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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth on claims 16 & 44, the second opening does not have antecedent basis since such an opening is not claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 19-20, 22, 28-29, 44-45, & 69-72 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/20/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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: Tower 0 & Tower 9. 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 “1302” has been used to designate both the entire system of fig. 13 and the recirculation tank. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19, 44, 69, & 71 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.
Claims 19 & 44 recite the limitation "the second opening" in the second line of each claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 69 & 71 recite the limitation "the vertical distance" in lines 1-2 of claim 69 and line 1 of claim 71. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 69 & 71 recite the limitation "the bottom of the lowest slot of the plurality of slots" in line 2 of each of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 69 & 71 recite the limitation "the bottom of the highest slot of the plurality of slots" in lines 2-3 of each of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 69 & 72 recite the limitation "the length of the segment" in lines 3-4 of claim 69 and the 3rd line of claim 71. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 19-20, 22, 28-29, 44-45, & 69-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouxel, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0392834 A1; herein Rou in view of Chernov et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0142073 A1; herein Cher.
Re claim 1, Rou discloses a plant support structure comprising:
a. a plurality of vertically aligned segments (300; the individual modules, fig. 1A-D, 3A-4, 7, & 9B-10) arranged along a vertical axis (402; the planting column, fig. 1A-D), each segment including at least one plant site (306; the orifice, fig. 3A-C & 7 and para 68), wherein each segment includes an integral hook (450; the protrusion, fig. 3A & 4); and
b. a vertical spine (302; the wall, fig. 3A-C) including, for each segment of the plurality of vertically aligned segments, a plurality of slots (362; the slots, fig. 3A & 4), wherein the integral hook of the segment is selectively engageable with respective slots of the plurality of slots to position the segment (para 85-86, any number of modules may be stacked and secured to each other via the slots and protrusions).
Rou fails to disclose the vertical spine including, for each segment of the plurality of vertically aligned segments, a plurality of slots arranged at different heights, wherein the integral hook of the segment is selectively engageable with different slots of the plurality of slots to position the segment at different respective vertical heights. However, Cher discloses a support structure comprising: a vertical spine (330/332; the cartridge housing/cylindrical outer surface, fig. 15-16) including, a plurality of slots (356 & 372; the stopping notch and removal notch, fig. 15-17) arranged at different heights (fig. 15-17), wherein an integral hook (340; the follower pin, fig. 15-16) of a segment (324; the manifold, fig. 15-16) is selectively engageable with different slots of the plurality of slots to position the segment at different respective vertical heights (fig. 15-17 and para 78 & 82, the first and third circumferential positions will engage the follower pins within either the stopping notch; 365 or the removal notch; 372 thus allowing the vertical height to be adjusted).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the vertical spine including, for each segment of the plurality of vertically aligned segments, a plurality of slots arranged at different heights, wherein the integral hook of the segment is selectively engageable with different slots of the plurality of slots to position the segment at different respective vertical heights however, Cher discloses such a hook and slot arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusion and elbow slots by utilizing a simple substitution of the known single height arrangement taught by the prior art for the plurality of notches/slots from Cher in order to obtain the predictable result of a micro-height adjustment such that the height can be extended and retracted without adding additional segments. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 2, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 1, Rou further discloses wherein each segment has a first end (350; the upper engagement portion, fig. 4) and a second end (360; the lower engagement portion, fig. 4), the first end comprising a first opening (303a; the upper opening, fig. 3B), wherein the second end slidably nests inside the first opening of an adjacent segment of the plurality of segments (para 67, 86, & 89, the opening allows for the insertion of the lower engagement portions into the upper engagement portions such that the modules can be stacked).
Re claim 19, as best understood, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 2, Rou further discloses wherein the first opening is larger than the second end (fig. 3A & 4 and para 86 & 89, the upper engagement portions have a greater diameter to allow for the lower engagement portions to be inserted therein).
Re claim 20, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 1, Rou further discloses wherein each segment includes a path for a nutrient solution to flow from the segment to an adjacent segment of the plurality of segments (para 72 & 75-82, the hollow space and apertures allow for fluid to flow through each of the modules via the fluid storage and distribution system).
Re claim 22, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 1, Rou further discloses wherein the at least one plant site supports fruiting plants (para 11, 107, 114, & 125, wherein the seed supported in the seed receptacle is a tomato, cucumber, or strawberry, see fig. 7 for how the seed receptacle is supported within the plant site).
Re claim 28, Rou discloses a method for increasing distances between plant sites of a plant support structure, wherein the plant support structure comprises:
a. a plurality of vertically aligned segments (300; the individual modules, fig. 1A-D, 3A-4, 7, & 9B-10) arranged along a vertical axis (402; the planting column, fig. 1A-D), each segment including at least one plant site (306; the orifice, fig. 3A-C & 7 and para 68), wherein each segment includes an integral hook (450; the protrusion, fig. 3A & 4); and
b. a vertical spine (302; the wall, fig. 3A-C) including, for each segment of the plurality of vertically aligned segments, a plurality of slots (362; the slots, fig. 3A & 4), wherein the integral hook of the segment is selectively engageable with respective slots of the plurality of slots to position the segment (para 85-86, any number of modules may be stacked and secured to each other via the slots and protrusions).
Rou fails to disclose the vertical spine including, for each segment of the plurality of vertically aligned segments, a plurality of slots arranged at different heights, wherein the integral hook of the segment is selectively engageable with different slots of the plurality of slots to position the segment at different respective vertical heights. However, Cher discloses a support structure comprising: a vertical spine (330/332; the cartridge housing/cylindrical outer surface, fig. 15-16) including, a plurality of slots (356 & 372; the stopping notch and removal notch, fig. 15-17) arranged at different heights (fig. 15-17), wherein an integral hook (340; the follower pin, fig. 15-16) of a segment (324; the manifold, fig. 15-16) is selectively engageable with different slots of the plurality of slots to position the segment at different respective vertical heights (fig. 15-17 and para 78 & 82, the first and third circumferential positions will engage the follower pins within either the stopping notch; 365 or the removal notch; 372 thus allowing the vertical height to be adjusted).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the vertical spine including, for each segment of the plurality of vertically aligned segments, a plurality of slots arranged at different heights, wherein the integral hook of the segment is selectively engageable with different slots of the plurality of slots to position the segment at different respective vertical heights however, Cher discloses such a hook and slot arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusion and elbow slots by utilizing a simple substitution of the known single height arrangement taught by the prior art for the plurality of notches/slots from Cher in order to obtain the predictable result of a micro-height adjustment such that the height can be extended and retracted without adding additional segments. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 29, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 28, Rou further discloses wherein each segment has a first end (350; the upper engagement portion, fig. 4) and a second end (360; the lower engagement portion, fig. 4), the first end comprising a first opening (303a; the upper opening, fig. 3B), the method further comprising slidably nesting the second end inside the first opening of an adjacent segment of the plurality of segments (para 67, 86, & 89, the opening allows for the insertion of the lower engagement portions into the upper engagement portions such that the modules can be stacked).
Re claim 44, as best understood, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 29, Rou further discloses wherein the first opening is larger than the second end (fig. 3A & 4 and para 86 & 89, the upper engagement portions have a greater diameter to allow for the lower engagement portions to be inserted therein).
Re claim 45, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 28, Rou further discloses wherein each segment includes a path for a nutrient solution to flow from the segment to an adjacent segment of the plurality of segments (para 72 & 75-82, the hollow space and apertures allow for fluid to flow through each of the modules via the fluid storage and distribution system).
Re claim 69, as best understood, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 1, Cher as applied to Rou further discloses wherein, for each segment, a vertical distance measured from a bottom of a lowest slot of the plurality of slots (fig. 15-16, the distance of the bottom end; 344 to the lower surface of the guiding cam; 354) to a bottom of a highest slot of the plurality of slots (fig. 15-16, the distance of the bottom end; 344 to the second lower surface of the guiding cam; 370) does not exceed a length of the segment (fig. 15-17, neither distance exceeds the total length of the cylindrical outer surface; 332).
Re claim 70, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 1, Rou further discloses wherein the spine corresponds to only one plurality of vertically aligned segments (fig. 1A-4 & 9B-11C and para 66, each module has its own wall portion thereof).
Re claim 71, as best understood, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 28, Cher as applied to Rou further discloses wherein, for each segment, a vertical distance measured from a bottom of a lowest slot of the plurality of slots (fig. 15-16, the distance of the bottom end; 344 to the lower surface of the guiding cam; 354) to a bottom of a highest slot of the plurality of slots (fig. 15-16, the distance of the bottom end; 344 to the second lower surface of the guiding cam; 370) does not exceed a total length of the segment (fig. 15-17, neither distance exceeds the total length of the cylindrical outer surface; 332).
Re claim 72, the combination of Rou and Cher discloses the invention of claim 28, Rou further discloses wherein the spine corresponds to only one plurality of vertically aligned segments (fig. 1A-4 & 9B-11C and para 66, each module has its own wall portion thereof).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment and applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 10/23/2025 necessitated the new grounds 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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights