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
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6 May 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 6 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that “Claims [1-15] and [16-20] share a special technical feature - the layered ring/cup structure (element 118) of the tray - which is the precise structural feature that makes the robotic transplantation process of Claim 16 possible. The process claim is not independently executable without the specific cup geometry of the product claim. Therefore, a single general inventive concept links both claim groups, satisfying PCT Rule 13.1.” -- there appears to be an error in the numbering of the claims, which should read “Claims [1-12] and [13-20]” to correctly reflect the instant application.
This is not found persuasive because the argument fails to address the a posteriori obligation outlined in the outstanding restriction requirement, found on page 4 of the Restriction Requirement 11/6/2025: “Groups I & II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of multiple trays, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Fig. 4 of US 5784984 A, which shows ‘preceding one of two successive seedling trays placed on a tray transportation apparatus,’ discussed in Col. 3, lines 7-12.”
In arguendo, Applicant notes specifically that “precise structural feature that makes the robotic transplantation process of Claim 16 possible” - however, the lack of unity analysis is performed on claims 1 v. 13 (the independent claims). It is unclear which element applicant believes to be specifically responsible for “transplanting the growing plants from densely packed trays to less densely packed trays in comparison with the densely packed tray is done using at least one robotic arm and at least two conveyor belts positioned in the processing room.” (claim 16), because there is not reliance or recitation of a specific pincer structure, for instance, which would bridge the gap in the purported relationship between the claimed invention and Applicant’s argument.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “m2” should be replaced with --m2--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “plant multiple transplantation process” (emphasis added), it is unclear what step(s) are responsible for multiple. Claims 1-12 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 1, rejected above.
RE Claim 1: the phrase “subsequent to which the plurality of trays are transported back to the processing room for another round of transplantation.” (last two lines of the claim) is not parallel with the other three positively claimed steps. It is unclear whether this is an intended use of the device, or positively required by the claim.
RE Claim 7: the phrase “growing plants which reach full growth or a 35-day lifetime” appears to be limiting the species of plant itself grown by the device; however, based on the instant specification, it is unclear which specie or species this is.
RE Claim 8: the phrase “with minimum empty spaces between the growing plants for achieving optical efficiency” is unclear since “optical efficiency” is not understood. In light of the instant specification, it is being equated with “adequate area utilization”, and it is unclear how these two phrases are different.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binney et al. (US 20220007589 A1) in view of Bateman et al. (US 20190133063 A1), “Binney” and “Bateman” respectively.
For Claim 1, Binney discloses a plant multiple transplantation process (the device of Binney, as outlined in detail below, is capable of transplanting multiple plants, over multiple time periods, thus meeting the claim preamble), the process comprising the steps of:
transporting a plurality of trays (modules) holding growing plants from a grow room (“grow area”) to a processing room (using the casters noted in ¶0058, the modules are moved from their place on the map shown in Fig. 2 to the area immediately surrounding the robotic manipulator, or “transfer station” as discussed in ¶0025);
transplanting the growing plants from densely packed trays transported from the grow room to less densely packed trays in comparison with the densely packed tray in the processing room (note the discussion of trays with differing densities, discussed in ¶0026; discussion of automatic movers moving modules around the facility, ¶0029; and grow schedules developed for each plant, ¶¶0022-27); and
transporting the transplanted plants back to the grow room in the less densely packed trays to continue growing until the transplanted plants outgrow the less densely packed trays (according to the plant’s grow schedule, measured by the interaction of automated movers placing the module(s) through a imaging station collecting information and sending it to the computer system, ¶¶0014-16), subsequent to which the plurality of trays are transported back to the processing room for another round of transplantation (note that the discussion of transferring plants from module to module, ¶0011-12, involves the movement of the plant(s) between different density modules as defined in ¶0026-27).
Binney is silent to the plurality of trays being stacked on multiple layers of vertical shelves located in the grow room.
Bateman, like prior art above, teaches an automated plant care system (title, disclosure), further comprising a plurality of trays (trays 7) being stacked on multiple layers of vertical shelves (carriage 3, ¶0109-110) located in a grow room (growing room 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify one or more of the modules of Binney with a vertically stacked carriage as taught by Bateman, in order to further efficiently utilize the vertical direction, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 2, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 1, and Binney further teaches wherein transplanting the growing plants from the densely packed trays arriving from the grow room comprises: emptying the densely packed trays (from the first module) and moving the growing plants to the less densely packed trays (to the receiving module: 0026-27); and disinfecting the emptied trays prior to reloading with new seedlings or plants (see the discussion of the computer system scheduling the mover to move module(s) to the cleaning station, ¶0102 & 151, at least one of these cleanings would be between the planting steps).
For Claim 3, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 2, and Binney further teaches wherein disinfecting the emptied trays comprises cleaning and disinfecting the emptied trays, which is performed at a disinfection area in the processing room (the cleaning station is configured to be placed within the transfer station).
However, if Applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the cleaning station to be within the transfer station of Binney from an efficiency standpoint, in order to require less movement of potential contaminated material through the entire facility, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 4, Binney as modified above teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 3, and Binney further teaches further comprising transporting the cleaned emptied trays to a nursery area (nursery module, ¶0026); and loading the cleaned emptied trays with new seedlings (“seeding modules” ¶0026).
For Claim 5, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 1, and Bateman further teaches wherein an entry side transport robot (one of unloading mechanism 51, ¶0118) facilitates placing of the plurality of trays coming from a room (within the loading spur 15) on the plurality of vertical shelves in the grow room (the carriages then move into the growing room), and an exit side transport robot (another unloading mechanism 51) facilitates picking up of the plurality of trays from the plurality of vertical shelves in the grow room to the processing room for transplantation (located on the spur 15, the trays could be transferred in either direction, see the discussion in ¶0058 & 117-124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the system and process of Binney in view of Bateman with the cooperating loading/unloading support as further taught by Bateman, in order to automate the input and removal of each tray on the above-modified vertically displaced shelves, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 6, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 5, and the resulting device further teaches wherein the entry side and exit side transport robots are Cartesian robots which move along x and y-axes (¶¶0120-121: lifting occurs in the y axis, and “moved out of the engagement position” occurs in the x axis).
For Claim 7, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 1, and Binney further teaches wherein growing plants which reach full growth (as discussed in relation to harvest, finishing stage, and/or final outcome, in at least ¶¶0026,140,144,146) or1 a 35-day lifetime are transported to a packaging center to be packed and sent to market ¶0031, or2 to be further grown outdoors in a crop field or open space, instead of being transported back to the grow room.
For Claim 8, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 1, and Binney further teaches wherein the growing plants are positioned within holes of the plurality of trays (“array of plant slots,” ¶0026), with minimum empty spaces between the growing plants for achieving optical efficiency and for adequate area utilization (note the discussion of space efficiency in the last line of ¶0026).
For Claim 9, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 8, and Binney further teaches wherein each of the growing plants are positioned within holes of the plurality of trays such that roots of the growing plants are constantly in direct contact with a film of liquid present at a bottom of the plurality of trays ¶0035.
For Claim 10, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 9, and Binney further teaches wherein the liquid is water or a nutrient solution (“water,” ¶0035).
For Claim 11, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 8, and Binney further teaches wherein the plurality of trays comprise 16 holes per m2, 32 holes per m2, 64 holes per m2, 128 holes per m2 or 256 holes per m2 (¶0026 discloses a density of 640 and 40 slots in 4’ x 12’, this equates to about 76 and 9 slots per m2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to change 9 slots to 16 slots or 76 slots to 64 slots, in order to provide a better spacing for particular species of plants, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binney in view of Bateman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bouldin et al. (US 5911631 A, “Bouldin”).
For Claim 12, Binney in view of Bateman teaches the plant multiple transplantation process of claim 1, and Binney further teaches wherein transplanting the growing plants from densely packed trays to less densely packed trays in comparison with the densely packed tray is done using at least one robotic arm (“robotic manipulator”) and at least two conveyors (“modules” with casters, ¶0058 accompanied by the automated or autonomous movers, ¶0028) positioned in the processing room (see step S140, Fig. 1).
Binney in view of Bateman is silent to the conveyors being conveyor belts.
Bouldin, like prior art above, teaches a transplantation device and method (title, disclosure) further comprising at least one robotic arm (gripper assembly 14) and at least two conveyor belts (18, 22, 48, as discussed in Col. 8, lines 10-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the transplantation station of Binney in view of Bateman with two conveyors as taught by Bouldin, in order to utilize a well-known method of supplying plants for transplantation, yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 20020088173 A1, US 20180235156 A1, US 20200012852 A1, and WO 2021159182 A1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
2 Interpretation note: again, only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
Prosecution Insights