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 § 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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-14, 17, 20 is/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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear whether or not the at least one bearing refers to the same limitation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether or not the anchor refers to the same limitation as in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "first bearing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “purling” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “purling” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "second bearing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "requirements" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "bunch of composite members" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "bunch of composite members" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "bunch of composite member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggest editing “member” to --members--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "grow cups" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "water" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "extra water" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "water" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "pump" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "clamping means" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "guide and lock mechanism" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "respective parameters" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Kop (US Pub. 2018/0042186 A1) in view of Wagner (US Pub. 2016/0135394 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kop discloses a polyhouse structure, wherein the polyhouse structure comprising:
a plurality of vertical towers (See Fig. 1. Pg. 3, [0067], lines 1-2: “Module 5 includes four circular towers 2a-d arranged in a symmetrical square-like configuration”), wherein the plurality of vertical towers support polyhouse member characterized in that a vertical tower of the plurality of vertical towers comprises:
at least one composite member, wherein the at least one composite member is formed by inserting and fixing at least one rod through at least one end of the composite member and; at least one bearing, wherein at least one composite member is rotatable, and an upper end of the composite member fixed to an anchor and a lower end of the composite member is fixed on a mounting surface via the at least one bearing (Pg. 4, [0083]: “As shown in FIG. 12, the vertical shaft of each of the four towers 2a-d of module 5 is rotatably mounted from above in a corresponding seat or bearing provided in an upper square or rectangular frame 191 and from below in a corresponding seat or bearing provided in a bottom bar 197. Upper frame 191 may be embedded in a roof or ceiling portion 189, or may be internally open and positioned below roof or ceiling portion 189”).
However, Kop fails to disclose as taught by Wagner, similarly drawn to a hydroponic plant growing system, at least one bamboo comprising an upper end and a lower end, wherein the at least one bamboo is configured to hold a plurality of grow cups (Abstract: “A hydroponics plant growing system comprises a bamboo tower having a grow chamber and a water chamber formed therein. A plurality of grow cups are attached to side of the tower adjacent the grow chamber. Cutouts in a sidewall of the tower form passageways between the grow cups and grow chamber. A low voltage electric pump is disposed in the water chamber to pump water to the top of the grow chamber”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyhouse structure of Kop to include the bamboo structure of Wagner as it is a more environmentally friendly material.
Regarding claim 2, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein the at least one rod comprises a first metal rod is inserted and fixed in the upper end and a second metal rod is inserted and fixed in the lower end of the at least one bamboo (Fig. 12, the vertical shaft penetrates the tower at both a top and bottom location).
Regarding claim 3, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein at least one bearing is attached to at least one end of the at least one composite member (See previous citation in claim 1 of [0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein at least one cap configured for fixing an outer periphery of the at least one bearing, wherein a first cap, from at least one cap, is attached to the upper end of the at least one composite member and the first cap is attached to an anchor and; a second cap from the at least one cap, is attached to the lower end of the at least one composite member and a second metal rod passes through the second cap (Fig. 12, each tower comprises a cap on both their bottom and top through which a vertical shaft extends and is supported by bearings. There is also a frame which each tower is rotatably anchored to).
Regarding claim 5, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein the at least composite member is configured to rotate around vertical axis (Y-Y) in clockwise or anticlockwise direction (Abstract, lines 1-6: “An indoor soilless plant cultivating system, comprising a plurality of stationary light posts, each of which adapted to illuminate a predetermined sector of an indoor facility in accordance with a predetermined illumination signature; a plurality of plant growth towers that are rotatable about a substantially vertical axis”).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood by the Examiner, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein the anchor is installed on a purling of the polyhouse through the first bearing of the at least one bearing (Fig. 12, the frame anchors the tower rotatably).
Regarding claim 7, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein the second metal rod from the lower end of the at least one composite member is fixed to the mounting surface through the second bearing of the at least one bearing (See [0083]. Bearings are provided at the top and bottom of the structure).
Regarding claim 10, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein a vertical light channel is inserted between the bunch of composite members, wherein the vertical light channel comprises a plurality of lighting elements for providing required light intensity to regulate the growth of saplings in a grow cup (Fig. 1, light posts 6a-h), wherein the colour of light emitting from the plurality of lighting elements are varied as per requirement of the saplings (Pg. 4, [0070], lines 1-7: “In the exemplary deployment of the light posts, the illumination signature of posts 6a, 6c, 6f and 6h simulates the lighting conditions of noontime at a region N. The instantaneous illumination signature of posts 6b, 6d, 6e and 6g simulates the lighting conditions of morning at a region M, and afternoon or evening at a region A, with respect to light intensity and/or wavelength”).
Regarding claim 11, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein a vertical gas channel is inserted into the bunch of composite member (Fig. 5, pipe 72), wherein the vertical gas channel comprises a plurality of spray nozzles (Fig. 5, foggers 76), wherein the vertical gas channel is configured to spray carbon dioxide, pesticides, herbicides or required medicines to regulate the growth of the saplings in the grow cup (Nozzles are configured to spray any number of substances).
Regarding claim 12, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein a central inlet irrigation pipe and a central outlet irrigation pipe are mounted with the at least one composite member, wherein the central inlet irrigation pipe and the central outlet irrigation pipe comprise a plurality of siphons configured to discharge and collect water in the grow cups (See Fig. 4, 6A, holder 43 has an inlet and outlet pipe).
Regarding claim 13, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein a grow cup from the plurality of grow cups, comprises an inlet pipe and an outlet pipe, wherein the inlet pipe is connected with the central inlet irrigation pipe to receive the water and the outlet pipe is connected with the central outlet irrigation pipe to discharge the extra water (See Fig. 4A, holder 43 has an inlet and outlet pipe).
Regarding claim 14, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein the central inlet irrigation pipe receives the water from a source of water via pump (Pg. 7, [0110], lines 1-4: “The irrigation fluid is fed to feed pump 115 from second mixing chamber 121, into which is introduced the discharge of both first mixing chamber 117 and ozone generator 126”).
Regarding claim 15, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein the central outlet irrigation pipe is connected with a collection tank to filter the collected water from the plurality of grow cups (Pg. 7, [0112]: “The surplus irrigation fluid not consumed by the plant roots 81 is collected in a reservoir 101 at the bottom of tower 2. A condensate pump, upon being commanded by controller 135 at a predetermined time, delivers the collected irrigation fluid via conduit 146 to used fluid storage tank 142, which also receives condensate delivered from dehumidifier 139 via conduit 147. A recirculation pump in data communication with controller 135 delivers the reused fluid to first mixing chamber 117 via conduit 148 and valve 138, which may be a control valve commanded by controller 135”).
Regarding claim 19, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, wherein the polyhouse structure comprises an actuator or a bi-directional motor to rotate the composite member in desired direction, wherein the speed of the actuator or the bi-directional motor is controlled to achieve desired exposure of sunlight (Pg. 4, [0075]: “The rotation of each of towers 2a-d by means of a central vertical shaft and a drive unit allows each plant 19 to be cyclically exposed to morning light conditions, noon light conditions, afternoon light conditions and nighttime conditions by completing a full rotation about its vertical axis once every 24-hour period, thus simulating a daily day/night cycle. The drive unit may be an electric motor, or a hydraulically or pneumatically actuated drive unit”).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Kop (US Pub. 2018/0042186 A1) in view of Wagner (US Pub. 2016/0135394 A1), and further in view of Bauer (US Pub. 2024/0276931 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Bauer, similarly drawn to a hydroponic tower, wherein the vertical tower comprises a bunch of composite members (Fig. 2a-2c, plurality of growing modules 102), wherein the number of composite members, in the bunch of composite members, varies according to the requirements (The number of modules is adjustable), wherein the requirements includes the number and size of the grow cups, required strength of the composite to be attached and the size of the polyhouse structure required (Adding or subtracting modules accommodates either greater or fewer cups).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyhouse structure of Kop as modified by Wagner to include the bunch of composite members as taught by Bauer to make the device collapsible.
Regarding claim 9, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Bauer, similarly drawn to a hydroponic tower, wherein the bunch of composite members are tied or assembled using a clamping means (Pg. 1, [0011]: “The twist lock formations may lock the base and the top of each module together, as well as adjacent modules together”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyhouse structure of Kop as modified by Wagner to include the bunch of composite members as taught by Bauer to make the device collapsible.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Kop (US Pub. 2018/0042186 A1) in view of Wagner (US Pub. 2016/0135394 A1), and further in view of Whitworth (US Pub. 2019/0269081 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Bauer, similarly drawn to a hydroponic tower, wherein the grow cup, from the plurality of grow cups, comprises a guide and lock mechanism configured to detachably attach the grow cup to the at least one bamboo (Pg. 3, [0039]: “Due to the flexibility of the walls of the plant cup, when the plant container is inserted into the tower cut-out, the raised lip 337 is forced past the lower edge 111 of cut-out 103, thereby locking the plant container in place. A detailed cross-sectional view of detent fastener 307 is provided by FIG. 8, this view showing the plant container locked into the tower. Note that in this view, lip 337 is locked in place by cut-out edge 111. During container removal, a relatively small amount force applied at an upward angle 801 (see FIG. 8) is sufficient to dislodge the plant container. If the force is applied perpendicular to the face of the tower, similar to the force that would be applied by roots that build up behind the face of the plant container, the container remains locked in place”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyhouse structure of Kop as modified by Wagner to include the locking plant cup of Whitworth to prevent the cups from accidentally falling out of the tower.
Regarding claim 17, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Bauer, similarly drawn to a hydroponic tower, wherein the grow cup, from the plurality of grow cups, is configured to attach on the clamping means using the guide and lock mechanism (Pg. 3, [0039]: “Due to the flexibility of the walls of the plant cup, when the plant container is inserted into the tower cut-out, the raised lip 337 is forced past the lower edge 111 of cut-out 103, thereby locking the plant container in place. A detailed cross-sectional view of detent fastener 307 is provided by FIG. 8, this view showing the plant container locked into the tower. Note that in this view, lip 337 is locked in place by cut-out edge 111. During container removal, a relatively small amount force applied at an upward angle 801 (see FIG. 8) is sufficient to dislodge the plant container. If the force is applied perpendicular to the face of the tower, similar to the force that would be applied by roots that build up behind the face of the plant container, the container remains locked in place”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyhouse structure of Kop as modified by Wagner to include the locking plant cup of Whitworth to prevent the cups from accidentally falling out of the tower.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Kop (US Pub. 2018/0042186 A1) in view of Wagner (US Pub. 2016/0135394 A1), and further in view of Mathieu (US Pub. 2020/0093082 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Mathieu, similarly drawn to a hydroponic tower, wherein the at least one composite member is detachably attached the polyhouse structure (Pg. 1, [0004], lines 1-6: “The invention solves the problems described above through a vertical growing system with nutrient caps. An illustrative embodiment includes a nutrient cap and a base that removably support a grow tower formed from a pipe (e.g., 4" PVC pipe) with a number of grow pockets adhered to the pipe”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyhouse structure of Kop as modified by Wagner to include the detachable composite member of Mathieu for easy replacement of components.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Kop (US Pub. 2018/0042186 A1) in view of Wagner (US Pub. 2016/0135394 A1), and further in view of Lys (US Pub. 2020/0236870 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kop as modified by Wagner discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kop, a speed sensor (Pg. 2, [0043], lines 1-6: “The present invention is also directed to an artificial pollination system, comprising a post on which are mounted an air discharge nozzle; a plant growth apparatus on which one or more pollen bearing plants are mountable; a sensor for detecting an instantaneous position of said one or more plants”)
However, Kop as modified by Wagner fails to disclose as taught by by Lys, similarly drawn to a sensor grid for an agricultural environment, wherein the composite member comprises a humidity sensor, a temperature sensor, a gas sensor, a moisture sensor (Fig. 10A, leaf moisture sensor 80B) and a pH sensor to monitor the respective parameters (Pg. 2, [0014], lines 1-11: “In another aspect of such node arrays, one or more sensors are deployed at a given node to monitor various environmental conditions near the node. Examples of sensors that may be included in the distributed sensor grid at a given node of a node array include, but are not limited to, a visible light sensor, a UV light sensor, an air temperature sensor, a relative humidity sensor, an airflow sensor, a CO2 sensor, an IR temperature sensor, a chemical sensor, a pH sensor, and cameras configured to capture still images or videos of the agricultural environment with various spectral qualities”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyhouse structure of Kop as modified by Wagner to include the sensor of Lys to allow monitoring of the plants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631