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 .
Drawings
In their remarks, Applicant stated that they have cancelled pages 16-26 of the drawings to comply with the previous rejection, however there does not appear to be an updated drawings submission with these figures cancelled.
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) 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US-12069993-B2) in view of Chen (CN-104584847-A) and Boyes (US-6360482-B1).
Regarding claim 15, Kaplita discloses a method of growing plants comprising:
conveying (conveyor 106) a plant tray (108) containing plant seeds and/or plants (see col 11, lines 36-39) through a growing environment defined between a conveyor and a layer of a plant growing apparatus (growing environment between conveyor and conveyor level above, see figs 1c and 2c and col 21, lines 23-39);
maintaining the temperature of the growing environment within a degrees F range (air
controller that maintains temperature, see col 7, lines 39-43, col 9, lines 60-61, col 14, lines 10-13); and Kaplita fails to disclose the growing environment being between the conveyor and a hood, spraying the plant seeds and/or plants with a water mixture for a predetermined number of seconds per hour and maintaining the temperature of the growing environment within a 2 degrees F range.
Chen teaches spraying the plant seeds and/or plants with a water mixture a predetermined number of seconds per hour (watering by spraying once every 1 hours, each time spray duration is 5-10 seconds).
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 of Kaplita with the watering timing of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the plants are not watered too frequently, which can result in overwatering and lack of absorption, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Applicant does not provide criticality for the watering duration and timing in the specification.
Boyes teaches conveying (conveyor 24) a plant tray (flat 32) containing plant seeds and/or plants through a growing environment (22, made by cover 40 with sides 42 and top 44, see figs 2a-2b) defined between a conveyor (24) and a hood (44) of a plant growing apparatus.
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 method of Kaplita with the hood of Boyes with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure each layer is climatically isolated so that plants only experience the growing conditions while they are within the hood environment.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except the temperature range being 2 degrees. 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 method with a 2 degree temperature range with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for minor fluctuation while still ensuring the plants receive the most optimal conditions possible and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Applicant does not provide criticality for
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the method of growing plants of claim 15 and Kaplita further discloses further comprising illuminating the plants and/or seeds with growing light rays (see col 9, lines 60-61).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US-12069993-B2) in view of Chen (CN-104584847-A) and Boyes (US-6360482-B1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Vesty (US-20200367455-A1) and Shi (CN-108541571-A).
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the method of growing plants of claim 15.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising conveying a sterilizing tray containing sterilizing equipment through the growing environment alongside the plant tray.
Vesty teaches further comprising conveying a cleaning tray containing cleaning equipment through the growing environment alongside the plant tray (cleaning tray alongside plant trays on the conveyor, see para 0228).
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 cleaning equipment being conveyed with the plants with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the entirety of the growing system is cleaned.
Shi teaches specifically sterilizing equipment (ultraviolet sterilizing lamp 19, see page 4).
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 light sterilization of Shi with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the growing environment is free of bacteria, microbes and other organisms that could cause plant disease.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-17 in regards to Fujikawa have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Fujikawa is no longer being relied upon, as the amendments necessitated a new grounds of rejection, and therefore the arguments over Fujikawa are moot.
In response to applicant's argument that a combination with Chen is not obvious as Chen is a stationary system, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). While Chen is a stationary system, the rejection is only using Chen for the spraying timing, and therefore is not incorporating the structure of the planting system of Chen into the primary reference.
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 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 on (571) 270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-2 73-8300.
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
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642