DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 12/29/2025 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1-8, 10-12 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 16, the limitation "the carts" in line 3 should read “the at least one cart”.
For claim 17, the limitation "the carts" in line 2 should read “the at least one cart”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kaplita discloses a modular system for growing crops ([0088]), comprising: a plurality of body frames (at least two multi-layer hydroponic growth systems 100, Fig. 4B, each system 100 defines a frame of length L, Fig. 1A); a plurality of lift frames (144 and 146) positioned at each end of the modular system (Fig. 1A); wherein the body frames and the lift frames are arranged in a plurality of vertically stacked rows (104a-e Figs. 1A, 4B and [0088]), each row comprising at least one body frame (100 defines a frame of length L, Fig. 1A) and two lift frames (144, 146, Fig. 1A), the body frames being positioned between the lift frames in each said row (see elevators 144, 146 positioned on first end 101 and second end 103 of 100 length L, Fig. 1A); a plurality of subframe supports (vertical supports 116 and corresponding horizontal supports comprising a grow path 104a-e, Fig.1A) within each body frame (see horizontal supports and vertical supports 116 make up frame of length L, fig. 1A), each subframe support configured to hold at least one cart (108 and [0096]) containing seeds or crops ([0096]); a lowering lift mechanism ([0107]) within each lift frame (fig. 1A), configured to move the at least one cart vertically between the rows of body frames ([0107]); and a controller (500) communicatively coupled to the lowering lift mechanisms and translating mechanisms (106, fig. 1A and [0150], [0154] and [0160]), configured to operate a movement of the at least one cart through the modular system based on predetermined parameters ([0096] and [0149-0150]), wherein the predetermined parameters comprises specific growing requirements of the seeds or crops held within the at least one cart ([0110-0114], [0116], [0120, 0122, 0126] and [0149-0150], as the lift frames 144 and 146 will lift the at least one cart from a first carrier path 104a to a second carrier path 104b and to the next carrier paths where each carrier path corresponds to the different growth stages of the plant where each carrier path will have different heights , speeds and air circulation), wherein the movement of the at least one cart alternates between a first subset (104a) of the plurality of vertically stacked rows in one cycle and a second subset (104b) of the plurality of vertically stacked rows in a subsequent cycle based on the specific growing requirements of the seeds or crops held within the at least one cart ([0110-0114], [0116], [0120, 0122, 0126] and [0149-0150] as the at least one cart will move at different speeds and have different air circulation based on the subset of the plurality of vertically stacked rows in 104a-e).
Regarding claim 5, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising rollers, tracks, or rack and pinion gears (106, fig. 1A and abstract as the horizontal tracks move plants through the system and [0096]) that are configured to move the at least one cart longitudinally across the subframe supports (106, fig. 1A and abstract as the horizontal tracks move plants through the system and [0096]).
Regarding claim 6, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a harvester frame (harvest area 148, Figs. 1A and 4A) positioned at one end of a lowest row of the modular system (see harvest area 148 is positioned at the lowest row of the system 100, Figs. 1A and 4A), the harvester frame configured to remove crops from the at least one cart as they reach the end of a moving path (see harvesting area 148 at end of a moving path 102, Figs. 1A, 4A and [0113]).
Regarding claim 8, Kaplita teaches a method for growing crops in a modular system ([0088]), comprising: providing a plurality of body frames (at least two multi-layer hydroponic growth systems 100, Fig. 4B, each system 100 defines a frame of length L, Fig. 1A) and the lift frames (144 and 146); arranging the body frames and lift frames in a plurality of vertically stacked rows (104a-e Figs. 1A, 4B and [0088]); placing carts (108 and [0096]) containing seeds or crops ([0096]) within the body frames (fig. 1A and [0096]); using a lowering lift mechanism ([0107]) to move the carts vertically between the rows of body frames ([0107] and Figs. 1A and 4A); controlling a movement of the carts through the modular system based on predetermined parameters ([0096] and [0149-0150]) using a controller (500, [0150 and 0154]), wherein the predetermined parameters comprises specific growing requirements of the seeds or crops held within the carts ([0110-0114], [0116], [0120, 0122, 0126] and [0149-0150] as the lift frames 144 and 146 will lift the at least one cart from a first carrier path 104a to a second carrier path 104b and to the next carrier paths where each carrier path corresponds to the different growth stages of the plant where each carrier path will have different heights , speeds and air circulation), wherein the movement of the carts alternates between a first subset (104a) of the plurality of vertically stacked rows in one cycle and a second subset (104b) of the plurality of vertically stacked rows in a subsequent cycle based on the specific growing requirements of the seeds or crops held within the carts ([0110-0114], [0116], [0120, 0122, 0126] and [0149-0150] as the carts will move at different speeds and have different air circulation based on the subset of the plurality of vertically stacked rows in 104a-e); providing water to the carts using an integrated irrigation system ([0101] and Fig. 1B); and providing light to the carts using an integrated lighting system ([0102]).
Regarding claim 10, Kaplita discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising using, rollers, tracks, or rack and pinion gears (106, fig. 1A and abstract as the horizontal tracks move plants through the system and [0096]), to move the carts longitudinally across subframe supports within the rows (106, fig. 1A and abstract as the horizontal tracks move plants through the system and [0096]).
Regarding claim 11, Kaplita discloses the method of claim 10, wherein controlling the movement of the carts includes programming the controller (500) to operate the lowering lift mechanisms and the rollers, the tracks, or the rack and pinion gears (control system 500 controls the conveyor speed [0150], control system 500 directs when crop carriers 108 are to move to different vertical layers in the system [0154], conveyors 106 transport the crop carriers 108 to predetermined index locations along the length L of the growth system 100 [0096], and the system is programmable [0173]).
Regarding claim 12, Kaplita discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising removing the crops from the carts using a harvester frame (harvest area 148, Figs. 1A and 4A [0113]) positioned at one end of a lowest row of the modular system (see harvest area 148 is positioned at the lowest row of the system 100, Figs. 1A and 4A and [0113]).
Regarding claim 15, Kaplita discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising adjusting a size of the modular system based on user requirements ([0088]).
Regarding claim 16, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the translating mechanisms are positioned along a length of each row (fig. 1B and [0096]), each translating mechanism having a plurality of motorized apparatuses configured to push or pull the carts in a longitudinal direction ([0096] and fig. 1A as the translating mechanisms 106 are on each carrier path and can be a powered conveyor and so the translating mechanism 106 comprises of a plurality of motorized apparatuses configured to push or pull the carts in a longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 18, Kaplita discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one cart is rollably mounted to the plurality of body frames (fig. 1A and [0096] as 106 will allow for the least one cart to be rollably mounted to the plurality of body frames).
Regarding claim 19, Kaplita discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising pushing or pulling the carts in a longitudinal direction (fig. 1B and [0096]) via translating mechanisms (106, fig. 1A) that are positioned along a length of each row (fig. 1A and [0096]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2-3, 7, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FRIEDMAN (US 20200037524 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Kaplita teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: an irrigation system ([0101]) integrated within the body frames ([0101]), the irrigation system configured to deliver water to the at least one cart as they move through the modular system ([0101]).
Kaplita is silent about including a plurality of nozzles.
FRIEDMAN teaches a plurality of nozzles (192, [0080] and figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of nozzles as taught by FRIEDMAN into the irrigation system of Kaplita in order to provide a more humid environment which may be conductive to the growth of certain plant varieties such as tropical plants.
Regarding claim 3, Kaplita as modified by FRIEDMAN teaches the system of claim 2, and Kaplita further teaches further comprising a lighting system ([0102]) integrated within the body frames ([0102]), the lighting system including a plurality of lighting elements (128 and fig. 1B) configured to emit light towards the at least one cart as they move through the modular system ([0102]).
Regarding claim 7, Kaplita teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a lighting system ([0102]) integrated within the body frames (fig. 1b and [0102]), the lighting system including a plurality of lighting elements (128) configured to emit light towards the at least one cart as they move through the modular system ([0102] and fig. 1b), wherein the lighting system ([0102]) includes lights (128) mounted within the body frames to emit light towards the at least one cart ([0102] and fig. 1b).
However, Kaplita is silent about high intensity discharge (HID) lights, fluorescent lights, or light-emitting diode (LED).
FRIEDMAN teaches high intensity discharge (HID) lights, fluorescent lights, or light-emitting diode (LED) (fig. 1 and [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lights of Kaplita to be high intensity discharge (HID) lights, fluorescent lights, or light-emitting diode (LED) as taught by FRIEDMAN in order to provide high illumination output with low electrical energy input.
Regarding claim 13, Kaplita teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the irrigation system ([0101]) mounted within the body frames (fertigation supply tubes 114 and vertical drain 126 are located within the frame of length L, Fig.1B, [0101]) to provide water to the carts (fertigation system comprises pumps for circulating fertigation fluid and drains for draining fluid once it exits the crop carriers 108 within the system 100 [0101]).
However, Kaplita is silent about a plurality of spray nozzles, drip nozzles, or flood nozzles.
FRIEDMAN teaches a plurality of spray nozzles, drip nozzles, or flood nozzles (192, [0080] and figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of spray nozzles, drip nozzles, or flood nozzles as taught by FRIEDMAN into the irrigation system of Kaplita in order to provide a more humid environment which may be conductive to the growth of certain plant varieties such as tropical plants.
Regarding claim 14, Kaplita teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the lighting system ([0102]) includes lights (128) mounted within the body frames to emit light towards the carts ([0102]).
However, Kaplita is silent about high intensity discharge (HID) lights, fluorescent lights, or light-emitting diode (LED).
FRIEDMAN teaches high intensity discharge (HID) lights, fluorescent lights, or light-emitting diode (LED) (fig. 1 and [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lights of Kaplita to be high intensity discharge (HID) lights, fluorescent lights, or light-emitting diode (LED) as taught by FRIEDMAN in order to provide high illumination output with low electrical energy input.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Blair (US 20180235156 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Kaplita teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the lowering lift mechanism comprises configured to move the at least one cart vertically between the rows (figs. 1A and 4A and [0107]).
However, Kaplita is silent about rollers, tracks, or rack and pinion gears.
Blair teaches rollers, tracks, or rack and pinion gears (430, figs. 12-15 and [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rollers, tracks, or rack and pinion gears as taught by Blair into the system of Kaplita in order to provide a commonly used lift system that is easily manufactured and assembled, and provides a stable vertical method of travel that also allows the mounting of the lift at a predetermined distance away from the horizontal conveyors.
Regarding claim 9, Kaplita teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the lowering lift mechanism comprises configured to move the carts vertically between the rows (figs. 1A and 4A and [0107]).
However, Kaplita is silent about rollers, tracks, or rack and pinion gears.
Blair teaches rollers, tracks, or rack and pinion gears (430, figs. 12-15 and [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rollers, tracks, or rack and pinion gears as taught by Blair into the method of Kaplita in order to provide a commonly used lift system that is easily manufactured and assembled, and provides a stable vertical method of travel that also allows the mounting of the lift at a predetermined distance away from the horizontal conveyors.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita as applied to claim 6 and 12 above, and further in view of Millar (US 20180359975 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Kaplita teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the harvester frame comprises a tray (fig. 4A and [0113] depict the harvester frame to accept the carts 108, and so would be a tray), wherein the harvester frame is configured to remove crops from the carts as they reach the end of a moving path ([0113] as the crops are harvested once they are located at the harvester frame).
However, Kaplita is silent about tiling a forward end of the tray to dislodge crops growing in a cart that is positioned on the tray into a collection reservoir.
Millar teaches tiling a forward end of the tray (122b of fig. 3C-3D and [0032]) to dislodge crops growing in a cart (104) that is positioned on the tray into a collection reservoir (140 and fig. 3D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include tiling a forward end of the tray to dislodge crops growing in a cart that is positioned on the tray into a collection reservoir as taught by Millar into the system of Kaplita in order to quickly remove the crops from the cart ([0046] of Millar).
Regarding claim 20, Kaplita teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the harvester frame comprises a tray (fig. 4A and [0113] depict the harvester frame to accept the carts 108, and so would be a tray), wherein the harvester frame is configured to remove crops from the carts ([0113] as the crops are harvested once they are located at the harvester frame).
However, Kaplita is silent about tiling a forward end of the tray to dislodge crops growing in a cart that is positioned on the tray into a collection reservoir.
Millar teaches tiling a forward end of the tray (122b of fig. 3C-3D and [0032]) to dislodge crops growing in a cart (104) that is positioned on the tray into a collection reservoir (140 and fig. 3D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include tiling a forward end of the tray to dislodge crops growing in a cart that is positioned on the tray into a collection reservoir as taught by Millar into the system of Kaplita in order to quickly remove the crops from the cart ([0046] of Millar).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited art fails to disclose the unique modular growing system and method that acts to move and relocate carts between different subsets of rows based on specific growing requirements of the crops being held in the carts. "This alternating method only moves carts when necessary, to designated new rows of the modular grow tower assembly, based on specific growing requirement such as crop height, row, spacing, lighting elements, nutrient application systems, visual inspections, harvesting, and/or washing. This method optimizes the movement of carts by reducing the overall motion required and consequently minimizing wear on the carts and the need for an extensive motion system." See para. 0047.”
The examiner respectively disagrees. As stated above, Kaplita teaches wherein the unique modular growing system and method acts to move and relocate carts between different subsets of rows based on specific growing requirements of the crops being held in the carts as the as the at least one cart will move at different speeds and have different air circulation based on which row that carts are in ([0110-0114], [0116], [0120, 0122, 0126] and [0149-0150] of Kaplita). For instance, one row from the plurality of vertically stacked rows in 104a-e will operate at a different speed than the other row. Also, the subsets of the plurality of vertically stacked rows will have sensors 504 to modify the conditions of the plants if needed, including the relocation of the crops ([0149-0150] of Kaplita).
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claim 1 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643