Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/713,786

PLANT CULTIVATION APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 28, 2024
Examiner
REYES, EDGAR
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
LG Electronics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
34%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 34% of cases
34%
Career Allow Rate
47 granted / 139 resolved
-18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+37.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
174
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
55.1%
+15.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 139 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/14/2025. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-22) in the reply filed on 08/14/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the subject matter of the designated inventions are sufficiently related. This is not found persuasive because the restriction was based upon the unity of invention requirement as a result of the application claiming priority to a PCT Application. Restriction is required when there is a lack of unity, and lack of unity is determined if there is no special and shared technical feature between the inventions. As seen in the mailed Restriction Requirement, the inventions as currently claimed do not contain a special technical feature and as a result lack unity. The inventions will be withdrawn until a special technical feature is found, at which point Applicant will be provided the opportunity to incorporate the appropriate language into the withdrawn claims, at which point they will be considered for rejoinder. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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. Claims 1-22 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. Claim 1 recites “a nutrient solution recovery unit provided in the second cultivation unit and configured to recover the nutrient solution supplied to the second cultivation unit to the mixing tank”. As currently written, the language of “recover the nutrient solution” makes it unclear whether the nutrient solution is being returned to the second cultivation unit or directed toward the mixing tank. Examination has proceeded with the latter interpretation. Claim 20 recites the limitation "circumferential wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is a new structural element or a recalling of “the first peripheral wall” recited in claim 16. Examination has proceeded with the latter interpretation. Claims 2-19, 21-22 are rejected due to dependency on a rejected claim above. 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. Claims 1-2, 11, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Youngsuk (KR 20190132078 A). Regarding claim 1: Youngsuk discloses a plant cultivation apparatus (1) comprising: a cabinet (Fig. 1); a first cultivation unit (top bed 20) provided in the cabinet and in which plants are placed; a second cultivation unit (bottom bed 20) provided in the cabinet to be spaced apart from the first cultivation unit, and in which plants are placed; a nutrient solution supply unit (611) connected to a mixing tank (61) in which nutrient solution is stored and configured to supply the nutrient solution to the first cultivation unit (Fig. 2); a nutrient solution transferring unit (drip tray 28) provided in the first cultivation unit and configured to transfer the nutrient solution supplied to the first cultivation unit to the second cultivation unit (Figs. 2, 4-5); and a nutrient solution recovery unit (recovery unit 612) provided in the second cultivation unit and configured to recover the nutrient solution supplied to the second cultivation unit to the mixing tank (61, Fig. 2). Regarding claim 2: Youngsuk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the nutrient solution supply unit (611) includes a supply hole (231) through which the nutrient solution is discharged (Fig. 8), and further comprising: a first inlet (242) provided in the first cultivation unit (top bed 20) and located below the supply hole to receive the nutrient solution falling from the supply hole and supply the nutrient solution to the inside of the first cultivation unit (Fig. 8). Regarding claim 11: Youngsuk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the first cultivation unit (top bed 20) includes a first discharge hole through which the nutrient solution is discharged to the outside of the first cultivation unit, and wherein at least a portion of the nutrient solution transferring unit (28) is located below the first discharge hole, collects the nutrient solution falling from the first discharge hole, and transfers the nutrient solution to the second cultivation unit (via recover unit 612, and switch unit 612, Fig. 2). Regarding claim 16: Youngsuk discloses the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the first cultivation unit (21) is provided with a first accommodation space (interior of 21) that accommodates the nutrient solution supplied from the nutrient solution supply unit and a first peripheral wall (wall of 21) extending along a perimeter of the first accommodation space, and wherein at least a portion of the first inlet (242) extends outward from the first peripheral wall and is located below the supply hole (Figs. 4-5, inlet 242 is positioned within a protrusion 23 which results in extension away from the wall of 21). Regarding claim 17: Youngsuk discloses the limitations of claim 16 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the first inlet includes a shielding unit (22) configured to shield at least a portion of the open upper surface of the first accommodation space (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 18: Youngsuk discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the first accommodation space includes a container space (221) in which a cultivation container (21) containing at least a portion of the plant is seated, and wherein the shielding unit (22) is disposed to shield the open upper surface of a remaining space in the first accommodation space except for the container space (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 19: Youngsuk discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further discloses wherein a cultivation container of the first cultivation unit containing at least a portion of the plant is accommodated in the first accommodation space (Figs. 4-5), and wherein an entire open upper surface of the first accommodation space is shielded by the shielding unit (22) and the cultivation container (21). Regarding claim 20: Youngsuk discloses the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the first inlet (242) further includes a recessed space located below the supply hole of the nutrient solution supply unit (611) on the outside of the first circumferential wall (via protrusion 23, Fig. 8), and an inlet flow path (235) provided below the shielding unit (22) to communicate with the recessed space and the first accommodation space (Fig. 6). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youngsuk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang (CN 106818452 A). Regarding claim 6: Youngsuk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the second cultivation unit is located below the first cultivation unit (Fig. 1). Youngsuk fails to teach wherein the nutrient solution transferring unit transfers the nutrient solution from the first cultivation unit to the second cultivation unit using self-weight of the nutrient solution. Tang teaches wherein the nutrient solution transferring unit transfers the nutrient solution from the first cultivation unit to the second cultivation unit using self-weight of the nutrient solution (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cultivation cabinet as disclosed by Youngsuk with the gravity feed as taught by Tang with a reasonable expectation of success because allowing the nutrient to circulate around the system with gravity would feed the below cultivation beds, decreasing the amount of power and energy used, and achieve the predictable result of a more energy efficient system. Regarding claim 7: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 6 as shown above, and Tang further teaches wherein the nutrient solution transferring unit includes: a first collection unit (441) located below the first cultivation unit (31) to collect the nutrient solution discharged from the first cultivation unit (Fig. 3); and a transferring flow path (315) extending downward from the first collection unit through which the nutrient solution collected in the first collection unit flows toward the second cultivation unit (32, Fig. 3). Regarding claim 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and Tang further teaches a second inlet (4411) provided in the second cultivation unit (32) and located below the transferring flow path (315) to receive the nutrient solution discharged from the transferring flow path and supply the nutrient solution to the inside of the second cultivation unit (32, Fig. 3). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of recirculating plant cultivation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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 Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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. /E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 28, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564141
VERTICAL FARMING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12550870
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A LIGHTED ANIMAL RESTRAINT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12543672
NUTRIENT SOLUTION RECYCLING PLANT CULTIVATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12527268
VERTICAL FARMING WATERING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12520784
SMART RAFT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND IMPROVING WATER QUALITY TO MITIGATE ALGAL BLOOMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
34%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+37.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 139 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month