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
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 blocking elements of claims 1, 6, 11 and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The blocking element is not given a reference number or given details in the specification or drawings. While based on Applicant’s arguments it appears that element 140 in figure 5 may be the blocking element, reference character 140 is not mentioned in the specification, and its orientation and positioning in regards to the wall panels is not shown. See also the 112(a) rejection below. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 19 are rejected for new matter in regards to the limitations pertaining to the blocking elements. There is only one mention of the blocking elements in the specification, which states “The trough 118 has spacers or blocking elements to separate each wall in the line from each other and keep light out of the trough 118 from between the walls forming the line.” There are no reference numbers for the blocking elements. In Applicant’s arguments, Applicant broadly refers to figure 5 for support for the blocking elements but does not provide a reference number. It appears Applicant is implying that element 140 in figure 5 is the blocking element, however element 140 is not mentioned in the specification and its orientation and positioning in regards to the wall panels is not shown. Therefore there is no support for limitations regarding the blocking element and its position and orientation in regards to the wall panels. 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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Langille (US 11647708 B2) in view of Heidl (US-10098287-B2) and Howe (US-11758859-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Langille discloses a hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus comprising:
a first panel (50, see figs 1-4) having a plurality of first apertures (137, see figs 1-4);
a plurality of first elbows (130) engaged with the plurality of first apertures (137) with one elbow engaging with one aperture (see fig 4);
a second panel (multiple panels 50, see figs 1-4) having a plurality of second apertures (multiple apertures 137, see figs 1-4);
a plurality of second elbows (130) engaged with the plurality of second apertures (137) with one elbow engaging with one aperture (see fig 4);
a support (support frame 20) coupled to at least one of the first panel and the second panel (see figs 1-3 and col 5, lines 49-65);
a trough (reservoir 25) positioned at or below a bottom of the first panel and a bottom of the second panel (see figs 1-3 and col 5, lines 49-65),
and at least two blocking elements engaged with the trough and with one of the at least two blocking elements positioned at each of a first end of the first panel and at a second end of the first panel (see annotated fig 1 below, multiple blocking elements, some at first and second end of the first panel), wherein the at least two blocking elements are configured to limit light from the at least one lighting element from entering the trough (see annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1
Langille fails to disclose wherein the first panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the first panel; wherein the second panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the second panel; at least one lighting element forming a light array, the at least one lighting element positioned at a distance from the outer surface of the first panel or the outer surface of the second panel.
Howe teaches wherein the first panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the first panel (handle 209 with side pieces 208a/b, see figs 1-4); wherein the second panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the second panel (handle 209 with side pieces 208a/b, see figs 1-4).
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 wall system of Langille with the handles of Howe with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for easy and efficient opening of each wall panel for cleaning, transplanting and other maintenance.
Heidl teaches at least one lighting element forming a light array, the at least one lighting element positioned at a distance from the outer surface of the first panel or the outer surface of the second panel (vertical led strips 14a-c on sliding tracks 46, see fig 6 and col 10, lines 19-26, lines 56-59).
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 Langille with the lights of Heidl with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure plants throughout the wall system receive optimum lighting conditions for plant growth.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 1, and Heidl further teaches wherein the distance of the light array is configured to be modified by sliding the light array towards or away from the outer surface of the first panel or the second panel (vertical led strips 14a-c on sliding tracks 46, see fig 6 and col 10, lines 19-26, lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 1, and Langille further discloses further comprising a plurality of securement mechanisms (keys and keyholes 140/141 and 150/151, see fig 5) configured to selectively secure a position of the first panel and the second panel (see figs 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 1, and Langille further discloses further comprising a dispersion system (irrigation flood rail 250, see figs 2 and 10 and col 5, lines 49-65).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 1, and Langille further discloses wherein the dispersion system is coupled to the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus along a top side of the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus (irrigation flood rail 250, see figs 2 and 10 and col 5, lines 49-65)..
Regarding claim 6, Langille discloses a hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus comprising:
a first panel (50, see figs 1-4) having a plurality of first apertures (137, see figs 1-4);
a plurality of first elbows (130) engaged with the plurality of first apertures (137) with one elbow engaging with one aperture (see fig 4);
a second panel (multiple panels 50, see figs 1-4) having a plurality of second apertures (multiple apertures 137, see figs 1-4);
a plurality of second elbows (130) engaged with the plurality of second apertures (137) with one elbow engaging with one aperture (see fig 4);
a trough (reservoir 25) positioned at or below a bottom of the first panel and a bottom of the second panel (see figs 1-3 and col 5, lines 49-65);
a dispersion system configured to disperse water and/or nutrients on an interior of the first panel and the second panel (irrigation flood rail 250, see figs 2 and 10 and col 5, lines 49-65);
and at least two blocking elements engaged with the trough and with one of the at least two blocking elements positioned at each of a first end of the first panel and at a second end of the first panel (see annotated fig 5 below, multiple blocking elements, some at first and second end of the first panel), wherein the at least two blocking elements are configured to limit light from the at least one lighting element from entering the trough (see annotated fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1
Langille fails to disclose wherein the first panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the first panel; wherein the second panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the second panel; at least one lighting element positioned at distance from the outer surface of the first panel and the outer surface of the second panel.
Howe teaches wherein the first panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the first panel (handle 209 with side pieces 208a/b, see figs 1-4); wherein the second panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the second panel (handle 209 with side pieces 208a/b, see figs 1-4).
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 wall system of Langille with the handles of Howe with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for easy and efficient opening of each wall panel for cleaning, transplanting and other maintenance.
Heidl teaches at least one lighting element positioned at distance from the outer surface of the first panel and the outer surface of the second panel (vertical led strips 14a-c on sliding tracks 46, see fig 6 and col 10, lines 19-26, lines 56-59).
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 Langille with the lights of Heidl with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure plants throughout the wall system receive optimum lighting conditions for plant growth.
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus of claim 6, and Langille further discloses further comprising a pump configured to pump the water and/or nutrients through the dispersion system (submersible pump 300, see col 7, lines 63-67 and col 8, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus of claim 6, and Langille further discloses wherein the pump is positioned in the trough (submersible pump 300, located in the reservoir, see col 7, lines 63-67 and col 8, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus of claim 6, and Langille further discloses wherein the dispersion system comprises at least one pipe having a plurality of apertures at a top of the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus (irrigation flood rail 250, see figs 2 and 10, drains 285 in flood rail, see col 7, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus of claim 6, and Langille further discloses wherein the pump in the trough pumps the water and/or nutrients into the dispersion system (submersible pump 300, located in the reservoir, see col 7, lines 63-67 and col 8, lines 1-7).
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langille (US 11647708 B2) in view of Heidl (US-10098287-B2), Howe (US-11758859-B2), and Gasmer (US 20170142912 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Langille discloses a hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus comprising:
a first panel (50, see figs 1-4) having a plurality of first apertures (137, see figs 1-4);
a plurality of first elbows (130) engaged with the plurality of first apertures (137) with one elbow engaging with one aperture (see fig 4);
a second panel (multiple panels 50, see figs 1-4) having a plurality of second apertures (multiple apertures 137, see figs 1-4);
a plurality of second elbows (130) engaged with the plurality of second apertures (137) with one elbow engaging with one aperture (see fig 4);
a trough (reservoir 25) positioned at or below a bottom of the first panel and a bottom of the second panel (see figs 1-3 and col 5, lines 49-65),
wherein the trough has at least one blocking element positioned at each of a first end of the first panel and at a second end of the first panel (see annotated fig 1 below, multiple blocking elements, some at first and second end of the first panel), wherein the at least one blocking element is configured to limit light from the at least one lighting element from entering the trough (see annotated fig 1 below);
a dispersion system configured to disperse water and/or nutrients on an interior of the first panel and the second panel (irrigation flood rail 250, see figs 2 and 10 and col 5, lines 49-65).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1
Langille fails to disclose wherein the first panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the first panel; wherein the second panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the second panel; at least one lighting element forming a light array positioned at a distance from the outer surface of the first panel or the outer surface of the second panel, a support channel engaged with a top of the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus, wherein each of the first panel, second panel, and at least one light element are coupled to the support channel.
Howe teaches wherein the first panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the first panel (handle 209 with side pieces 208a/b, see figs 1-4); wherein the second panel has at least one handle on an outer surface of the second panel (handle 209 with side pieces 208a/b, see figs 1-4).
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 wall system of Langille with the handles of Howe with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for easy and efficient opening of each wall panel for cleaning, transplanting and other maintenance.
Heidl teaches at least one lighting element forming a light array positioned at a distance from the outer surface of the first panel or the outer surface of the second panel (vertical led strips 14a-c on sliding tracks 46, see fig 6 and col 10, lines 19-26, lines 56-59), wherein at least one light element is coupled to the support channel (vertical led strips 14a-c on sliding tracks 46, see fig 6 and col 10, lines 19-26, lines 56-59).
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 Langille with the lights of Heidl with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure plants throughout the wall system receive optimum lighting conditions for plant growth.
Gasmer teaches a support channel engaged with a top of the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus (205, see figs 1-2), wherein each of the first panel, second panel and at least one light element are coupled to the support channel (see figs 1-2 and para 0079).
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 support channel of Gasmer with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow for easy and efficient transport of the vertical cultivation apparatuses as needed for cleaning, harvesting or planting.
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 11, and Heidl further teaches wherein the light array is comprised of vertically suspended light emitting diode (LED) strips (vertical led strips 14a-c move forward/back on tracks 46, see fig 6 and col 10, lines 19-26, lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 11, and Langille further discloses wherein the dispersion system comprises a dispersion pipe having a plurality of openings (irrigation flood rail 250, see figs 2 and 10, drains 285 in flood rail, see col 7, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 12, and Langille further discloses wherein the dispersion pipe is coupled to a support frame by one or more supports (side supports 32/34 for flood rail 250, see figs 2 and 10).
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 14, and Langille further discloses wherein the dispersion system further comprises a pump and return piping coupled to the dispersion pipe (pump 300 and water drains back to reservoir, see col 7, lines 63-67 and col 8, lines 1-15, see also col 5, lines 57-65).
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 18, and Langille further discloses wherein the pump is disposed in the trough (submersible pump 300 in trough, see col 5, lines 57-65).
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 18, and Langille further discloses wherein the at least one blocking element is disposed on an upper surface of the trough and spans a distance of an upper opening of the trough (see annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant apparatus of claim 18, and Langille further discloses wherein the upper opening of the trough is defined by one or more sidewalls (32 and 34) and a base (25) of the trough (see col 5, lines 49-65).
Claim(s) 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langille (US 11647708 B2) in view of Heidl (US-10098287-B2), Howe (US-11758859-B2), and Gasmer (US 20170142912 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cosmann (US 8966819 B1).
Regarding claim 21, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus of claim 11 and Langille further discloses further comprising a third panel having a plurality of third apertures and a fourth panel having a plurality of fourth apertures (see annotated fig 1 below), wherein the third panel and the fourth panel are coupled to the first panel and the second panel (see annotated fig 1 below, panels all coupled together on rails 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1
However, if for any reason Applicant disagrees that the panels are coupled together, then Cosmann teaches further comprising a third panel having a plurality of third apertures and a fourth panel having a plurality of fourth apertures (see fig 1, dual sided panels also coupled horizontally to other panels), wherein the third panel and the fourth panel are coupled to the first panel and the second panel (see fig 1, dual sided panels also coupled horizontally to other panels).
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 panel system with the dual sided panels and horizontal coupling of Cosmann with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for a higher crop yield with less space required, thereby providing a space efficient and secure planting system.
Regarding claim 22, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic plant cultivation apparatus of claim, 11 and Langille further discloses wherein one of the at least one blocking elements is positioned between the first end of the first panel and the first end of the third panel (see annotated fig 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over Langille and the blocking element, the Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, light blocking elements are seen at the top of the reservoir trough of Langille, as seen in annotated fig 5 to prevent light from entering the trough through the gap between the trough and the panels. Secondly, as discussed in the drawing objection and 112(a) rejection above, Applicant does not have proper support in the drawings or specification for the newly claimed details of the blocking elements. Applicant broadly references figure 5 in their arguments but element 140 is not mentioned in the specification and the blocking elements are only mentioned once. Therefore there is no support for limitations regarding the blocking element and its position and orientation in regards to the wall panels.
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 571-273-8300.
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 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642