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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-7, 9-12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Millar (US 11019773 B2) and Ohara (US 20150282437 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaplita discloses a modular grow tower system comprising:
a modular grow tower assembly (see fig 1) having:
a plurality of body frames (116 and conveyor frames 106);
a plurality of lift frames (frame at ends 101 and 103); and
a plurality of rows extending in a longitudinal direction and stacked in a vertical direction (grow paths 104a-e);
a plurality of carts (crop carriers 108) for supporting crop material, each cart including:
a tray for holding crop material (trough tray carrier, see para 0057),
a plurality of lowering lift mechanisms for vertically translating the carts between rows (elevators 144, 146, see figs 1a and 2a);
wherein a first individual one of the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms located on one side of the modular grow tower is configured to at least pull a first cart from the first individual lowering lift mechanism to an individual row of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower assembly (push pull conveyor with lifts 144 and 146, see para 0096 and 0107, and fig 2), and a second individual one of the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms located on an opposite side of the modular grow tower is configured to at least push a second cart from the first individual lowering lift mechanism to the individual row of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower assembly (push pull conveyor with lifts 144 and 146, see para 0096 and 0107, and fig 2);
one or more lift mechanisms for vertically translating the carts to a harvesting component (harvest location 148, see para 0113 and figs 1a and 2a), a seeding component, or a sanitation component (wash station 152, see para 0117 and figs 1a and 2a);
a sustenance system for providing water and nutrients to the crop material (see para 0101);
a lighting system including lighting elements mounted within the body frames (grow lights 128, see para 0102);
a drainage system comprising drainage troughs and drainage pipes for collecting and transporting excess water and nutrients (drains 118 connected to vertical drain pipe 120, also drains 122 and vertical drain 126, see para 0099-0100); and
a master controller for managing and controlling operations of the modular grow tower system (controller 414, see para 0142).
Kaplita fails to disclose each cart including a plurality of wheels, and a separate one or more raising lift mechanisms for vertically translating the carts to the harvesting, seeding or sanitation component.
Millar teaches each cart including a plurality of wheels (carts 104 with wheels 222a-d).
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 carts with the wheels of Millar with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide more efficient translation of the carts through the grow system.
Ohara teaches one or more raising lift mechanisms (lift 134, see figs 1-4) for vertically translating the carts to a harvesting component (lift 134 for vertical transport to a load/unload and work station, see para 0075-0079), a seeding component, or a sanitation component.
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 separate lift for the work component station as taught by Ohara with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for transport of carts to the component station without disrupting the flow of the serpentine grow path.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein an individual one of the one or more raising lift mechanisms is located within a harvest frame (lift mechanism 146 and harvesting location 148, see para 0113 and fig 1a).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the one or more lowering lift mechanisms are positioned within the lift frames (elevator 144 within frame end 101 and elevator 146 within frame end 103).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the modular grow tower assembly is configurable to adjust a size and arrangement of the modular grow tower assembly by adding or removing body frames or lift frames (see para 0095, different sizes and number of grow paths available).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the carts traverse a moving path through the modular grow tower assembly, facilitated by the lowering lift mechanisms and the raising lift mechanisms (see para 0112).
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the moving path comprises a serpentine moving path (serpentine growth path 102, see para 0093, see also arrows in fig 1a).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses further comprising: a seeding component mounted on one of the lift frames for dispensing crop material into the carts (planting station 406 includes seeding station, see para 0138 and 0148); a harvesting component (harvesting station 148, see para 0118 and fig 1a) for harvesting crop material from the carts; and a sanitation component (wash station 152, see para 0138 and 0145) for cleaning the carts after harvesting.
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the master controller is configured to manage environmental factors including: lighting, temperature, humidity, airflow, and nutrient delivery through the sustenance system (see para 0052, 0089 airflow, temp and nutrient recipe;, 0097 light, humidity, C02 and nutrient levels; and 0148, growth environment conditions, e.g., lighting intensity, lighting duration/cycling, air flow, temperature, humidity, nutrient types, nutrient levels).
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 9.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the master controller is configured to adjust the environmental factors and grow recipes based on user input.
Miller ‘773 teaches wherein the master controller is configured to adjust the environmental factors and grow recipes based on user input (user can send input for grow recipes, see col 9, lines 45-59).
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 with the user input of Miller ‘773 with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow the user to override previous grow recipes if needed for the health of the plants.
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the first individual lowering lift mechanisms and the raising lift mechanisms and the second individual lowering lift mechanism are synchronized to facilitate a transition of carts between different rows and sections of the modular grow tower assembly by pulling the first cart onto the first individual lowering lift mechanism before the second individual lowering mechanism begins pushing the second cart onto the individual row of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower assembly (push pull conveyor, see para 0096, see fig 1a and 2a).
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the carts include sensors for monitoring crop growth and development (sensors for environmental conditions, see para 0089, 0101, 0108), wherein the master controller adjusts one or more grow recipes based on data from the sensors (sensors for environmental conditions and adjustment of parameters based on sensor data, see para 0089, 0101, 0108).
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the drainage system is configured to reuse collected water and nutrients within the sustenance system (pumps for circulating fluid, fluid returns to the fertigation supply, see para 0101).
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the wherein the serpentine moving path starts at a top row of the modular grow tower system and ends at a bottom row of the modular grow tower system, wherein the carts repeat a movement pattern of moving horizontally down each row and then being lowered down to a next sequential row until the carts reach an end of the serpentine moving path. 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 this grow path to start at the bottom, with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow easier loading of the seedling plants at the bottom of the grow tower, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1 and Kaplita further discloses wherein after completing the serpentine moving path, the master controller is configured to transfer the carts to the one or more lift mechanisms (carts are transferred to elevator 146 at completion of the serpentine path, see fig 1a).
The modified reference fails to teach the carts being transferred to the one or more raising lift mechanism.
Ohara teaches the master controller is configured to transfer the carts to the one or more raising lift mechanisms (lift 134, see para 0087-0090 and 0092-0093 and figs 1-2).
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 transport to the lifts that go to the component station as taught by Ohara with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure that carts are transported to the harvesting, washing and seeding component station promptly after completing the growth path to provide a quick turnaround and therefore a time efficient system.
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the one or more raising lift mechanisms comprise a plurality of raising lift mechanisms. 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 a plurality of raising lift mechanisms with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for multiple carts to be transported to or from the component work station at once, providing a more time efficient system, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Ohara further teaches wherein the one or more raising lift mechanisms are configured to receive an individual cart and raise the individual cart to the harvesting component (lift 134 for transporting a tray to and from a work/unload station, see para 0075-0079 and figs 1-4).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Millar (US 11019773 B2) and Ohara (US 20150282437 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Miller (US 10421618 B2, hereafter referred to as Miller ‘618).
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 7.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the sanitation component includes one or more ultraviolet sensors, imaging sensors, or microbial sensors.
Miller ‘618 teaches wherein the sanitation component includes one or more ultraviolet sensors, imaging sensors, or microbial sensors (sanitizing component 120 with UV radiation and automatic inspection system 160 with imaging sensors, see col 6, lines 66-67 and col 7, lines 1-11).
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 image sensors of Miller ‘618 with a reasonable expectation of success because this will confirm that the cart is adequately sanitized prior to its reentry into the growing path.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Millar (US 11019773 B2) and Ohara (US 20150282437 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Chan (US 20230117451 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the sustenance system is configured to deliver precise amounts of water and nutrients to the crop material and includes spray nozzles, drip nozzles, flood nozzles, and fluid lines.
Millar ‘773 teaches wherein the sustenance system is configured to deliver precise amounts of water and nutrients to the crop material and includes spray nozzles, flood nozzles, and fluid lines (see col 6, lines 63-67 and col 6, lines 1-3).
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 water delivery of Millar ‘773 with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plants receive optimal hydration to promote growth and development while preventing overwatering or root rot.
Chan teaches drip nozzles (see para 0078-0079).
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 drip nozzles of Chan with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plants receive optimal hydration to promote growth and development while preventing overwatering or root rot, and specifically, drip nozzles ensure slow and steady hydration which provides adequate moisture without unnecessarily flooding the plant.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Millar (US 11019773 B2) and Ohara (US 20150282437 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuhns (US 20240122130 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein each cart includes male and female engagement mechanisms for connecting adjacent carts to maintain alignment and ensure smooth movement through the modular grow tower assembly.
Kuhns teaches wherein each cart includes male and female engagement mechanisms for connecting adjacent carts to maintain alignment and ensure smooth movement through the modular grow tower assembly (see para 0122, tray ends 260 has male end, tray end 262 has female end, see figs 1, 14 and 19).
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 carts with the male and female engagement of Kuhns with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the carts remain on the track while moving through the grow path.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Millar (US 11019773 B2) and Ohara (US 20150282437 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mei (CN-107963572-A).
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms are each equipped with a motorized apparatus configured to push or pull the carts in a longitudinal direction (powered push/pull conveyor, see para 0096).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms are each equipped with a receiving plate for engaging a cart, wherein the receiving plate includes a first arm located on a first end of the receiving plate and a second arm located on a second end of the receiving plate opposite the first end, wherein the first arm and the second arm include a notch for engaging a first engagement mechanism or a second engagement mechanism of the cart, wherein the first and second arms are configured to support the wheels of the cart and the notches of the first and second arms are configured to engage the first engagement mechanism and the second engagement mechanism of the cart, wherein the receiving plate is configured to be actuated in a longitudinal direction between an extended position having the first and second arms extending outside a respective lift frame and a retracted position having the first and second arms positioned within the lift frame.
Mei teaches wherein the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms are each equipped with a receiving plate (4014, see fig 5) for engaging a cart, wherein the receiving plate includes a first arm (left 4013, see fig 5) located on a first end of the receiving plate and a second arm (right 4013, see fig 5) located on a second end of the receiving plate opposite the first end, wherein the first arm and the second arm include a notch (4012) for engaging a first engagement mechanism or a second engagement mechanism of the cart, wherein the first and second arms are configured to support the wheels of the cart (cart supported on arms, see figs 13-14) and the notches of the first and second arms are configured to engage the first engagement mechanism and the second engagement mechanism of the cart (see figs 13-14), wherein the receiving plate is configured to be actuated in a longitudinal direction between an extended position having the first and second arms extending outside a respective lift frame and a retracted position having the first and second arms positioned within the lift frame (extended and retracted position to receive and support cart, see fig 1 and 13-14).
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 lowering lift mechanisms with the extendable and retractable arms and receiving plate of Mei with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide an efficient and secure retrieval of each grow cart to and from the tower to ensure plants are securely transported between rows of the grow tower.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that O’Hara fails to teach lift mechanisms for vertically translating carts. The Office respectfully disagrees. O’Hara is used as a secondary reference only to teach the presence of raising lift mechanisms. The grow carts are taught by the primary reference, Kaplita. 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).
Similarly, Applicant argues that Kuhns fails to teach the male and female engagement mechanisms for the grow carts as the engagement mechanisms are on the trays themselves. The Office respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, 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). In this case, the Kuhns reference is used to teach male and female engagement mechanisms, which would have analogous uses on trays or carts.
Conclusion
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 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights