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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 10 June 2026, amendments and/or arguments have been submitted and placed in the application file. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 5 of 15, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the objection of claim 13 for informalities, in light of Applicant’s amendment, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objection of claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-15 over Alexander et al (US 2022/0007590 A1, hereinafter Alexander) in view of Huang et al (CN 110393107 A, hereinafter Huang) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant provides 7 individual arguments, listed A.-G. below:
The publication of Huang et al. is Non-Analogous Art
Combining Huang with Alexander Would Destroy Alexander’s Core Architecture
The Examiner’s Stated Motivation to Combine is Legally Insufficient
The Finger/Extension End Effector is Structurally and Functionally Distinct from Huang’s Jaw Grippers
The 2n Tray Density System Synchronized to Plant Growth is Independently Non-Obvious
Unexpected Results: Root-Non-Disturbance Enabling Five Transplants Contradicts Established Agricultural Assumption
Tray-Floor Isolation Solves a Contamination Problem the Prior Art Does Not Recognize
These arguments have been addressed individually below.
Response to Argument A:
Applicant argues wherein the secondary prior art reference of Huang is “Non-Analogous Art”. Specifically, Applicant argues wherein,
Huang is neither in the same field of endeavor as the present invention (vertical farming automation with continuous-flow transplantation) nor reasonably pertinent to the problems the present inventor sought to solve (growth space optimization through density-matched tray progression, root-contact-free multiple transplanting, and tray contamination prevention through continuous-flow handling).
In response to Applicant’s Argument that Huang is nonanalogous art, it has been held that the determination that a reference is from a nonanalogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it’s not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 171, 174. In this case, Huang is in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention, particularly “An automated system for multiple plant transplantation” which further utilizes robotics as part of the automated system, as reflected by the currently provided claim language (see preamble(s) of respective independent claims). Examiner notes wherein Applicant suggests wherein the field of endeavor of the present invention is “vertical farming automation with continuous-flow transplantation”, however, Examiner notes wherein there is nothing in the currently provided claim language to suggest wherein the invention is directed towards “vertical farming” and/or “continuous flow transplantation” in any aspect, and therefore given the broadest reasonable interpretation of said currently provided claim language, Huang is directed towards the same field of endeavor of “an automated system for multiple plant transplantation” and therefore is analogous to the instant invention. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Response to Argument B:
Applicant argues wherein “Even if Huang were considered analogous art (which it is not), the proposed combination would destroy the operative purpose of the primary reference, Alexander” and further wherein “A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would not make this modification because doing so defeats the core value proposition of the primary reference.” Examiner notes wherein Alexander teaches in at least paragraph 0002, wherein the “operative purpose” of the invention is “for automating transfer of plants within an agricultural facility in the field of agricultural implements.” Therefore, it is evident wherein both the Alexander and Huang references are both directed towards automated systems for transferring plants (as is the instant invention, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language), and therefore both prior art references are analogous art to the instant invention. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to substitute the end effector means of Alexander with the end effector means of Huang that includes plural plant handling robotic elements, since Huang explicitly teaches wherein such an end effector means “is good for reducing the labour cost and improve the transplanting efficiency” (See “Summary of Invention”, paragraphs 1-3). In addition to the explicit teachings of Huang, the KSR rationale (B), “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (See MPEP § 2143) further supports a conclusion on obviousness in this instance, as Huang’s end effector with the capability to transfer multiple plants at once would implicitly “improve the transplanting efficiency” by handling/transferring more than one plant, and therefore a POSITA would have therefore been motivated to make the proposed combination. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Response to Argument C:
Applicant argues wherein “The Examiner’s State Motivation to Combine is Legally Insufficient”. Specifically, Applicant argues wherein,
The Examiner’s motivation to combine is conclusory and factually unsupported. It should not be permitted to stand without specific evidence that the combination would have been obvious to a POSITA in the context of vertical farming automation.
Examiner again notes wherein given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, there is nothing explicitly and/or implicitly provided within said currently provided claim language that ties the invention to the specific context of “vertical farming automation”. Additionally, as noted above in the “Response to Argument B”, Examiner maintains wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to substitute the end effector means of Alexander with the end effector means of Huang that includes plural plant handling robotic elements, since Huang explicitly teaches wherein such an end effector means “is good for reducing the labour cost and improve the transplanting efficiency” (See “Summary of Invention”, paragraphs 1-3). Therefore, as is evident from the explicit teachings of Huang, the specific modification to achieve this specific result is factually supported, and not a mere conclusory statement. In addition to the explicit teachings (i.e. factual support) of Huang, the KSR rationale (B), “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (See MPEP § 2143) further supports a conclusion on obviousness in this instance, as Huang’s end effector with the capability to transfer multiple plants at once would implicitly “improve the transplanting efficiency” by handling/transferring more than one plant, and therefore a POSITA would have been motivated to make the proposed combination, which further supports the Examiner’s motivation to combine the prior art references of Alexander and Huang, thereby making said combination legally sufficient. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Response to Argument D:
Applicant argues wherein “The Finger/Extension End Effector is Structurally and Functionally Distinct from Huang’s Jaw Grippers”. Specifically, Applicant argues wherein, “It is respectfully submitted that element 105 of Huang does not correspond to the plurality of extensions or fingers, as claimed” and further wherein Huang’s jaw elements (105) are not “equivalent mechanisms”, as provided in dependent claim 5. Applicant’s claim 5 states:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first robotic apparatus comprises a plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of the said robotic apparatus to facilitate picking up and placing the plants from the first set of trays arriving from the grow room to the second set of trays for transplantation of the said plants.
Examiner notes wherein the above underlined/italicized portion of the claim appears to be an intended use of the claimed “plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of the said robotic apparatus”, and as such, “It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2, USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Accordingly, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, specifically “wherein the first robotic apparatus comprises a plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of the said robotic apparatus…” Huang does in fact teach the broadly claimed “plurality of extensions or fingers” at least as in the previously referenced sections of Huang (at least as in pages 5-6, “Specific Implementation methods” section, paragraphs 3 & 4, beginning with “In the present embodiment, the load distributing device…” and “the jaw device 105…” paragraphs respectively, and further as shown in reproduced Figure 4 below, which shows the robotic manipulator with a plurality of plant handling elements (105) provided).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, in response to Applicant’s argument that Huang does not include certain features of Applicant’s invention, the limitations on which Applicant relies (i.e. Applicant’s specification paragraphs 0021, 0049, 0050 and 0065) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is the claims, not specifications (emphasis added) that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant vs. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. Accordingly, since Applicant has broadly claimed wherein the robotic apparatus comprises a plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of said robotic apparatus, without any of the specific structural elements and/or any functionality positively recited in the currently provided claim limitation(s), as argued by the Applicant, Huang clearly anticipates (i.e. teaches) at least the broadly claimed “plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of said robotic apparatus”. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Response to Argument E:
Applicant argues wherein “The present invention’s 2n tray density architecture represents an independent non-obvious contribution that is not found anywhere in the prior art” and further argues wherein “Alexander nor Huang, individually or in combination, teaches, suggests or would render obvious…” the 2n tray density architecture (specifically the 4 bullet points provided on page 10 of 15 of Applicant’s Remarks). Examiner again notes wherein Applicant’s arguments, specifically regarding the “2n tray density architecture”, are not positively recited in the currently provided claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 2n tray density architecture, wherein said 2n tray density architecture includes “A tray system in which each successive tray generation has exactly one-half the plant density of the previous generation…”, “A mathematical synchronization…”, “A robot finger count and tray hole geometry…”, and “A shelf allocation architecture…” are not provided in any of the currently provided claim limitations. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is the claims, not specifications (emphasis added) that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant vs. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Additionally, Applicant’s claim merely recites “picking up and placing 2n plants at a time” (as provided in independent claims 1 and 10, respectively, and as similarly provided in dependent claim 14). Examiner notes wherein “claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation.” In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, the “picking up and placing 2n plants at a time” may reasonably be construed as picking and placing any one or more of 20 (1 plant), 21(2 plants), 22 (4 plants), 23 (8 plants), 2n, etc., at a time. Accordingly, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of said currently provided claim language, Alexander as modified by Huang anticipates the currently provided claim limitation(s), as previously set forth in the referenced sections of the prior art rejection(s) of independent claim 1, independent claim 10 and dependent claim 14., (specifically, with regarding the Huang reference, at least as in pages 5-6, “Specific Implementation methods” section, paragraphs 3 & 4, beginning with “In the present embodiment, the load distributing device…” and “the jaw device 105…” paragraphs respectively, and further as shown in reproduced Figure 4 below, which shows the robotic manipulator with a plurality of plant handling elements (105) provided).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, since Applicant has failed to positively recite and/or provide any of the specific elements argued, regarding the 2n tray density system/architecture, with any of the currently provided claim limitations, and further given the broadest reasonable interpretation of said currently provided claim limitations, as detailed above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Response to Argument F:
Applicant argues wherein, “The unexpected result of five-transplant root-undisturbed growth lifecycle management is unique to the present invention and constitutes compelling objective evidence of non-obviousness”, and further wherein, “Neither Alexander nor Huang – individually or in combination – achieves, teaches, or suggests this unexpected result.” In response to Applicant’s argument that the instant invention provides the unexpected result of five-transplant root-undisturbed growth lifecycle management, it is well settled that a patent cannot be granted for an Applicant’s discovery of a result, even though it may be unexpectedly good, which would flow logically from the teaching of the prior art. In re Rau, 117USPQ215 (CCPA 1958).
Additionally, Applicant once again appears to rely on their own disclosure (i.e. specification), with particular reference to paragraphs 0021, 0049-0050 and 0065 for teaching the cup-holder lifting mechanism and paragraphs 0041-0045 for teaching the lifecycle transplantation schedule with multiple transplantation stages, for teaching this unexpected result, without positively reciting and/or providing sufficient support within the currently provided claim language for the teaching/support of the unexpected result. Examiner additionally notes wherein the currently provided claim limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, fails to positively recite the corresponding root handling mechanism inasmuch detail and as further relied upon in Applicant’s disclosure/arguments. Examiner further notes wherein the currently provided claim limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, only appear to provide a single-transplant operation/instance, which is clearly anticipated/taught by the prior art combination of Alexander and Huang, as previously detailed in the referenced sections of the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of the claims. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Response to Argument G:
Applicant argues wherein, “A further non-obvious contribution of the present invention is its continuous-flow tray handling architecture, in which trays cycle directly between the grow room and the processing room without floor contact, floor storage, or interim handling between transplanting cycles” and further wherein, “This is a non-obvious solution under KSR because neither cited reference recognizes tray-floor contamination as a problem to be solved. Alexander does not discuss tray storage between cycles. Huang is a fixed-station machine that does not involve a multi-tray continuous-flow architecture at all.” Examiner notes wherein Applicant’s arguments, specifically regarding the particulars of the “continuous-flow tray handling architecture” are not provided in the currently provided claim limitations inasmuch detail so as to provide the support for Applicant’s contention of the contribution of solving the problem of “tray-floor contamination”. Specifically, based on the currently provided claim limitations, Applicant fails to set forth the corresponding “continuous-flow tray handling architecture” such that “trays cycle directly between the grow room and the processing room without floor contact, floor storage, or interim handling between transplanting cycles.” Examiner additionally notes wherein although certain elements of Applicant’s “continuous-flow tray handling architecture” are provided in one or more of the currently provided claim limitations, the “continuous-flow tray handling architecture” as argued by the Applicant, is not provided in said claim limitations in such a way (i.e. inasmuch detail) so as to support Applicant’s contention of the argued “non-obvious contribution” provided herein.
Conclusion Regarding Arguments:
In summary, Applicant’s arguments A.-G. are found unpersuasive for at least the reasons provided above. Examiner has established that the prior art is analogous art, that there is legally sufficient reasoning for combining said prior art references, and further wherein based on the currently provided claim language, the combination of prior art anticipates said currently provided claim limitations. Examiner notes wherein the majority of Applicant’s arguments are not positively recited/reflected in the currently provided claim limitations. Examiner additionally notes wherein “It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is the claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant vs. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. (emphasis added). Examiner notes wherein the below rejection has been augmented to better clarify the prior art rejections in view of Applicant’s arguments provided herein. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and remain rejected as indicated below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al (US 2022/0007590 A1, hereinafter Alexander) in view of Huang et al (CN 110393107 A, hereinafter Huang; Examiner notes wherein an attached translation is provided with the referenced prior art, and further wherein referenced sections of the translation have been provided in the below rejection for the supporting teachings of Huang).
Regarding claim 1, Alexander teaches an automated system (Figures 1 & 4, system 100) for multiple plant transplantation, comprising:
a first robotic apparatus (Figures 1 & 4, robotic plant manipulator 150) for from a grow room to a second set of trays for transplantation of the said plants (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0010 and 0018-0020, specifically as in at least paragraph 0019, wherein “The system 100 can further include a robotic plant manipulator 150 arranged at the transfer station 140, including an optical sensor 152 proximal the end effector 154, and configured to…sequentially transfer a first subset of plants from the first module 110 to the second array of plant slots 121 in the second module 120, the first subset of plants including the first plants; and sequentially transfer a second subset of plants from the first module 110 to the third array of plant slots 123 in the third module 122 in response to filling the second set of plants slots in the second module 120, the second subset of plants succeeding the first subset of plants in the first module 110”); and
a second robotic apparatus (Figures 1 & 4, vehicle 130) for placing the second set of trays comprising transplanted plants coming from a processing room in the grow room, and for picking up of the second set of trays from the grow room to the processing room for further transplantation, once the transplanted plants outgrow the second set of trays (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0018-0020, 0027 and 0032-0033, specifically as in at least paragraph 0019, wherein “The system 100 can also include a vehicle 130 configured to: autonomously navigate throughout the agricultural facility 102, autonomously deliver the first module 110 from the first grow location to the transfer station 140, autonomously deliver the second module 120 to adjacent the first module 110 at the transfer station 140, and autonomously deliver the third module 122 to adjacent the first module 110 in replacement of the second module 120 at the transfer station 140”, and further as in paragraph 0027, wherein “The vehicle 130 can thus detect these optical fiducials 114 to align itself to the latch, engage the latch accordingly, and then pull or push the module between its assigned location on the facility 102 floor and a module docking location adjacent a transfer station 140”). That said, Alexander is silent specifically regarding wherein the first robotic apparatus “simultaneously” picks up and places “2n plants at a time” as part of the transplantation between the first set of trays and second set of trays. Huang in the same field of endeavor of utilizing robotic systems and methods for transplanting plants, teaches a robotic manipulator that includes a camera for identifying one or more plants and further wherein said robotic manipulator is further configured to transplant said one or more plants between two respective locations. Huang goes on to teach wherein the robotic manipulator may be configured to pick up two or more plants at a time for transferring said plants from a first location to a second location (Figures 3 & 4; at least as in page 2, “summary of the invention” section, paragraph 3, beginning with “Further, the dividing device comprises a robot main body, a driving mechanism, a module fixing plate and a fixing base…” and further as in pages 5-6, “Specific Implementation methods” section, paragraphs 3 & 4, beginning with “In the present embodiment, the load distributing device…” and “the jaw device 105…” paragraphs respectively, and further as shown in reproduced Figure 4 below, which shows the robotic manipulator with a plurality of plant handling elements (105) provided).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the robotic plant manipulator of Alexander to include Huang’s plural plant handling robotic elements with said robotic manipulator, since Huang teaches wherein such an arrangement is good for reducing labor costs as well as improving the transplanting efficiency, thereby providing a more dynamic and efficient plant transplantation system/method. Additionally, Examiner notes wherein, in addition to the explicit teachings of Huang (See “Summary of Invention”, paragraphs 1-3), the KSR rationale (B), “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (See MPEP § 2143) further supports a conclusion on obviousness in this instance, as Huang’s end effector with the capability to transfer multiple plants at once would implicitly “improve the transplanting efficiency” by handling/transferring more than one plant, and therefore one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated to make the proposed modification under this KSR rationale, to obtain the predictable result(s) of transplanting efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches wherein the first robotic apparatus is an articulated robotic arm and is operatively positioned in the processing room (Figures 1 & 4; at least as in paragraphs 0018-0020 and 0032-0033, at least as shown in the referenced Figures).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches wherein the second robotic apparatus comprises an entry side and exit side transport robot and is operatively positioned in the grow room (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0018-0020, 0027 and 0032-0033, specifically as in at least paragraph 0019, wherein “The system 100 can also include a vehicle 130 configured to: autonomously navigate throughout the agricultural facility 102, autonomously deliver the first module 110 from the first grow location to the transfer station 140, autonomously deliver the second module 120 to adjacent the first module 110 at the transfer station 140, and autonomously deliver the third module 122 to adjacent the first module 110 in replacement of the second module 120 at the transfer station 140”).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches wherein the first set of trays are densely packed trays and the second set of trays are less densely packed trays in comparison to the densely packed trays (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0010-0012, 0018-0020 and 0034, specifically at least wherein “plants are autonomously inspected and transferred from a first module no (e.g., a nursery-type module) containing a higher density of plants slots to a second module 120 (e.g., a finishing module) containing a lower density of plants slots”).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Huang further teaches wherein the first robotic apparatus comprises a plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of the said robotic apparatus to facilitate picking up and placing the plants from the first set of trays arriving from the grow room to the second set of trays for transplantation of the said plants (Figures 3 & 4; at least as in page 2, “summary of the invention” section, paragraph 3, beginning with “Further, the dividing device comprises a robot main body, a driving mechanism, a module fixing plate and a fixing base…” and further as in pages 5-6, “Specific Implementation methods” section, paragraphs 3 & 4, beginning with “In the present embodiment, the load distributing device…” and “the jaw device 105…” paragraphs respectively, and specifically as shown in Figure 4, as provided in claim 1 above, which shows the robotic manipulator with a plurality of plant handling elements (105) provided). Examiner notes wherein the “to facilitate picking up and placing the plants…” part of the limitation appears to be an intended use of the claimed “plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of the said robotic apparatus”, and as such, “It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2, USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Accordingly, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, specifically “wherein the first robotic apparatus comprises a plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of the said robotic apparatus…” Huang does in fact teach the broadly claimed “plurality of extensions or fingers” at least as in the referenced sections of Huang above.
Regarding claim 6, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches wherein the entry side transport robot facilitates placing of trays coming from the processing room in the grow room, and the exit side transport robot facilitates picking up of trays from the grow room to the processing room for transplantation (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0018-0020, 0027 and 0032-0033, specifically as in at least paragraph 0019, wherein “The system 100 can also include a vehicle 130 configured to: autonomously navigate throughout the agricultural facility 102, autonomously deliver the first module 110 from the first grow location to the transfer station 140, autonomously deliver the second module 120 to adjacent the first module 110 at the transfer station 140, and autonomously deliver the third module 122 to adjacent the first module 110 in replacement of the second module 120 at the transfer station 140”, and further as in paragraph 0027, wherein “The vehicle 130 can thus detect these optical fiducials 114 to align itself to the latch, engage the latch accordingly, and then pull or push the module between its assigned location on the facility 102 floor and a module docking location adjacent a transfer station 140”).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches wherein the entry side and exit side transport robots move along x and y-axes (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0018-0020, 0027 and 0032-0033, wherein the vehicle 130 includes the ability to move in x, y & z axes, including traveling throughout the agricultural facility while also having the ability to adjust its height).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches wherein the first robotic apparatus is positioned in between conveyor belts, which perform continuous transportation of trays and wherein the first robotic apparatus performs transplantation of the plants (Figures 1, 5 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0024, 0127-0130, 0156 and 0160-0166).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches wherein the articulated robotic arm further comprises machine vision capability and a plurality of sensors (Figures 1 & 4; at least as in paragraphs 0018, 0022, 0034-0036, 0039 and 0046-0048).
Regarding claim 10, Alexander teaches a process for multiple plant transplantation, the process comprising:
(Figures 1 & 4, robotic plant manipulator 150) for transplantation of the said plants (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0010 and 0018-0020, specifically as in at least paragraph 0019, wherein “The system 100 can further include a robotic plant manipulator 150 arranged at the transfer station 140, including an optical sensor 152 proximal the end effector 154, and configured to…sequentially transfer a first subset of plants from the first module 110 to the second array of plant slots 121 in the second module 120, the first subset of plants including the first plants; and sequentially transfer a second subset of plants from the first module 110 to the third array of plant slots 123 in the third module 122 in response to filling the second set of plants slots in the second module 120, the second subset of plants succeeding the first subset of plants in the first module 110”); and
placing the second set of trays comprising transplanted plants coming from a processing room in the grow room and picking up of the second set of trays from the grow room to the processing room using a second robotic apparatus (Figures 1 & 4, vehicle 130) for further transplantation, once the transplanted plants outgrow the second set of trays (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0018-0020, 0027 and 0032-0033, specifically as in at least paragraph 0019, wherein “The system 100 can also include a vehicle 130 configured to: autonomously navigate throughout the agricultural facility 102, autonomously deliver the first module 110 from the first grow location to the transfer station 140, autonomously deliver the second module 120 to adjacent the first module 110 at the transfer station 140, and autonomously deliver the third module 122 to adjacent the first module 110 in replacement of the second module 120 at the transfer station 140”, and further as in paragraph 0027, wherein “The vehicle 130 can thus detect these optical fiducials 114 to align itself to the latch, engage the latch accordingly, and then pull or push the module between its assigned location on the facility 102 floor and a module docking location adjacent a transfer station 140”). That said, Alexander is silent specifically regarding wherein the first robotic apparatus “simultaneously” picks up and places “2n plants at a time” as part of the transplantation between the first set of trays and second set of trays. Huang in the same field of endeavor of utilizing robotic systems and methods for transplanting plants, teaches a robotic manipulator that includes a camera for identifying one or more plants and further wherein said robotic manipulator is further configured to transplant said one or more plants between two respective locations. Huang goes on to teach wherein the robotic manipulator may be configured to pick up two or more plants at a time for transferring said plants from a first location to a second location (Figures 3 & 4; at least as in page 2, “summary of the invention” section, paragraph 3, beginning with “Further, the dividing device comprises a robot main body, a driving mechanism, a module fixing plate and a fixing base…” and further as in pages 5-6, “Specific Implementation methods” section, paragraphs 3 & 4, beginning with “In the present embodiment, the load distributing device…” and “the jaw device 105…” paragraphs respectively, and further as shown in reproduced Figure 4 below, which shows the robotic manipulator with a plurality of plant handling elements (105) provided).