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) 1-6, 11-16, 27, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bateman et al US 2019/0133063.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 29 and 30 a vertical farm system comprising: at least one enclosure (Bateman, Figure 2), the at least one enclosure separated into a day section (13) and a night section (17); a plurality of racks (Bateman, Figure 1) disposed within the at least one enclosure and configured to hold plants; a conveyor system (Bateman, ¶0039) configured to move the plurality of racks through the day and night section of the at least one enclosure (Bateman, ¶0080-0081); and at least one of an irrigation system (Bateman, ¶0114), a lighting system comprising a plurality of lighting fixtures disposed within the at least one enclosure (Bateman, ¶0045), the at least one of the irrigation system and the lighting system being stationary relative to the plurality of racks (Bateman, ¶0114, ¶0045, claim 7).
Regarding claim 2, Bateman further discloses each of the plurality of racks comprising: a central frame (1); and a plurality of gutters (7) disposed on the central frame.
Regarding claim 3, Bateman further discloses Bateman further discloses each of the plurality of racks further comprises rollers (5) disposed on the central frame.
Regarding claim 4, Bateman further discloses each of the plurality of gutters comprises one or more plant holders (Bateman, abstract, ¶0032).
Regarding claim 5, Bateman further discloses each of the plurality of gutters comprises a drain opening for release of irrigation fluid from the gutter (Bateman, ¶0035).
Regarding claim 6, Bateman further discloses each of the plurality of racks comprises a top mount assembly (top of frame 1) configured to attach to the conveyor system.
Regarding claim 12, Bateman further discloses the plurality of light fixtures (21) extend into the path of the plurality of racks as the racks are moved through the vertical farm system so that the plurality of light fixtures extend between the plurality of gutters (Bateman, Figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Bateman further discloses the lighting system is located in the day section of the at least one enclosure (Bateman, ¶0113).
Regarding claim 14, Bateman further discloses the night section of the at least one enclosure is devoid of light fixtures (Bateman, ¶0113: lines 18-20. Lights may be excluded from loading/unloading portion 17).
Regarding claim 15, Bateman further discloses the vertical farm system comprises an irrigation system (Bateman, ¶0114), and the irrigation system comprises one or more irrigation stations (Bateman, Figure 4) that deliver irrigation fluid to the plurality of gutters.
Regarding claim 16, Bateman further discloses the irrigation stations are spaced from another throughout the at least one enclosure (Bateman, ¶0048, ¶0074).
Regarding claim 27, Bateman further discloses the vertical farm system further comprises an environmental control system (Batman, ¶0003).
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) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman et al US 2019/0133063 in view of Friedman US 11,202,418.
Regarding claim 28, Bateman further discloses the environmental control system comprising a system to maintain the different sections at different climates (Bateman, ¶0080). Bateman fails to disclose the specifics of the HVAC systems. Friedman discloses an HVAC unit and one or more air circulation units (Friedman, column 7: lines 10-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the environmental control system of Bateman with HVAC and air circulation units as to provide a way to control the climate of the different sections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 17-26 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims rejected under Deschambault have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Deschambault teaches discloses racks as a moving wall that is comprised of multiple racks pivotally mounted in a way which ensures water and light tightness. Deschambualt is not capable of performing the functional limitation of the racks being able to move individually.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Bateman filed 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The newly added limitations of claim 1 are functional. Bateman is capable of performing these functional limitations. The applicant hasn’t positively recited that the day and night sections of the enclosure comprise closed loops which the racks move through, merely that the conveyors system is capable of moving the racks through such a system. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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