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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group I in the reply filed on 9/15/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden for examination between Inventions of Group I and Group III. This is not found persuasive because Group I and Group III do not overlap in scope and therefore are recognized as separate inventions, and would require separate searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the carts move in serpentine movement” should read “wherein the carts are configured to move in serpentine movement” in order to emphasize the functional nature of the limitation, given that this is an apparatus claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaplita et al. (US 2022/0256790) (cited by Applicant in 892 dated 12/23/24).
Regarding Claim 1, Kaplita discloses a system for lowering a cart in a modular grow tower assembly (Figures 1A and 4B; Abstract), the system comprising:
a plurality of body frames (Figure 4B growth structures 1 and 2), each having multiple subframe supports arranged in parallel in a vertical direction (horizontal supports on grow paths 104 Figure 1A);
a plurality of lift frames positioned at opposite ends of the body frames (ends 101 and 103; Figure 1A; Paragraph [0107]);
a plurality of carts (crop carriers 108; Figure 2C; Paragraph [0096]), each cart comprising at least one of the following features;
a tray to support growing of crop material (“one or more of the plurality of types of crop carriers is selected from the group consisting of: a round opening carrier, a seed strip carrier, a quadrilateral tray carrier, a trough tray carrier, and an open bed carrier.” Paragraph [0057]);
a plurality of lowering lift mechanisms confined within the lift frames (first elevator 144 and second elevator 146; Figure 1A), each configured to pull one of the carts from a subframe support (“the elevators 144, 146 may be a material handling lift, electric mezzanine elevator, pallet rack lift, or any other such device adapted to retrieve, lift, deliver, and/or convey the crop carriers 108 between layers.” Paragraph [0107], retrieving the crop carrier is equivalent to “configured to” pull the crop carrier), lower the cart to a new subframe support (the elevator can move in both the up and down directions- see arrows in Figure 1A, and is therefore “configured to” lower the carrier), and push the cart onto the new subframe support, facilitating movement of the carts through the modular grow tower assembly (Paragraph [0107] delivering the carrier, “the conveyor 106 may be … a push pull conveyor” Paragraph [0096]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the carts move in serpentine movement through the modular grow tower assembly (arrows shown in Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 7, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a computing environment to monitor and control operations of the modular grow tower assembly (controller 414; control system 500; Figure 5B, monitors using sensor module 504 and controls using control module 502; Paragraph [0149]), including a tower computing device configured to execute system synchronization and crop logic for managing the movement of carts and crop growth conditions (“Nutritional support, controlled lighting, controlled climate and air flow are managed at each plane and coordinated across all planes as a system for optimized life cycle productivity.” Abstract; “controller 414 is configured to route each of the crop carriers 108 with germinated crops from the germination chamber 410 along the input conveyor 402 to a corresponding one of the plurality of multi-layer grow lines 401. The controller 414 may also adapt the growing conditions on one or more layers of the multi-layer germination chamber 410 or on one or more layers on one or more of the plurality of multi-layer grow lines 401.” Paragraph [0142]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the tower computing device is configured to control operation of the body frames, lift frames, and carts (“controller 414 is configured to route each of the crop carriers 108 with germinated crops from the germination chamber 410 along the input conveyor 402 to a corresponding one of the plurality of multi-layer grow lines 401. The controller 414 may also adapt the growing conditions on one or more layers of the multi-layer germination chamber 410 or on one or more layers on one or more of the plurality of multi-layer grow lines 401.” Paragraph [0142]).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita et al. (US 2022/0256790) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Glibetic et al. (US 2022/0354070).
Regarding Claim 3, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1.
Kaplita fails to disclose the system, wherein the body frames and lift frames are connected using a fastening mechanisms and are configured or rearranged to adjust a size of the modular grow tower assembly.
However, Glibetic teaches a cultivation system, wherein the body frames (vertical posts 14) and lift frames (lift frame 50) are connected using a fastening mechanisms and are configured or rearranged to adjust a size of the modular grow tower assembly (“As seen in FIG. 7, the roller assemblies 56 project beyond the front of the carrier cart 40 to permit the carrier cart 40 to position the lift 22 up to and against the growing bed 10 and attach to the growing bed 10 as described in greater detail later. The lift 22 is not permanently attached to a single growing bed 10 or to one or the other end of the growing bed 10 but can be attached and detached to any vertical posts 14 that are adapted to interface with the roller assemblies 56.” Paragraph [0076]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lift frame of Kaplita, to be removable and fastenable to the body frame as taught by Glibetic, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for the user to easily transfer the lift between different grow towers, to increase the modularity of the system and to allow for easy transfers between grow towers.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita et al. (US 2022/0256790) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizushiri (JP 2020010622).
Regarding Claim 4, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1.
Kaplita fails to disclose the system, wherein each cart includes wheels for supporting a cart.
However, Mizushiri teaches a cultivation system, wherein each cart (tray 3) includes wheels for supporting a cart (wheels 8; Figures 1, 3, and 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the carts of Kaplita, with the wheels of Mizushiri, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the efficiency and quality of cart movement over the grow path.
Regarding Claim 5, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1.
Kaplita fails to disclose the system, wherein the engagement mechanism comprises a notch for secure engagement with a corresponding engagement mechanism of an adjacent cart.
However, Mizushiri teaches a cultivation system, wherein the engagement mechanism comprises a notch (trays 3; female portion 31) for secure engagement with a corresponding engagement mechanism of an adjacent cart (male portion 30; Figure 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the carts of Kaplita, with the engagement portions of Mizushiri, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for a more compact and space saving configuration of carts.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita et al. (US 2022/0256790) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 101849161).
Regarding Claim 6, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1.
Kaplita fails to disclose the system, further comprising support stops located at the ends of the subframe supports, each support stop including a bumper to stop motion of the carts.
However, Kim teaches a cultivation system (Abstract), further comprising support stops located at the ends of the subframe supports (first stopper actuators 212 Figure 5 and 341 Figure 10), each support stop including a bumper to stop motion of the carts (Tray T1 Figure 5; “A first stopper actuator 212 for temporarily stopping the movement of the first tray T1 at a predetermined position is provided at an end portion of the first drive roller conveyor 210 in the conveying direction.” Page 6 Paragraph 6 of translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the subframes of Kaplita, with the stoppers of Kim, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase speed and movement control over the carts, to help prevent any damage to the carts or plants within.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arias (US 12484490), Lawrence et al. (US 11724876), Prout (US 10407243), and Ohara et al. (US 2015/0282437) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar cultivation systems with main frames and lifting devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights