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 Objections
Claim(s) 2-16,18-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble should be separated from the limitations by use of a comma. For example claim 2 should be changed from “The vertically-oriented module for growing plants set forth in claim 1 wherein” to – The vertically-oriented module for growing plants set forth in claim 1, wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
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
and each of the LED bulbs in the second subset of LED bulbs includes a plurality of asymmetrically arranged LEDs, as it pertains to claim 4.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Air vent 530, as it pertains to para0068.
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 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) 7,10-11,17-19 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.
Claim 7 recites “the air handling components”. There is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “further comprising a plurality of grow panels”. However, it is unclear if this is different from the panel previously recited in claim 8 or not. Claim 11 is rejected based on its dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 17 recites “a rectangular panel frame”. However, it is unclear if this different from the panel previously recited or not. Claims 18-19 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim 18 recites “a plurality of grow panels, each grow panel sized and shaped to be inserted within and removably coupled to one of the plurality of panel receiving slots”. However, it is unclear if this is different from the panel or rectangular panel frame recited in claim 17 or not. Claim 19 is rejected based on its dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 19 recites “each grow panel comprises a rectangular frame”. However, it is unclear if this is different from the rectangular panel frame recited in claim 17 or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. herein Choi (US 20210185938 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Choi discloses:
A vertically-oriented module for growing plants, the module comprising: (abstract and figs)
a base (10, fig 1)
comprising a housing (12)
for one or more auxiliary systems that support the module; (para0085)
a silo positioned on top of the base, the silo comprising: (60+30+64, fig 3, para0031)
a central core; (64, para0052)
an outer frame surrounding the central core, (30a-30f)
the outer frame defining a plurality of columns arranged radially around the central core, (individual 30a-30f, para0051)
wherein each column is configured to receive one or more removable panels of plants; (para0053)
and a plurality of lighting units (70, fig 12)
coupled to and arranged radially around the central core such that each lighting unit projects light away from the central core towards a corresponding column in the outer frame. (para0102)
Regarding claim 3:
Choi discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein each lighting unit in the plurality of lighting units is spaced directly opposite a unique one of the plurality of columns defined by the outer frame and comprises a plurality of lighting elements arranged along a height of the central core. (70, fig 12, para0102)
Regarding claim 16:
Choi discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
further comprising a motor operatively coupled to rotate the silo above the base. (para0076+para0088-0089)
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) 2,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Thomas et al. herein Thomas (US 9743597 B1).
Regarding claim 2:
Choi discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the one or more auxiliary systems housed in the base comprise irrigation piping (18+20+54+28a, para0086)
and electronics for the module. (22, para0085)
Choi doesn’t disclose:
wherein the one or more auxiliary systems housed in the base comprise air handling components.
Thomas discloses:
wherein the one or more auxiliary systems housed in the base comprise air handling components. (208+210, Fig 6, col 8 ln 32-42)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the base of Choi such that it comprises air handling components as taught by Thomas to provide for air communication to cool down the interior compartment of the silo (Thomas).
Regarding claim 7:
Choi discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
further comprising a plurality of air ducts arranged between the base and the silo to allow air flow from the air handling components into the silo.
Thomas discloses:
further comprising a plurality of air ducts arranged between the base and the silo to allow air flow from the air handling components into the silo. (208+210, Fig 6, col 8 ln 32-42)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the base of Choi such that it comprises air ducts as taught by Thomas to provide for air communication to cool down the interior compartment of the silo (Thomas).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Duong et al. herein Duong (US 20180356067 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Choi discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein each lighting unit comprises a plurality of elongated LED bulbs (70, fig 12)
including a first subset of one or more LED bulbs (top subset of 70)
arranged in a central region along a height of the central core (arranged in 64)
and a second subset of LED bulbs (bottom subset of 70)
that includes a first LED bulb disposed between a bottom of the central core and the first subset of LED bulbs (see bottom LEDs between bottom of 64 and top subset of 70)
and a second LED bulb disposed between a top of the central core and the first subset of LED bulbs, (see top LEDs between top of 64 and first top subset of LEDs 70)
and wherein each of the one or more LED bulbs in the first subset of LED bulbs includes a plurality of symmetrically arranged LEDs (Fig 12, see 70 symmetrically arranged)
Choi doesn’t disclose:
and each of the LED bulbs in the second subset of LED bulbs includes a plurality of asymmetrically arranged LEDs.
Duong discloses:
a plurality of asymmetrically arranged LEDs. (600, fig 6, para0041)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second subset of LED bulbs of Choi such that it comprises a plurality of asymmetrically arranged LEDs as taught by Duong to create an asymmetrical light distribution pattern for an area of interest (Duong).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Thomas, as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of KOP (US 20240023500 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
Choi as modified discloses claim 2 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the air handling components comprise an air control unit to distribute temperature controlled air to the module, and wherein the module further comprises a plurality of sets of nozzles spaced apart at even intervals along a height of the central core, wherein each set of nozzles comprises a plurality of individual nozzles configured to direct a flow of air from the air control unit towards the outer frame.
Kop disclose:
wherein the air handling components comprise an air control unit (135, fig 11, para0125)
to distribute temperature controlled air to the module, (para0125,0132)
and wherein the module further comprises a plurality of sets of nozzles spaced apart at even intervals (173, fig 11)
along a height of the central core, (176, para0134)
wherein each set of nozzles comprises a plurality of individual nozzles configured to direct a flow of air from the air control unit towards the outer frame. (173, para0134, fig 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the air handling components of Choi as modified such that it comprises the features as taught by Kop to provide fresh air into the system (Kop).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Thomas in view of KOP, as applied to claim 5 above, and in view of McNamara (US 11516978 B2).
Regarding claim 6:
Choi as modified discloses claim 2 but doesn’t disclose:
further comprising an adjustable air vent at a top of the silo that can be moved between opened and closed positions to adjust a pressure level within the silo.
McNamara disclose:
further comprising an adjustable air vent at a top of the system that can be moved between opened and closed positions to adjust a pressure level within system. (504, fig 5, col 7 ln 34-col 8 ln 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the top of the Silo of Choi as modified such that it comprises an adjustable air vent as taught by McNamara to create a dual airflow system to provide for constant airflow (McNamara).
Claim(s) 8,10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Schmutzer (US 20210100178 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
Choi discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the outer frame defines a plurality of panel receiving slots (36+42, fig 4, para0064)
arranged vertically within each of the plurality of columns from a bottom of the silo to a top of the silo, (arranged vertically within 34 and spaced from a bottom of the silo to the top of the silo)
wherein each panel receiving slot is configured to removably receive a panel comprising a plant. (para0066-0067)
Choi doesn’t disclose:
wherein each panel receiving slot is configured to removably receive a panel comprising an array of plants.
Schmutzer discloses:
a panel comprising an array of plants (each panel 5 comprises multiple openings for plants 6, para0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panel of Choi such that it comprises an array of plants as taught by Schmutzer to create increase the number of plants grown within the panel.
Regarding claim 10:
Choi as modified discloses claim 8 and the combination of Choi and the array of Schumtzer further discloses:
further comprising a plurality of grow panels, (plants in 36, para0067)
each grow panel sized and shaped to be inserted within and removably coupled to one of the plurality of panel receiving slots, (inserted and removably coupled to 36, para0064-0069)
and wherein each grow panel is configured to support a two-dimensional array of plants within its corresponding panel receiving slot such that a root mass of the plants faces outward away from the outer frame and a stem and leaves of the plants extend within the silo and face inward towards the central core. (fig 2, para0066)
Regarding claim 11:
Choi discloses claim 10 and the combination of Choi and Schumtzer further discloses:
wherein each grow panel comprises a rectangular frame (Schumtzer: see rectangular frame of each grow panel 5, fig 3)
and an array of planting substrates disposed within the frame (Schumtzer: see array of planting substrates 7 within frame 5, Fig 6)
and is configured to rotate the array of planting substrates within its frame between a first position (Choi in fig 1 “first position” rotates the modified array of planting substrates of Schumtzer)
and a second position (Choi in fig 2 “second position” rotates the modified array of planting substrates of Schumtzer)
wherein, in the first position, the array of planting substrates is aligned to allow plants to grow perpendicularly away from the grow panel frame, (Choi as modified by the array of planting substrates of Schumtzer discloses in Fig 3, substrate in 36 are positioned perpendicularly away from frame 34)
and in the second position, the array of planting substrates is aligned to allow plants to grow away from the frame at an angle of between 20-70 degrees. (Choi as modified by the array of planting substrates of Schumtzer discloses in second position, fig 2, substrates in 36 are positioned growing away from frame at an angle of 20-70 degrees when facing towards central core, para0057)
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and in view of Schmutzer.
