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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 have been examined in this application. This communication is a final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 11/17/2025.
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 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the tray has a bottom surface, two side surfaces and four side surfaces” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the four side surfaces include the two side surfaces, or if they are additional side surfaces (i.e. six total side surfaces). For the purposes of this office action, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean four total side surfaces.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 13 and do not correct the indefinite issues of claim 13
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.
Claims 1-12, 17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0235156 by Blair in view of US Patent Number 5,822,920 to Tsay.
Regarding claim 1, Blair discloses a system for draining a cart in an modular grow tower, comprising:
a plurality of body frames (vertically spaced levels 310);
a plurality of lift frames located at a first end and a second end of the modular grow tower, the plurality of body frames positioned between the plurality of lift frames (paragraph 25 discloses “the high density horticulture growing system comprises a first elevator device adjacent a first side of each rack and a second elevator device adjacent a second and opposing side of each rack”);
a plurality of carts (containers 200) configured to traverse the modular grow tower in a moving path from a top end to a bottom end of the modular grow tower (paragraph 144 discloses container 200 being moved to the highest level 312 of the rack first and then being moved to subsequently lower levels as the container reaches the end of each level), each of the plurality of carts comprising:
a tray, having a bottom surface, configured to support a quantity of crops (see the body of container 200 in Figure 5);
a perforation positioned proximal to a first side and a second side of the cart, the perforation configured to allow passage of water and/or nutrients (paragraph 128 discloses “The container also comprises an input aperture 220 to receive water, one or more channels 230 to direct the water to the drops, and an output aperture 240 to enable at least some of the water not taken up by the crops 205 to exit the container 200”); and
a sustenance system configured to provide water and/or nutrients to the crops supported by the plurality of carts as the carts traverse the modular grow tower (watering system 500, see paragraph 113);
a drainage system comprising a plurality of drainage troughs configured to collect the water and/or nutrients which drain from the plurality of perforations in the plurality of carts (paragraph 133 discloses “A trough 504 is provided at a second end 323 of the support 320 to receive water flowing out of the output aperture 240 of the containers 200”); and
a computing device (computing device 700) configured to control the sustenance system and/or a watering system in provisioning of nutrient and/or water amounts according to a grow recipe (paragraph 158 discloses a processor 710 to control one or more aspects of the high density horticulture growing system including watering times, durations, and volumes).
Blair does not disclose the tray having four side surfaces, wherein the tray is sloped such that a one side of the tray is lower than an opposing side of the tray and a plurality of perforations positioned proximal to the lower side of the tray of the cart. However, this limitation is taught by Nishimura. Nishimura discloses a nutrient solution tray with four side surfaces (see Figure 21), paragraph 265 discloses “A discharge slit(s) 2111 is provided at one end of the longer side direction of the bottom surface 2101 of the nutrient solution tray 2102. A nutrient solution is allowed to be discharged form the discharge slit 2111 which is corresponding to the nutrient solution outflow part”, and paragraph 342 discloses “a nutrient solution supplied to the nutrient solution-inflow area 2401 of the nutrient solution tray 102 can naturally flow toward the nutrient solution-outflow area 2403 of the nutrient solution tray 102 due to the slope of the nutrient solution tray 102”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blair using the teachings from Nishimura in order to better ensure the flow of nutrient through the tray.
Blair does not disclose a plurality of fins sloped to direct the water and/or nutrients towards the plurality of perforations. However, this limitation is taught by Tsay. Tsay discloses a nursery tray with a beveled bottom face 24 that forms fins, and column 2, lines 35-40 disclose “the incubator 20 still has a horizontal area C and a drainage hole 242 is defined therein, so that the water flowing down from the beveled bottom face 24 will eventually flow to the drainage hole 242 and the opening 23 to be drained out of the incubator”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blair using the teachings from Tsay in order to better facilitate the flow of water towards the output aperture.
Regarding claims 2 (dependent on claim 1), 9 (dependent on claim 8), Blair discloses the moving path comprises a serpentine moving path. Paragraphs 140-143 discuss the movement of the containers 200, including the containers 200 are moved from right to left in Figure 13 until it reaches carrier 420 of the second elevator device 404 (paragraph 140), carrier 420 moving the container to a lower level 314 (paragraph 141), and then the containers moving from left to right along second level 314 (paragraph 142), and so on.
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Blair discloses the sustenance system comprises a watering component and a nutrient dosing component, each configured to distribute water and/or nutrients to the crops at predetermined areas of the modular grow tower. Paragraph 130 discloses “It will be appreciated that the water can comprise nutrients, the type and quantity being added according to the crop being grown” and paragraph 158 discloses processor 710 controlling the amounts and types of fertilizers and nutrients used in the system.
Regarding claims 4 (dependent on claim 3), 11 (dependent on claim 8), Blair discloses the watering component and the nutrient dosing component each comprise a plurality of nozzles mounted within the body frames to provide water and/or nutrients to the crops located within the carts. Paragraph 128 discloses “The watering system 500 comprises one or more water outlets on each rack 300 which align with the respective input aperture 220 in each container 200 to provide water to the container 200 when the container 200 is in a predetermined position on the rack 300”.
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 4), Blair and Tsay do not explicitly disclose the watering component is coupled to one or more fluid lines which distribute water and/or nutrients to one or more trays at predetermined areas of the grow tower. However, Blair discloses a primary watering system 510 to provide water to the containers 200. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blair to use fluid lines as a well-known way to provide water from a watering system.
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Blair discloses the drainage troughs are configured to transport the collected water and/or nutrients to a drainage pipe configured to carry the water and/or nutrients away from the modular grow tower. Paragraph 133 discloses “The water from the trough 504 can be recycled by the watering system 500. In some embodiments, the water from the trough 504 is used to power aspects of the growing system 10”.
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Blair and Tsay do not disclose the tray comprises foam-reinforced thermoformed plastic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the trays out of known types of materials for their weight and strength properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 8, Blair discloses a method for providing drainage in a modular grow tower, comprising:
Supporting a quantity of crops on a plurality of carts (containers 200), each cart comprising a tray having a bottom surface with a perforation (paragraph 128 discloses “The container also comprises an input aperture 220 to receive water, one or more channels 230 to direct the water to the drops, and an output aperture 240 to enable at least some of the water not taken up by the crops 205 to exit the container 200”);
Traversing the plurality of carts in a moving path from a top end to a bottom end of the grow tower(paragraph 144 discloses container 200 being moved to the highest level 312 of the rack first and then being moved to subsequently lower levels as the container reaches the end of each level);
Providing water and/or nutrients to the crops via a sustenance system comprising a watering component (watering system 500) and a nutrient dosing component (paragraph 130 discloses “It will be appreciated that the water can comprise nutrients, the type and quantity being added according to the crop being grown” and paragraph 158 discloses processor 710 controlling the amounts and types of fertilizers and nutrients used in the system), each configured to distribute water and/or nutrients to the crops at predetermined areas of the grow tower (paragraph 128 discloses “The watering system 500 comprises one or more water outlets on each rack 300 which align with the respective input aperture 220 in each container 200 to provide water to the container 200 when the container 200 is in a predetermined position on the rack 300”);
Collecting the water and/or nutrients draining through the plurality of perforations in the carts using a drainage system comprising a plurality of drainage troughs (paragraph 133 discloses “A trough 504 is provided at a second end 323 of the support 320 to receive water flowing out of the output aperture 240 of the containers 200”); and
Transporting the collected water and/or nutrients from the drainage troughs to a drainage pipe configured to carry the water and/or nutrients away from the grow tower (paragraph 133 discloses “The water from the trough 504 can be recycled by the watering system 500. In some embodiments, the water from the trough 504 is used to power aspects of the growing system 10”).
Blair does not disclose the tray having four side surfaces, wherein the tray is sloped such that a one side of the tray is lower than an opposing side of the tray and a plurality of perforations positioned proximal to the lower side of the tray of the cart. However, this limitation is taught by Nishimura. Nishimura discloses a nutrient solution tray with four side surfaces (see Figure 21), paragraph 265 discloses “A discharge slit(s) 2111 is provided at one end of the longer side direction of the bottom surface 2101 of the nutrient solution tray 2102. A nutrient solution is allowed to be discharged from the discharge slit 2111 which is corresponding to the nutrient solution outflow part”, and paragraph 342 discloses “a nutrient solution supplied to the nutrient solution-inflow area 2401 of the nutrient solution tray 102 can naturally flow toward the nutrient solution-outflow area 2403 of the nutrient solution tray 102 due to the slope of the nutrient solution tray 102”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blair using the teachings from Nishimura in order to better ensure the flow of nutrient through the tray.
Blair does not disclose a plurality of fins sloped to direct the water and/or nutrients towards the plurality of perforations. However, this limitation is taught by Tsay. Tsay discloses a nursery tray with a beveled bottom face 24 that forms fins, and column 2, lines 35-40 disclose “the incubator 20 still has a horizontal area C and a drainage hole 242 is defined therein, so that the water flowing down from the beveled bottom face 24 will eventually flow to the drainage hole 242 and the opening 23 to be drained out of the incubator”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blair using the teachings from Tsay in order to better facilitate the flow of water towards the output aperture.
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 8), Blair discloses monitoring, by a processor, of water usage and consumption to determine an amount of water to apply to the crops at subsequent watering stations. Paragraph 158 discloses computer device 700 having a processor 710 to control one or more aspects of the high density horticulture growing system including watering times, durations, and volumes, and paragraph 160 discloses sensors 810 monitoring one or more parameters of the growing system including irrigation sensors.
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 8), Blair discloses growing crops of multiple varieties. Paragraph 174 discloses “The system is flexible and adaptable in that the distance between vertically spaced levels 310 of the rack 300 can also be adjusted to suit different crops and different stages of growth”.
Regarding claims 17 (dependent on claim 1), 20 (dependent on claim 8), Blair discloses the moving path comprises alternating rows of the modular grow tower. Paragraph 144 discloses “The container 200 moves across the highest level 312 again and is then moved to another, lower level 310, such as a third highest level, of the rack 300”.
Regarding claim 19 (dependent on claim 8), Blair does not disclose the tray comprises foam-reinforced thermoformed plastic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use well-known types of materials for trays and containers such as foam-reinforced thermoformed plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 21 (dependent on claim 8), Blair discloses the moving path comprises a C-shape path. Figures 12-15 shows elevators 402 and 404 on opposite sides of the rack 300, and moves the trays to another level on the same side. Paragraphs 139-142 describe the back and forth movement of the trays at each level, which forms a C-shape path.
Claims 13, 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 3,676,953 to Delogne in view of US Patent Number 5,822,920 to Tsay.
Regarding claim 13, Delogne discloses a cart configured for draining excess water and/or nutrients in a grow tower, comprising:
A tray configured to support a quantity of crops, wherein the tray has a bottom surface and four side surfaces (container 1);
A plurality of perforations positioned proximal to a first side and a second side of the cart, the perforations configured to allow passage of water and/or nutrients (drainage holes 7).
A plurality of wheels coupled to the tray for supporting the cart as it traverses the grow tower (23).
Blair does not disclose the tray having four side surfaces, wherein the tray is sloped such that a one side of the tray is lower than an opposing side of the tray and a plurality of perforations positioned proximal to the lower side of the tray of the cart. However, this limitation is taught by Nishimura. Nishimura discloses a nutrient solution tray with four side surfaces (see Figure 21), paragraph 265 discloses “A discharge slit(s) 2111 is provided at one end of the longer side direction of the bottom surface 2101 of the nutrient solution tray 2102. A nutrient solution is allowed to be discharged from the discharge slit 2111 which is corresponding to the nutrient solution outflow part”, and paragraph 342 discloses “a nutrient solution supplied to the nutrient solution-inflow area 2401 of the nutrient solution tray 102 can naturally flow toward the nutrient solution-outflow area 2403 of the nutrient solution tray 102 due to the slope of the nutrient solution tray 102”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blair using the teachings from Nishimura in order to better ensure the flow of nutrient through the tray.
Delogne does not disclose a plurality of fins sloped to direct the water and/or nutrients towards the plurality of perforations. However, this limitation is taught by Tsay. Tsay discloses a nursery tray with a beveled bottom face 24 that forms fins, and column 2, lines 35-40 disclose “the incubator 20 still has a horizontal area C and a drainage hole 242 is defined therein, so that the water flowing down from the beveled bottom face 24 will eventually flow to the drainage hole 242 and the opening 23 to be drained out of the incubator”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Delogne using the teachings from Tsay in order to better facilitate the flow of water towards the output apertures.
Regarding claim 15 (dependent on claim 13), Delogne and Tsay do not disclose the tray comprises foam-reinforced thermoformed plastic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the trays out of known types of materials for their weight and strength properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claims 16, 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0235156 by Blair in view of US Patent Number 5,822,920 to Tsay, in further view of US Patent Application Number 2018/0359944 by Millar.
Regarding claims 16 (dependent on claim 1), 18 (dependent on claim 8), Blair does not disclose each of the plurality of carts further comprises a plurality of wheels coupled to the tray for supporting the cart as it traverses the modular grow tower. However, this limitation is taught by Millar. Millar discloses a plurality of carts 104 that traverses a grow tower 100, the paragraph 20 discloses “Each of the one or more industrial carts 104, as described in more detail with reference to FIGS. 3A and 3B, may include one or more wheels 222a, 222b, 222c, and 222d rotatably coupled to the industrial cart 104 and supported on the track 102”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blair using the teachings from Millar as a substitution of known ways to convey a plant tray through a rack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the current grounds of rejection.
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 MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642