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the robotic plant manipulator of Alexander to include Huang’s plural plant handling robotic elements with said robotic manipulator, since Huang teaches wherein such an arrangement is good for reducing labor costs as well as improving the transplanting efficiency, thereby providing a more dynamic and efficient plant transplantation system/method. Additionally, Examiner notes wherein, in addition to the explicit teachings of Huang (See “Summary of Invention”, paragraphs 1-3), the KSR rationale (B), “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (See MPEP § 2143) further supports a conclusion on obviousness in this instance, as Huang’s end effector with the capability to transfer multiple plants at once would implicitly “improve the transplanting efficiency” by handling/transferring more than one plant, and therefore one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated to make the proposed modification under this KSR rationale, to obtain the predictable result(s) of transplanting efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches the process further comprising continuing the transplantation process until the growing plants reach their lifetime growth capacity and are grown plants, subsequent to which packaging and marketing of the grown plants is done (Figures 1-4; at least as in paragraphs 0017, 0024 and 0050-0056, at least wherein the visual growth targets and/or plant size(s) is/are analyzed prior to transplantation between respective modules).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Huang further teaches wherein the articulated robotic arm comprises a plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of the said robotic apparatus to facilitate picking up and placing the plants from the first tray arriving from the grow room to the second tray for transplantation of the said plants (Figures 3 & 4; at least as in page 2, “summary of the invention” section, paragraph 3, beginning with “Further, the dividing device comprises a robot main body, a driving mechanism, a module fixing plate and a fixing base…” and further as in pages 5-6, “Specific Implementation methods” section, paragraphs 3 & 4, beginning with “In the present embodiment, the load distributing device…” and “the jaw device 105…” paragraphs respectively, and specifically as shown in Figure 4, as provided in claim 10 above, which shows the robotic manipulator with a plurality of plant handling elements (105) provided). Examiner notes wherein the “to facilitate picking up and placing the plants…” part of the limitation appears to be an intended use of the claimed “plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of the said robotic apparatus”, and as such, “It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2, USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Accordingly, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, specifically “wherein the first robotic apparatus comprises a plurality of extensions or fingers at the end of the said robotic apparatus…” Huang does in fact teach the broadly claimed “plurality of extensions or fingers” at least as in the referenced sections of Huang above.
Regarding claim 13, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches wherein the plurality of extensions or fingers slide under structures holding the growing plants within the number of holes of the plurality of trays and lift up the growing plants without touching roots of the growing plants (Figures 1 & 4; at least as in paragraphs 0034-0036, 0091-0092 and 0160-0166, specifically at least wherein the robotic manipulator(s) is/are configured to engage with the respective plant cup(s)).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Huang further teaches wherein the plurality of extensions or fingers enable simultaneous lifting and placing of 2n growing plants at a time, thereby enhancing efficiency of the transplantation process (Figures 3 & 4; at least as in page 2, “summary of the invention” section, paragraph 3, beginning with “Further, the dividing device comprises a robot main body, a driving mechanism, a module fixing plate and a fixing base…” and further as in pages 5-6, “Specific Implementation methods” section, paragraphs 3 & 4, beginning with “In the present embodiment, the load distributing device…” and “the jaw device 105…” paragraphs respectively, and specifically as shown in Figure 4, as provided in claim 1 above, which shows the robotic manipulator with a plurality of plant handling elements (105) provided).
Regarding claim 15, in view of the above combination of Alexander and Huang, Alexander further teaches wherein the articulated robotic arm further comprises machine vision capability and a plurality of sensors (Figures 1 & 4; at least as in paragraphs 0018, 0022, 0034-0036, 0039 and 0046-0048).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention and also reads on many of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 2016/0144408 A1, issued to Struijk et al, which is directed towards an automated apparatus and method for sorting plant material units.
US 2016/0057942 A1, issued to Ohshimo et al, which is directed towards a plant management system and corresponding method for inspecting plants in a container (i.e. tray, module, etc.) and based on said inspection transplanting said plants to another container with more space (i.e. density).
US 2019/0307077 A1, issued to Lert, JR. et al, which is directed towards an automated vertical farming system that utilizes mobile robots for transporting containers and/or plants between respective locations.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights