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 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, 2, 4, 10-14 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by James et al WO 2022/046564.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, James discloses a vertical farm system comprising: at least one enclosure (10), the at least one enclosure separated into a day section (20) and a night section (22) (James, ¶0023) ; a plurality of racks (32) disposed within the at least one enclosure and configured to hold plants, a conveyor system (40) configured to move the plurality of racks individually through the day and night section of the at least one enclosure, the at least one enclosure comprising a closed loop path through which the conveyor system moves the plurality of racks through the day and night sections (James, Figure 1); and irrigation (James, ¶0024), lighting (James, ¶0023) and harvesting systems (James, ¶0022), the systems being stationary relative to the plurality of racks; each of the plurality of racks comprising: a central frame and a plurality of gutters disposed on the central frame (James, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 4, James further discloses each of the plurality of gutters comprising one or more plant holders (James, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 10, James further discloses the conveyor system comprising toggle switches (2614) configured to guide the plurality of racks around turns within the conveyor system.
Regarding claim 12, James further discloses the lighting system comprising components that are positioned between the plurality of gutters of a respective one of the plurality of racks as the plurality of racks are moved by the conveyor system (James, Figure 1).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, James further discloses the lighting system bing located in the day section with the night section being devoid of light fixtures (James, ¶0023).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, James further discloses the system comprising an environmental control system having first and second HVAC units with a first unit associated with the day section and a second unit associated with the night section and a circulation unit (James, ¶0022).
Regarding claim 29, James further discloses the plurality of racks holding strawberry plants (James, ¶0025).
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) 3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James WO 2022/046564 in view of Johnson et al US 10,136,587.
Regarding claim 3 and 6-9 James discloses the device of claim 1 but does not disclose details of the claimed racks. Johnson teaches racks having rollers (Johnson, column 2: lines 54-55) on a central frame (Johnson, Figure 1), top mount assemblies (5), a track (4); and a powered (36) overhead conveyor system (4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the racks of Johnson for the racks of James as to provide a vertical grow system, and for the conveyor system of James to be a powered overhead conveyor system as to be able to convey the racks between night and day sections.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James WO 2022/046564 in view of Bateman US 2019/0133063.
Regarding claim 5, James discloses the gutters of claim 2 but fails to disclose a drain opening. Bateman teaches a plurality of gutters comprising a drain opening (Bateman, ¶0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of sucess to modify the gutters of James to comprise a drain opening as to provide appropriate drainage to the gutters.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James WO 2022046564.
Regarding claim 30, James further discloses the plants being flowering or fruiting plants (James, ¶0020) but fails to disclose the plants being tomatoes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the plants to be tomatoes, as tomatoes are flowering fruiting plants.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or suggest the vertical farm system as claimed with an irrigation system having irrigation stations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights