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 07/07/2026 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1, 8, 16-17 and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 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 comprise 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), wherein a movement transition of the at least one cart from one row to a next row ([0107] as the at least one cart will comprise of a movement transition as the lift frames 144 and 146 will move the at least one cart from one row to a next row) is dictated based on growing properties of the seeds or crops inside each 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 wherein each carrier path will have different heights, speeds and air circulation, wherein the crops will be transitioned to a different row with different heights based on the different stages of crops’ growth cycle, and so the movement transition of the at least one cart from one row to the next row is dictated based on growing properties of the seeds or crops inside each cart).
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 comprise 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 carts 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), wherein a movement transition of the carts from one row to a next row ([0107] as the carts will comprise of a movement transition as the lift frames 144 and 146 will move the carts from one row to a next row) is dictated based on growing properties of the seeds or crops inside each cart ([0110-0114], [0116], [0120, 0122, 0126] and [0149-0150], as the lift frames 144 and 146 will lift the carts 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 wherein each carrier path will have different heights, speeds and air circulation, wherein the crops will be transitioned to a different row with different heights based on the different stages of crops’ growth cycle, and so the movement transition of the carts from one row to the next row is dictated based on growing properties of the seeds or crops inside each cart); 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 at least one cart 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 at least one cart 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 tilting 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 tilting 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 tilting 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 tilting 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 tilting 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 tilting 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 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited art fails to disclose the claimed 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.” And
“Moreover, Kaplita's carriers traverse a fixed sequential serpentine path. Every conveyor "sequentially receive[s] and convey[s]" the carriers, see para. 0096, and every carrier passes through every path in order - 104a, then 104b, then 104c, 104d, 104e. See paras. 0110-0113. Kaplita itself calls the serpentine path, "the complete pattern an organism will traverse through its life cycle from germination to harvest." See para. 0109.
In contrast, claim 1 refers to which rows carts move to: a first subset of rows in one cycle, a different subset in the next cycle, selected by the controller from the crop's growing requirements. The specification describes exactly this at paragraphs 0046-0051- moving carts from row A to row C while a later cycle moves carts from row B to row D; alternating between rows A, C, E in one cycle and rows B, D, F in the next; batching groups of rows. The Office Action's reliance on Kaplita substitutes a different concept: rows that differ from each other in speed and airflow while every cart visits all of them in fixed order. Under that reading, any multi-level serpentine whose levels differ in any operating condition would "alternate between subsets," and the limitation would mean nothing. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that an anticipation rejection cannot rest on a construction that effectively reads the limitation out of the claim.”.
The examiner respectively disagrees. Kaplita teaches the amendment “wherein a movement transition of the at least one cart from one row to a next row is dictated based on growing properties of the seeds or crops inside each cart” as [0114] of Kaplita states that the crops will be transitioned to a different row that comprises of a different height based on the different stages of the crops’ growth cycle, and so the movement transition of the at least one cart from one row to the next row is dictated based on growing properties of the seeds or crops inside each cart.
Applicant further argues “claim 16 recites "wherein the translating mechanisms are positioned along a length of each row, each translating mechanism having a plurality of motorized apparatuses configured to push or pull the at least one cart in a longitudinal direction," whereas Kaplita is alleged to disclose a continuous conveyor that powers each carrier path. See OA at p. 6. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that a continuous conveyor carrying carriers on its surface is structurally distinct from discrete motorized apparatuses configured to engage and push or pull a cart, as recited in claim 16.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In [0096] of Kaplita, 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. Therefore, the conveyor will comprise of a plurality of motorized apparatuses in order for the conveyor to function properly and allow the at least one cart to be the pushed or pulled in a longitudinal direction.
Applicant further argues “For example, claim 17 requires a specific arrangement: the harvester frame comprises a tray; a cart is positioned on the tray; and the forward end of the tray tilts to dislodge the crops into a collection reservoir. In contrast, Millar discloses the opposite architecture. In Millar, Element 122b is not a harvester-frame tray - it is the cart's own upper plate. The cart 104 comprises a lower plate 122a, an upper plate 122b, and an on- cart actuator 160; the actuator extends so that "the upper plate 122b is tilted with respect to the lower plate 122a as shown in FIG. 3D ... to dump plant matter from the cart 104" (0032). Paragraph 0046 of Millar confirms the agent: "The master controller 106 may instruct an actuator to tilt the cart that carries plants to be harvested such that the plants are dumped out from the cart." Therefore, in Millar, the cart itself performs the dumping operation. Nothing in Millar receives a cart on a frame-mounted tray; no harvester frame exists; "forward end" appears nowhere in the text; and element 140 is a "collecting apparatus" described with Figs. 3A-3B, not a reservoir beneath a tilting tray. Accordingly, Millar fails to teach or suggest "wherein the harvester frame comprises a tray, wherein 14 the harvester frame is configured to remove crops from the at least one cart as they reach the end of a moving path by tilting a forward end of the tray to dislodge crops growing in a cart that is positioned on the tray into a collection reservoir," as recited in claim 17.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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
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
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights