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
Claims 6-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, line 3: the element “at least one unit” should be “at least one of the units” since the element was previously introduced.
Regarding claim 7, line 2: the element “at least one unit” should be “at least one of the units” since the element was previously introduced.
Regarding claim 8, line 3: the limitation “. A” should be “a”
Regarding claim 8, line 4: the limitation “. A” should be “a”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urbanski (US Pub 2019/0166812).
Regarding claim 17, Urbanski discloses a module (5a-5f) for an insect farming installation, where the module comprises a structural frame (fig 1 and 2) supporting a profiled tank portion (6a, 6b 12), the module comprising a connection system adapted to connect the module to a neighbor module (5a-5f) with a profiled tank portion, so that the tank portions of both modules form a continuous profiled tank portion (paragraph 0058).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN111109204).
Regarding claim 19, Liu discloses an input module for an insect farming installation having culture areas on a plurality of overlying levels (fig 1), and comprising a lift system (2) to move a mobile workstation and/or substrate to the levels.
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 1-7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (US Patent 11,311,003) in view of Urbanski.
Regarding claim 1, Yeh discloses an automated farming installation, wherein the automated farming installation comprises
a controller (313),
at least one mobile workstation (33) controlled by the controller, and
at least one work surface (3211) able to support at least a load of substrate, wherein the work surface comprises a longitudinal continuous tank (fig 3), and in that the mobile workstation is movable over a portion of the work surface to perform at least one sub-action controlled by the controller (col 3, line 62-col 4 line 4).
Regarding claim 2, Yeh also discloses a structural frame supporting the work surface (fig 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Yeh also discloses at least one longitudinal guiding rail (322) parallel to the longitudinal continuous tank and guiding a movement of the mobile workstation over the work surface.
Regarding claim 4, Yeh also discloses at least one longitudinal guiding rail parallel (322) to the longitudinal continuous tank and guiding a movement of the mobile workstation over the work surface.
Regarding claim 5, Yeh also discloses at least two work surfaces provided at at least two vertical levels, the one under the other (fig 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 6, Yeh also discloses comprising at least two work surfaces provided at at least two vertical levels, the one under the other (fig 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Yeh also discloses there is one single mobile workstation (claim does not exclude additional mobile workstations as currently written).
Regarding claim 16, Yeh also discloses the at least one mobile workstation is adapted to perform at least one or more of the following sub-actions: deliver one load of substrate from an entry module of the work surface; treat substrate at the work surface; move one load of substrate through an exit module of the work surface (col 3, line 62-col 4 line 4).
Yeh does not explicitly disclose (claim 1) the longitudinal continuous tank made by connection of at least two profiled tank portions and (claim 2) the farming installation is provided as a plurality of assembled units, each unit comprising one of said tank portions and a structural frame portion, the structural frame portions being assembled to one another to provide the structural frame and (claim 4) each unit comprises a rail portion, the rail portions being assembled to provide the longitudinal guiding rail and (claim 6) at least one unit comprises at least the two vertical levels and (claim 7) at least one unit is adapted to support at least an overlying unit.
Regarding claim 1, Urbanski teaches a longitudinal continuous tank (6a, 6b 12) made by connection of at least two profiled tank portions (5a-5f; fig 2).
Regarding claim 2, Urbanski also teaches a farming installation is provided as a plurality of assembled units (5a-5f), each unit comprising one of said tank portions and a structural frame portion, the structural frame portions being assembled to one another to provide the structural frame (fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, Urbanski also teaches each unit comprises a rail portion, the rail portions being assembled to provide the longitudinal guiding rail (would be taught by the combination of Yeh and Urbanski).
Regarding claim 6, Urbanski also teaches at least one unit comprises at least the two vertical levels (fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Urbanski also teaches at least one unit is adapted to support at least an overlying unit (fig 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automated farming installation of Yeh to have longitudinal continuous tank made by connection of at least two profiled tank portions and the farming installation is provided as a plurality of assembled units, each unit comprising one of said tank portions and a structural frame portion, the structural frame portions being assembled to one another to provide the structural frame and each unit comprises a rail portion, the rail portions being assembled to provide the longitudinal guiding rail and at least one unit comprises at least the two vertical levels and at least one unit is adapted to support at least an overlying unit as taught by Urbanski in order to allow building lines of various length thereby optimizing the space available (paragraph 0055).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh in view of Adrian (US Patent 3,590,981).
Regarding claim 18, Yeh discloses an output module (fig 7 and 8) for an insect farming installation comprising a plurality of work areas (3211) the one above the other (fig 1 and 2), where the output module comprises a common vertical column guiding the unloaded substrate toward a bottom reception area under the effect of gravity (fig 1 and 7-8).
Yeh does not disclose a braking system adapted to slow down the substrate during their movement downward.
Adrian teaches a braking system adapted to slow down the substrate during their movement downward (fig 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the output module of Yeh to include a braking system adapted to slow down the substrate during their movement downward as taught by Adrian in order to reduce damage to the substrate caused by falling (col 1, lines 5-17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith R Campbell whose telephone number is (571)270-1015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/KRC/Examiner, Art Unit 3651 3/17/2026