); monitoring at least one environmental condition in each biovoxel by at least one sensor configured to output sensed signals (Whelan, ¶0055-0058); providing at least one blower actuator (Whelan, ¶0059); receiving the sensed signals by a processor (Whelan, ¶0023); and providing to the at least one actuator actuation signals by the processor to actuate the at least one actuator to change the at least one environmental condition in response to the sensed signals (Whelan, ¶0055-0058). Whelan fails to disclose the processor configured to adjust a parameter of an actuator using artificial intelligence. Zelkind teaches a processor using artificial intelligence to adjust a parameter of the at least one actuator in response to the sensed signals (Zelkind, ¶0025-0026, ¶0107). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the processor of Whelan so that it was capable of performing the function of using artificial intelligence to adjust a parameter of the actuator as taught by Zelkind as to allow the system of Whelan to more quickly adjust to changing conditions.
Regarding claim 26, Whelan in view of Zelkind further discloses a memory (Whelan, ¶0016).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zelkind et al US 2021/0137028 in view of Dedolph US 3,882,634.
Regarding claim 16, Zelkind discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose the system comprising a clinostat. Dedolph teaches a clinostat in a system for regulating growth of an organism (Dedolph, column 1: lines 18-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zelkind with the clinostat of Dedolph as to provide a way to accelerate plant growth within the system (Dedolph, abstract, column 1: lines 11-16).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan US 2022/0217919 in view of Zelkind et al US 2021/0137028, as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 17-22, and 26 above, and in further view of Dedolph US 3,882,634.
Regarding claim 16, Whelan in view of Zelkind discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose the system comprising a clinostat. Dedolph teaches a clinostat in a system for regulating growth of an organism (Dedolph, column 1: lines 18-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Whelan in view of Zelkind with the clinostat of Dedolph as to provide a way to accelerate plant growth within the system (Dedolph, abstract, column 1: lines 11-16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objections to the claims remain. The claims have not been renumbered.
Claims 2 and 3 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as discussed above.
Zelkind discloses the limitations of the amended claims, as discussed above. Given the structure, Zelkind is capable of performing the functional and conditional limitations as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under Whelan have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Whelan US 2022/0217919 in view of Zelkind et al US 2021/0137028.
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 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