Regarding claim 17:
Choi discloses:
A vertically-oriented module for growing plants, the module comprising: (abstract and figs)
a base (10, fig 1)
comprising a housing (12)
for one or more of air handling components, irrigation pipe and electronics for the module; (para0085)
a silo positioned on top of the base, the silo comprising: (60+30+64, fig 3, para0031)
a central core; (64, para0052)
an outer frame surrounding the central core, (30a-30f)
the outer frame defining a plurality of columns arranged radially around the central core, (individual 30a-30f, para0051)
a plurality of panel receiving slots (36+42, para0064, fig 4)
arranged along a height of each column in the plurality of columns, (36+42 arranged along a height of 34)
wherein each panel receiving slot is configured to removably receive a panel comprising a two-dimensional planting substrate positioned within; and (slots 36 receive plants to be grown, para0064+0066+0067)
and a plurality of lighting units (70, fig 12)
coupled to and arranged radially around the central core such that each lighting unit is spaced directly opposite a unique one of the plurality of columns defined by the outer frame and projects light away from the central core towards a corresponding column in the outer frame. (para0102)
Choi doesn’t disclose:
a panel comprising an array of planting substrates positioned within a rectangular panel frame.
Schmutzer discloses:
a panel comprising an array of planting substrates positioned within a rectangular panel frame (see rectangular panel frame of each grow panel 5 comprises an array of planting substrates 6, para0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panel of Choi such that it comprises an array of plants as taught by Schmutzer to create increase the number of plants grown within the panel.
Regarding claim 18:
Choi as modified discloses claim 17 and further discloses:
further comprising a plurality of grow panels, (plants in 36, para0067)
each grow panel sized and shaped to be inserted within and removably coupled to one of the plurality of panel receiving slots, (inserted and removably coupled to 36, para0064-0069)
and wherein each grow panel is configured to support a two-dimensional array of plants within its corresponding panel receiving slot such that a root mass of the plants faces outward away from the outer frame and a stem and leaves of the plants extend within the silo and face inward towards the central core. (fig 2, para0066)
Regarding claim 19:
Choi as modified discloses claim 18 and the combination of Choi and Schumtzer further discloses:
wherein each grow panel comprises a rectangular frame (Schumtzer: see rectangular frame of each grow panel 5, fig 3)
and an array of planting substrates disposed within the frame (Schumtzer: see array of planting substrates 7 within frame 5, Fig 6)
and is configured to rotate the array of planting substrates within its frame between a first position (Choi in fig 1 “first position” rotates the modified array of planting substrates of Schumtzer)
and a second position (Choi in fig 2 “second position” rotates the modified array of planting substrates of Schumtzer)
wherein, in the first position, the array of planting substrates is aligned to allow plants to grow perpendicularly away from the grow panel frame, (Choi as modified by the array of planting substrates of Schumtzer discloses in Fig 3, substrate in 36 are positioned perpendicularly away from frame 34)
and in the second position, the array of planting substrates is aligned to allow plants to grow away from the frame at an angle of between 20-70 degrees. (Choi as modified by the array of planting substrates of Schumtzer discloses in second position, fig 2, substrates in 36 are positioned growing away from frame at an angle of 20-70 degrees when facing towards central core, para0057)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Schmutzer, as applied to claim 8 above, and in view of Marchildon (US 20050039396 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
Choi as modified discloses claim 8 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the module further comprises, at each panel receiving slot, a hinge element positioned adjacent a lower edge of the panel receiving slot and a latch element positioned adjacent an upper edge of the panel receiving slot.
Marchildon discloses:
wherein the module further comprises, at each panel receiving slot, a hinge element positioned adjacent a lower edge of the panel receiving slot (130 on right hingely received in 116, fig 7a+7b)
and a latch element positioned adjacent an upper edge of the panel receiving slot. (130 on left positioned adjacent to upper edge of 114, fig 7a+7b)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the module of Choi as modified such that it comprises the features as disclosed by Marchildon to allow for the grow panels to be removably received within the module (Marchildon).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Schmutzer, as applied to claim 8 above, and in view of Brustatore (US 20100236147 A1).
