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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 12-19, 23 and 25-29 in the reply filed on 10/26/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 30-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/26/2025.
Drawings
Figures 4 and 5 are rejected for lack of reference numbers in regards to the elements seen in the annotated figures below. These elements do not appear to be described in the specification either and therefore clarification and correction are required.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
520
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
508
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sealing liner of claims 5 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See also 112(b) rejection below and lack of clarity regarding the sealing liner vs the sealing face. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because in figure 11(b), the lid portion 104 is pointed to as foam substrate 92. However, according to claim 15, the foam substrate (92) is only the bottom portion as its top surface is the concave portion 100. Therefore it is misleading to point to the lid portion 104 as the foam substrate itself.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the dampers/valves of claim 23 must be shown. Similarly, the damper/vales of claim 23 are not given reference numbers in the specification. These must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 states: “The soilless growing system, as claim 1,” which should read “The soilless growing system, as claim in 1,”
In claim 29, “pressurisation" should read “pressurization.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 27 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph. The claim language recites “elevating devices.” This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The specification does not provide any further structure or detail regarding the elevating devices. The specification does discuss a harvest module 18 but it is unclear if this is the same element. See also 112(b) below.
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, 3, 5-6, 12-19, 23 and 25-29 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 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the nutrient and HVAC module. The claim language suggests that each grow module comprises a nutrient module, whereas claim 18 shows a nutrient module 14 with a pump 16 that delivers nutrients to each grow module. Similarly, figure 18 shows HVAC module 16 with tubes that move air to and from the grow modules. Figure 7 shows two grow modules, with connections to the air and nutrient pipes, not each having their own grow module. Claim 19 is likewise rejected. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added. Claims 3, 5-6, 12-19, 23 and 25-29 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claims 1 and 13-18 are rejected for lack of clarity regarding the crop holders vs the plant holders. Claim 1 introduces “at least one crop holder” but then claim 13 introduces “one or more plant holders” and the following claims use the terminology “plant holder(s).” Both terms are used in the specification, however only “crop holder” is given a reference number (88). For the purposes of examination, crop holder and plant holder will be assumed to be the same element, however clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added. Claims 3, 5-6, 12-19, 23 and 25-29 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected due to a lack of clarity in regards to the sealing liner. The drawings do not show a sealing liner, only a sealing face (238). Further, the specification does not provide detail or a reference number for a sealing liner, and it is unclear if these are just two terms for the same component or if they are different elements. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 14 is rejected for the term “generally square-shaped” in claim , which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally square-shaped” 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. It is unclear how square something some be for it to be considered “generally” square-shaped. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 16 is rejected for lack of clarity regarding the “centrally-disposed concaved recess.” This is not described in the specification. It appears that Applicant may be claiming the central indentation 108 (see fig 13(a)), in which case the claim language should be updated to use consistent terminology throughout the claims and the specification. Similarly, it is unclear if the “radially-disposed openings” are the mist inlets 112 seen in figure 13(a) or if these are a different component. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 23 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the term “damper/valve.” Firstly, while and/or limitations are sometimes proper, both the “and” and “or” conditions must be satisfied. In this case, it is unclear how one element may be both a valve and a damper simultaneously. Further, as discussed in the drawing objection above, the specification does not give reference numbers for the damper/valve, nor are they shown in the drawings. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 27 is rejected for a lack of clarity regarding the term “elevating devices.” As seen in the Claim Interpretation portion above, the specification does not give sufficient structure or detail regarding the elevating devices. Additionally, it is unclear if the elevating devices and the harvester 18 are the same component. Further, the specification does not provide detail as to what exactly the harvester is. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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) 1, 3, 5-6, 12-14, 16-18, 25, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn (WO 2021105990 A2, as cited by Applicant in IDS 09/27/2024) in view of Bissonnette (US 20070271841 A1, as cited by Applicant in IDS 09/27/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Penn discloses a soilless growing system, comprising:
one or more grow modules (150), wherein each grow module comprises:
an enclosable volume (103) having an interior configured to receive at least one plant in a removable grow bed (102), the grow bed configured to permit growth of the plant therethrough; and
artificial lighting (113) configured to provide light energy to the plant (claim 25),
a nutrient module (109) configured to supply and condition an aqueous nutrient solution to the grow module (claim 13); and
a HVAC module (460) configured to supply and condition a gaseous environment to the grow module, the HVAC module configured to supply carbon dioxide (466) into the interior of the grow module (claims 5, 21).
Penn fails to disclose at least one plant in a removeable crop holder, the crop holder configured to permit growth of the plant therethrough.
Bissonnette teaches at least one plant in a removeable crop holder (seed support medium 180 with basket 160, see figs 11-12 and para 0150-0151), the crop holder configured to permit growth of the plant therethrough (seed support medium 180 with basket 160, see figs 11-12 and para 0150-0151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the plant and removable crop holder of Bissonnette with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plant is secure within the aperture such that it is stable throughout its growth and development.
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1, and Penn further discloses wherein the grow module is formed as an elongated square bifrustum, triangular bipyramid, cuboid, rectangular cuboid, pentagonal bipyramid, hexagonal bipyramid or any suitable polyhedral shape (rectangular cuboid, see parge 24, lines 20-22).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1, and Penn further discloses wherein the grow module is divided into an upper volume above the grow bed which permits growth of the plant (see fig 1), a lower volume beneath the grow bed into which the roots of the plant are periodically sprayed with the aqueous nutrient solution (see fig 1), the lower volume comprising a sealing liner attached to the side walls thereof, wherein the sealing liner collects and returns excess aqueous nutrient solution to the nutrient module via an outflow (gasket 105 to seal top and bottom portions, see page 21, lines 26-27) and wherein a section of the upper volume of the grow module immediately above the grow bed and which extends perpendicular to the plane of the grow bed in a vertical direction allows the grow bed to be removable by lifting it in a generally vertical direction first before moving it in a lateral plane (removal and insertion of plant board enabled, see page 20, lines 25-31).
The modified reference fails to teach the upper volume having an optically reflective internal surface.
Bissonnette teaches the upper volume having an optically reflective internal surface (Photo radiation hood 220 has reflective material, see para 0063, 0133, 0390 and fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the reflective surface of Bissonnette with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure seeds or plants receive optimal illumination for germination and growth.
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1, and Penn further discloses wherein the vertical height of the grow module is at least the same, or higher, than the width of the grow module in order to accommodate and permit unobstructed growth of a range of plants above the grow bed and the roots below the grow bed (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1, and Penn further discloses wherein the grow module is divided into an upper volume above the grow bed which permits growth of the plant (see fig 1), a lower volume beneath the grow bed into which the roots of the plant are periodically sprayed with the aqueous nutrient solution (see fig 1), the lower volume comprising a sealing liner attached to the side walls thereof, wherein the sealing liner collects and returns excess aqueous nutrient solution to the nutrient module via an outflow (gasket 105 to seal top and bottom portions, see page 21, lines 26-27) and the system further comprising: an upper air circulation interface being situated above the grow bed, and an opposite lower air circulation interface being situated below the grow bed (upper air outlets 107, lower air pressure discharge 116, air channels 111a & b, see fig 1), the air circulation interfaces conveying the gaseous environment through the grow module and enabling circulation beneath the plant canopy and enable extraction and/or supply of air flow beneath the canopy via a perforated grow bed (upper air outlets 107, lower air pressure discharge 116, air channels 111a & b, see fig 1), wherein the perforated grow bed being configured to allow airflow through the grow bed using channels disposed within the grow bed in fluid communication with conduits attached to the side walls of the lower volume to extractor supply air from, or to, the grow bed via the lower air circulation interface (air flow channels on the plant board, allow air flow through the board down into the lower volume & out through 116).
The modified reference fails to teach the upper volume having an optically reflective internal surface.
Bissonnette teaches the upper volume having an optically reflective internal surface (Photo radiation hood 220 has reflective material, see para 0063, 0133, 0390 and fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the reflective surface of Bissonnette with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure seeds or plants receive optimal illumination for germination and growth.
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising- one or more plant holders positioned in, and extending completely through, the grow bed, the plant holders configured to hold plants, wherein the roots of supported plants are exposed to the aqueous nutrient solution.
Bissonnette teaches further comprising- one or more plant holders positioned in, and extending completely through, the grow bed, the plant holders configured to hold plants, wherein the roots of supported plants are exposed to the aqueous nutrient solution (seed support medium 180 with basket 160, see figs 11-12, 15 and para 0150-0151, 0303).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the plant and removable crop holder of Bissonnette with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plant is secure within the aperture such that it is stable throughout its growth and development.
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the plant holder is annular in shape having a centrally-disposed opening that extends completely therethrough, the opening being generally square-shaped in cross section from above for receiving a foam substrate configured to provide structure for plants to root into, plants rooted in the foam substrate having roots that grow downwards and extend into the lower volume of the grow module, the centrally-disposed opening having a sloped inner edge to prevent the substrate from falling through the opening when in use, the plant holder having a collar which seats inside receiving apertures disposed in the grow bed.
Bissonnette teaches wherein the plant holder is annular in shape having a centrally-disposed opening that extends completely therethrough (annular plant holder, central opening for substrate 109, see figs 11-12), the opening being generally square-shaped in cross section from above for receiving a foam substrate configured to provide structure for plants to root into (central opening for substrate 109, see figs 11-12, see also 112(b) rejection above), plants rooted in the foam substrate having roots that grow downwards and extend into the lower volume of the grow module (foam media, see para 0035, 0110 and 0303), the centrally-disposed opening having a sloped inner edge to prevent the substrate from falling through the opening when in use (see para 0303, figs 11-12 and 15), the plant holder having a collar which seats inside receiving apertures disposed in the grow bed (rim/support means 168, see fig 11d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the foam substrate and collar of Bissonnette with a reasonable expectation of success as these will hold the plant securely throughout its life cycle and growth stages to ensure healthy and proper development.
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 13.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the plant holder is constructed of one or more pieces which, when combined, create an overall annular shape, with an outer shoulder for locating the component pieces, having a centrally-disposed opening that extends from the upper surface of the holder to a central cavity within the holder; the cavity comprising an concaved lower face, promoting liquid pooling, with a centrally-disposed concaved recess, to locate and prevent seeds from escaping from one or more radially-disposed openings that extend through the lower surface of the inner cavity, and that permit the ingress of fluid.
Bissonnette teaches wherein the plant holder is constructed of one or more pieces which, when combined, create an overall annular shape, with an outer shoulder for locating the component pieces, having a centrally-disposed opening that extends from the upper surface of the holder to a central cavity within the holder (see para 0150-0151, 0303, figs 11-12 and 15), the cavity comprising an concaved lower face (see fig 13), promoting liquid pooling, with a centrally-disposed concaved recess (184), to locate and prevent seeds from escaping from one or more radially-disposed openings that extend through the lower surface of the inner cavity, and that permit the ingress of fluid (radially openings, see figs 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the plant holder of Bissonnette with the recess and radial openings with a reasonable expectation of success as this configuration will ensure the seeds stay in place while providing adequate hydration and drainage.
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 16.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the plant holder is comprised of a flexible unabsorbant material that exerts a compressive force, providing a point of anchoring, on the plant stem that protrudes through the upper centrally-disposed opening and allows the plant's roots to part the lower face of the inner cavity via the one or more radially disposed-openings.
Bissonnette teaches wherein the plant holder is comprised of a flexible unabsorbant material (injection molded ABS, see para 0392) that exerts a compressive force, providing a point of anchoring, on the plant stem that protrudes through the upper centrally-disposed opening (see fig 15) and allows the plant's roots to part the lower face of the inner cavity via the one or more radially disposed-openings (see figs 11-12, radially disposed openings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the plant holder of Bissonnette with a reasonable expectation of success as it will hold the plant securely throughout its life cycle and growth stages to ensure healthy and proper development.
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 13, and Bissonnette further teaches wherein the assembled plant holder is receivable in an annular carrier which seats inside a receiving aperture disposed in the grow bed, the carrier having engagement means for ease of transport and/or having a perforated elongate structure for supporting the growing plant (see figs 11-12, 15 and para 0150).
Regarding claim 25, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1, and Penn further discloses wherein the modules are supported in a modular racking which comprises a generally horizontal spanning member (horizontal rows, see fig 8), the ends of the horizontal spanning member being receivable between pairs of vertical frame members (vertical end members, see fig 8) which include a module support arm configured to support a mounting point disposed on the grow module (see fig 8), the modular racking being longitudinally extendable into aisles and configured to stackably support one or more other assembled racking layers above and/or below itself within the system (see fig 8).
Regarding claim 28, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1, and Penn further discloses further comprising an automated soilless growing optimiser comprising one or more computer processors having instructions written in software (see fig 2b, claim 35) wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: performing a plurality of experiments for growing a plant, each experiment controlled by a recipe from a plurality of recipes that identifies parameters for growing plants (see fig 2b, claim 35); obtaining a machine learning model by training a machine learning algorithm using the experimental results (see fig 2b, claim 35); and creating, by the machine learning model, a new optimised recipe for growing a plant (see fig 2b, claim 35).
Regarding claim 29, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1, and Penn further discloses further comprising an automated load-scheduling system which comprises one or more computer processors having instructions written in software (computing device 310 can change schedule of illumination, see fig 2b, claim 35), and, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: delay, bring-forward, shorten and/or extend scheduled automated activities of the system sub modules/units including but not limited to; photoperiods, cleaning operations, pressurisation and/or aisle movements (omputing device 310 can change schedule of illumination); and optimise the economy/efficiency of any such actions to assess the detriment to the crops and advantage of meeting a configurable/settable load/power-demand profile based upon historic data (ML model computes environment parameters for the profiles of each plant & adjusts parameters, see fig 2b); and thereby creating an optimised strategy for operation of the soilless growing system (ML model computes environment parameters for the profiles of each plant & adjusts parameters, see fig 2b, claim 35).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn (WO 2021105990 A2) in view of Bissonnette (US 20070271841 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang (CN-111165331-A).
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1, and Penn further discloses wherein the nutrient module comprises: a nutrient reservoir in which the pH are monitored (pH monitoring and adjusting with the fluid delivery system 560), fresh water, nutrients and pH regulators and combinations thereof being supplied to the nutrient reservoir using dosing pumps (fluid delivery pump 460).
The modified reference fails to teach monitoring conductivity, and a diaphragm pump configured to pressure an intermediary storage vessel which enables the pump to operate intermittently or periodically, such that the aqueous nutrient solution is supplied which is nutrient-rich and contributes to the growth of plants in the soilless growing system.
Jiang teaches monitoring conductivity (conductivity probe see page 8), and a diaphragm pump configured to pressure an intermediary storage vessel which enables the pump to operate intermittently or periodically, such that the aqueous nutrient solution is supplied which is nutrient-rich and contributes to the growth of plants in the soilless growing system (see pages 5 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the conductivity probe and diaphragm pump of Jiang with a reasonable expectation of success as these will provide more precise nutrient monitoring and specific hydration dosing to ensure the plants are receiving optimal growth conditions.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn (WO 2021105990 A2) in view of Bissonnette (US 20070271841 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allgeier (US-20230088481-A1).
Regarding claim 23, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1, and Penn further discloses wherein the HVAC module comprises: an outdoor air damper/valve for controlling an inflow flow rate of fresh air introduced into a supply air duct (controller 310 may control air inlet delivery, see text page 23), an exhaust damper/valve installed on an exhaust duct for discharging air from the one or more grow modules (low pressure discharge valve 116), a carbon dioxide supplying device for adding carbon dioxide to the air circulated through the one or more grow modules (CO2 source 466, see page 35); a humidifying device for humidifying the air circulated through the grow module(s) (humidifier source 467, see page 35); and a hot/cold water coil for heating or cooling the air circulated through the one or more grow modules (cooling batteries page 35, lines 10-12).
The modified reference fails to teach a fan for inducing air flow between inlet and outlet headers, a circulating air damper/valve installed to control the flow rate through a conditioning bypass line.
Allgeier teaches a fan for inducing air flow between inlet and outlet headers (fan 152, see para 0043), a circulating air damper/valve installed to control the flow rate through a conditioning bypass line (valve 150, see para 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the fan and circulating valve of Allgeier with a reasonable expectation of success as these will ensure there is fresh air flow to all the plants and allow for precise adjustment of the air flow for optimal growth conditions based on growth stage or plant type.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn (WO 2021105990 A2) in view of Bissonnette (US 20070271841 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Blackburn (US 10973186 B2).
Regarding claim 26, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 25.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the assembled racking is placed on wheeled trolleys enabling movement thereof.
Blackburn teaches wherein the assembled racking is placed on wheeled trolleys enabling movement thereof (see figs 8-10, stacked on frames/racks with wheels 64 for movement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the rack with the wheels of Blackburn with a reasonable expectation of success as this will facilitate efficient movement of the rack for cleaning, harvesting or other necessary transport.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn (WO 2021105990 A2) in view of Bissonnette (US 20070271841 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solomon (US 20190335676 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the modified reference teaches the soilless growing system as in claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising: one or more elevating devices to automatically move the grow bed between horizontally and/or vertically-spaced modules and/or to and from a processing area.
Solomon teaches further comprising: one or more elevating devices to automatically move the grow bed between horizontally and/or vertically-spaced modules and/or to and from a processing area (see fig 1, horizontal transport and elevation, see also claim interpretation and 112(b) rejections above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the elevation devices of Solomon with a reasonable expectation of success as this allows for easy transport to different growth conditions, or cleaning or harvesting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art noted in the References Cited document is relevant as it pertains to similar growth systems for plant cultivation. Specifically, Gardner teaches a similar contained box style aeroponics growing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642