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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 21), in the reply filed on 9/30/25, is acknowledged. It is noted that Applicant’s traversal has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the restriction is hereby withdrawn and claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27-29 and 31 are now treated on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “dashed outline 52” in Figure 3, “voids 66” in Figure 4, “ridge 72” in Figure 5, and “service module 80” in Figure 8A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “96” has been used to designate both “tray position sensor” and “reader”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27-29 and 31 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.
In claims 1, 22, and 27, the phrase “the frame” lack antecedent basis.
In claims 1 and 22, the function of the “at least one service module” are 1. lifting a selected tray, and 2. moving the selected tray relative to the structure and relative to the other trays along any one of a plurality of preconfigured paths. However, it is unclear whether the claim intends to define that one service module does both of these functions or separate service does each of these functions separately.
In claim 2 and 22, it is unclear with regards to how the structure and the service modules are configured so that the service module is positioned below the selected tray prior to lifting. The structure is a completely separate entity from the service module.
In claim 29, the term “ect.” has an unclear scope.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by KR 101864353 (KR’353; as cited on IDS 11/16/23).
For claim 1, KR’353 teaches an agricultural system comprising a plurality of trays, each tray being suitable for holding a substrate in which a crop can grow, a structure for supporting the plurality of trays (110) in a stacked arrangement, the system further comprising a lighting system (L) for delivering light to the crops and a nutrient supply system (137f) for supplying nutrients to the crops and at least one service module (131,132) for lifting a selected tray and for moving the selected tray relative to the frame and the other trays along any one of a plurality of preconfigured paths, wherein the service module comprises an internal power source (137b) for powering said lifting of the selected tray and moving of the selected tray along a path (see Figures 1, 3a, 3b, 4a-4c, 5, 6, 8, 10).
For claim 2, KR’353 teaches wherein the structure and the service modules (132) are configured so that the service module is positioned below the selected tray prior to lifting (see Figure 8b for example).
For claim 5, KR’353 teaches wherein the stacked arrangement extends both horizontally and vertically (see Figure 1 for example).
For claim 6, KR’353 teaches a plurality of service modules (131,132).
For claim 7, KR’353 teaches wherein each service module is configured to lift and move a selected tray along a preconfigured path wherein a first preconfigured path for a first service module is distinct from a second preconfigured path for a second service module (distinct paths due to operating in different levels, see Figure 1 for example).
For claim 8, KR’353 teaches wherein each service module comprises at least one camera (C), wherein the camera is directed downwards so that the camera is able to capture image information relating to crops located below the service module (see Figure 4b for example).
For claim 10, KR’353 teaches wherein the camera (C) captures image information in the visual, ultra-violet and/or infra-red bands.
For claim 11, KR’353 teaches wherein the service module may comprise one of more of a carbon dioxide sensor, a temperature sensor and a humidity sensor (see under “Description”).
For claim 14, KR’353 teaches wherein the service modules comprise a locomotion system, the locomotion system comprising a plurality of wheels (135a,139a), at least one of which is powered by the internal power source.
For claim 17, KR’353 teaches one or more stations comprising one or more of a harvesting station, a cleaning station and a planting station, and wherein the service module transports the tray between the structure and the one or more stations, and between the stations where there is more than one station (see under “Description”).
For claim 19, KR’353 teaches one or more rails defining one or more paths for the service module, wherein the rails (M1,M2) additionally act to support the trays within the structure.
For claim 21, KR’353 teaches one or more service module lifts to move the service modules vertically relative to the structure (see Figures 1, 3a, 3b, 4a-4c, 5, 6, 8, 10).
For claim 22, KR’353 teaches n agricultural system comprising a plurality of trays (110), each tray being suitable for holding a substrate in which a crop can grow, a structure for supporting the plurality of trays in a stacked arrangement, the system further comprising a lighting system (L) for delivering light to the crops and a nutrient supply system (137f) for supplying nutrients to the crops and at least one service module (131,132) for lifting a selected tray and for moving the selected tray relative to the frame and the other trays along any one of a plurality of preconfigured paths, wherein the structure and the service modules are configured so that the service module is positioned below the selected tray prior to lifting and wherein the service module comprises a lifter (134) for engaging the selected tray from below and lifting and lowering the selected tray (see Figures 1, 3a, 3b, 4a-4c, 5, 6, 8, 10).
For claim 27, KR’353 teaches a method of moving a tray within an agricultural system, the agricultural system comprising a plurality of trays (110), each tray being suitable for holding a substrate in which a crop can grow and a structure for supporting the plurality of trays in a stacked arrangement, the system further comprising a lighting system (L) for delivering light to the crops and a nutrient supply system (137f) for supplying nutrients to the crops and at least one service module, the method comprising lifting (134) a selected tray from below using a service module positioned below the tray and using the service module to move the selected tray relative to the frame and the other trays along any one of a plurality of preconfigured paths (see Figures 1, 3a, 3b, 4a-4c, 5, 6, 8, 10).
For claim 28, KR’353 teaches wherein the structure extends both vertically and horizontally, the structure defining the plurality of preconfigured paths, at least one of which comprises a vertical component, wherein the method comprises lifting the tray to follow
the vertical component of the preconfigured path (distinct paths due to operating in different levels, see Figure 1 for example).
For claim 29, KR’353 teaches using the service module to collect data relating to the agricultural system while the service module moves through the system, wherein the data collected by the service module may include one or more of images, temperature, carbon dioxide concentration, lighting intensity and/or colour, humidity, etc. (see under “Description”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101864353 (KR’353; as cited on IDS 11/16/23).
For claim 3, as described above, KR’353 further teaches a lifter (134,134b,134a,134d) for engaging the selected tray from below and lifting and lowering the selected tray. However, KR’353 lacks to mention wherein the lifter comprises one or more sets of arms arranged in a scissor formation. It is noted that KR’353 does teach one or more sets of arms (134,134b,134a,134d), which is considered as a lifter means functional equivalent to the sets of arms arranged in a scissor formation as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use either the sets of arms (134,134b,134a,134d) as taught KR’353 or the sets of arms arranged in a scissor formation as claimed, since to do so would merely replace one old and well known lifter means with another art equivalent old and well known lifter means in order to lifting and/or lowering the tray.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101864353 (KR’353; as cited on IDS 11/16/23) in view of Lert, JR. et al. (US 2019/0307077; as cited on IDS 11/16/23).
For claim 12, as described above, KR’353 discloses most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein each tray comprises a unique label, and wherein the service module comprises a label reader for identifying each tray by the corresponding label.
Lert, JR. et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art to provide a plant container with a RFID tag so as to ensure the plant container is accurately tracked at all times (see [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of KR’353 so as to include the use of a RFID tag, in a similar manner as taught in Lert, JR. et al., in order to ensure the plant container is accurately tracked at all times.
Claims 15 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101864353 (KR’353; as cited on IDS 11/16/23) in view of Laeske (US 2021/0045295; as cited on IDS 11/16/23).
For claims 15 and 31, as described above, KR’353 discloses most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the service module comprises an odometer for measuring a distance travelled by the service module or a blowing arrangement for blowing air downwards as the service module moves.
Laeske teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide air nozzles (9.4) to generate air flow in an agricultural system in order to control temperature and humidity and thus preventing diseases and pests (see [0100],[0102]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of KR’353 so as to include the use of air nozzles, in a similar manner as taught in Laeske, in order to control temperature and humidity and thus preventing diseases and pests.
Conclusion
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
The prior art Kawashima et al. (US 2025/0204339) teaches a system and method of vertical farming.
The prior art Peterson et al. (US 2025/0010898) teaches a system and method of a grow tower.
The prior art Robell et al. (US 2022/0225579) teaches an automated plant growing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644