Regarding claim 12:
Choi as modified discloses claim 8 but doesn’t disclose:
further comprising an irrigation system comprising: a primary conduit configured to be fluidly coupled to a pump house and extending within the central core to a top portion of the silo; a plurality of secondary arteries fluidly coupled to the primary conduit at the top portion of the silo, wherein each of the plurality of secondary arteries extends radially away from the primary conduit in different directions along the top of the silo and down at least a portion of a height of the silo frame; a plurality of veins fluidly coupled to each of the secondary arteries at different locations along the height of the silo frame; and a plurality of drippers fluidly coupled to each of the plurality of veins.
Brustatore disclose:
further comprising an irrigation system comprising: a primary conduit configured to be fluidly coupled to a pump house and extending within the central core to a top portion of the silo; (24+24’, Fig 7, para0040)
a plurality of secondary arteries fluidly coupled to the primary conduit at the top portion of the silo, (64, Fig 7)
wherein each of the plurality of secondary arteries extends radially away from the primary conduit in different directions along the top of the silo and down at least a portion of a height of the silo frame; (see Fig 7, how 64 extends radially away from 24 and down a height of the frame 40)
a plurality of veins fluidly coupled to each of the secondary arteries at different locations along the height of the silo frame; (102, fig 7, para0040)
and a plurality of drippers fluidly coupled to each of the plurality of veins. (62, fig 7, para0040)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the module of Choi as modified such that it comprises an irrigation system as disclosed by Brustatore to allow all the plants to be watered simultaneously (Brustatore).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Schmutzer in view of Brustatore, as applied to claim 12 above, and in view of McGuinness et al. herein McGuinness (US 20180092314 A1).
Regarding claim 13:
Choi as modified discloses claim 12 and Choi further discloses:
wherein: each grow panel comprises a plurality of planting substrates are arranged in a two-dimensional array having a plurality of rows; (Choi: see fig 1, substrates 36 of panel 34 having multiple rows)
Choi as modified doesn’t disclose:
each of the plurality of drippers is disposed directly adjacent to a top row of planting substrates in the two-dimensional array; the irrigation system is configured to allow water introduced by the drippers to cascade down from the top row of the array to each successive row before being recaptured and delivered through piping of the irrigation system to a wastewater tank.
McGuinness discloses:
each of the plurality of drippers is disposed directly adjacent to a top row of planting substrates in the two-dimensional array; (144+145, figs 12+13, para0086+0087)
the irrigation system is configured to allow water introduced by the drippers to cascade down from the top row of the array to each successive row before being recaptured and delivered through piping of the irrigation system to a wastewater tank. (para0086+0087)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the irrigation system of Choi as modified such that it comprises the features as disclosed by McGuinness to reduce clogging/leaking of system since water inside system is not stagnant and is circulated through the system (McGuinness).
Claim(s) 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Schmutzer in view of Brustatore in view of McGuinness, as applied to claim 13 above, and in view of Grifa (US 20200093080 A1).
Regarding claim 14:
Choi as modified discloses claim 13 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein each grow panel comprises a plurality of troughs within its frame, each trough supporting the plant substrates within one row of the array of planting substrates, and wherein the plurality of troughs include openings and tongues that direct water received at the trough to plant substrates directly beneath each trough.
Grifa discloses:
wherein each grow panel comprises a plurality of troughs within its frame, (130+168+170, fig 10+fig 11)
each trough supporting the plant substrates within one row of the array of planting substrates, (130)
and wherein the plurality of troughs include openings (170)
and tongues (184)
that direct water received at the trough to plant substrates directly beneath each trough. (para0051)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the irrigation system of Choi as modified such that it comprises the features as disclosed by Grifa to provide for cascade drain feeding between respective plants (Grifa).
Regarding claim 15:
Choi as modified discloses claim 14 and the combination further discloses:
wherein the tongues in the troughs in a given row of a grow panel are bent downwards towards the plant substrates in the row beneath the given row such that the tongues help secure the plant substrates in the grow panel when the plant substrates are in the second position. (Grifa: see fig 10+11, ref 170 bent downwards to help secure plant substrate in grow panel 30 in second position of Choi)
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached on 571-272-6891. 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.
/SHADA MOHAMED ALGHAILANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643