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)(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, 4-16, 20-21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Canipe et al. (US 2023/0270053).
In re claims 1 and 20, with reference to [0022], [0029], and [0054], Canipe et al. disclose an automatic warehouse for indoor cultivations, comprising: a plurality of drawers (112) individually adapted to carry at least one substrate cultivated with one or more plants, a support structure (104) comprising at least one group of housing seats individually adapted to accommodate one of said drawers, at least one delivery station ([0028] zones, or [0052] predetermined positions, or [0054] predetermined location for example for harvest) adapted to receive at least one of said drawers, a handling device ([0050] guide rails, or [0053] robots) adapted to transfer each drawer from the respective housing seat to the delivery station and vice versa, and an outer casing (100) adapted to enclose the support structure and the handling device, said outer casing being provided with at least one window ([0022] various types of doors) adapted to make the delivery station accessible from the outside. Given the structure, the claimed method steps would be inherently performed.
In re claim 2, with reference to the figures and [0039], Canipe et al. disclose the housing seats for the drawers are mutually superimposed.
In re claim 4, with reference to Fig. 3A and [0029-30], Canipe et al. disclose an air handling unit adapted to condition the air inside the outer casing.
In re claim 5, with reference to Fig. 3A and [0029-30], Canipe et al. disclose a ventilation system adapted to direct air flows against the plants carried by the drawers in the housing seats.
In re claim 6, with reference to the figures and [0039], Canipe et al. disclose a lighting system adapted to illuminate the plants carried by the drawers in the housing seats.
In re claim 7, with reference to the figures and [0041] and [0049], Canipe et al. disclose a system for irrigating the cultivated substrates which are carried by the drawers in the housing seats.
In re claim 8, with reference to the figures and [0040-41], Canipe et al. disclose each drawer supports one or more containment tanks (tray) for the cultivated substrate.
In re claim 9, with reference to the figures and [0040-41], Canipe et al. disclose each containment tank has an elongated shape extending predominantly along a predefined longitudinal direction.
In re claim 10, with reference to the figures and [0040-41], Canipe et al. disclose the containment tanks of each drawer are arranged parallel to each other and mutually spaced apart in a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction.
In re claims 11 and 25, with reference to [0048-49] and Figure 7A, Canipe et al. disclose each drawer comprises an inlet for an air flow, a distribution system adapted to distribute said air underneath the containment tanks and a diffusion system adapted to allow the air to escape from the distribution system, flowing from the bottom upwards to lap the plants.
In re claim 12, with reference to the figures and [0040-41], Canipe et al. disclose said distribution system comprises one or more distribution ducts extending parallel to the containment tanks and which are vertically staggered with respect to the latter.
In re claim 13, with reference to the figures, [0048-49], and [0040-41], Canipe et al. disclose said diffusion system comprises a plurality of orifices formed in the lateral walls of said distribution ducts.
In re claim 14, with reference to the figures, [0045], and [0039], Canipe et al. disclose each drawer comprises one or more lamps.
In re claim 15, with reference to the figures, [0045], and [0039], Canipe et al. disclose said lamps are positioned and fixed below the drawer.
In re claim 16, with reference to the figures and [0041] and [0049], Canipe et al. disclose each drawer comprises one or more dispensing nozzles adapted to deliver water.
In re claim 21, with reference to the figures and [0040-41], Canipe et al. disclose a drawer for automatic drawer warehouses comprising: an inlet for an air flow, a distribution system for said air, and a system for diffusing said air inside the drawer.
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, 17-19, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canipe et al. (US 2023/0270053).
In re claim 3, with reference to [0027], Canipe et al. disclose the outer casing being fully enclosed and maintaining a temperature condition however not specifically disclosed is the outer casing being insulated. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that insulating a housing is old and well-known in the art for the purpose of maintaining a temperature condition within the housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have insulated the outer casing in order to further help maintain temperature conditions within the interior.
In re claim 17, with reference to the figures and [0040-41] and [0048-49], Canipe et al. disclose each drawer comprises a reservoir adapted to contain water and a distribution assembly adapted to distribute water from the reservoir to the dispensing nozzles. Not specifically disclosed is a pump. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that pumps are old and well-known in the art for the purpose of controlling fluid flow within a water distribution assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included pumps throughout the water distribution system in order to control the flow of water.
In re claim 18, with reference to the figures and [0036] and [0097], Canipe et al. disclose sensors for data collection. Not specifically disclosed is each drawer comprising one or more sensors. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sensors in any desired location within the system including in each drawer in order to collect desired data.
In re claim 19, with reference to the figures and [0045], Canipe et al. disclose coupling a module to an electric power supply. Not specifically disclosed is each drawer comprising a first electrical connector, which is adapted to couple with a second electrical connector associated with the support structure, when said drawer is in the housing seat. However one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results were predictable. The claim would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re claim 22, with reference to the figures, [0052-0054], Canipe et al. disclose an automated handling device comprising a vertically movable platform the device being configured for horizontal and vertical movement to actively pick up and transfer drawers. Not specifically disclosed are gripping and release members on the “articulated robot” of Canipe et al. The prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It is noted that on page 15 of the specification, Applicant states that the gripping and release members are not represented in the drawings since they are conventional.
In re claim 23, with reference to the figures, [0045], and [0039], Canipe et al. disclose each drawer comprises one or more lamps. Not specifically disclosed are the lamps being installed on board said drawer. However, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In re claim 24, with reference to the figures and [0041] and [0049], Canipe et al. disclose each drawer comprises one or more dispensing nozzles. Not specifically disclosed are the dispensing nozzles being installed on board said drawer. However, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Canipe does not disclose an internal automated handling system and explicitly discloses an external robot in [0053], this argument is not persuasive. While Canipe does disclose an embodiment which includes an exterior robot in [0053], Canipe also clearly provides support for an interior robot handling system beginning in paragraph [0052].
In response to Applicant’s argument that Canipe does not disclose an air inlet and air distribution and diffusion system but instead a water system, the Examiner contends that the claims fail to disclose any specific structure that would differentiate between the two. The examiner contends that the claim language is extremely broad and is therefore treated as such.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MONICA L PERRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644