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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-15 have been examined in this application. This communication is a final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 12/31/2025.
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 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein the exit side and entry side transport robot is a Cartesian robot". There limitation renders the claim indefinite because claims 13 and 14 recites an exit side transport robot and an entry side transport robot, not a single robot for both the exit side and entry side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3, 8, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Number 2019/0289794 by Matsumura.
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura discloses a vertical shelf arrangement for holding growing plants (cultivation racks 2), comprising a plurality of layers each holding a plurality of transplantation trays (nutrient-solution tubs 24, see Figure 2); wherein the plurality of layers employ a floating raft technique for holding the plurality of transplantation trays, wherein each of the plurality of layers contains a liquid such that when the plurality of transplantation trays are placed on the plurality of layers, the plurality of transplantation trays float on the plurality of layers, making it easy for moving the plurality of transplantation trays (paragraph 46 discloses “A plurality of cultivation panels (not shown) float on the solution in the nutrient solution tub 24”).
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Matsumura discloses the plurality of layers filled with the liquid act as a passive conveyor for the plurality of transplantation trays. Paragraph 46 discloses “A cultivation panel is loaded into a shelf 23 through its upstream end as determined along the direction of transportation of plants P, and is then transported on the nutrient solution before being retrieved at the downstream end as determined along the direction of transportation”.
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), Matsumura discloses the liquid is water or a hydroponic nutrient solution (nutrient solution in tub 24).
Regarding claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Matsumura discloses each of the plurality of layers are shaped in such a way to allow each of the plurality of layers to be filled with the liquid. Paragraph 46 discloses “Each shelf supports a nutrient-solution tub 24 that contains nutrient solution. A plurality of cultivation panels (not shown) float on the solution in the nutrient-solution tub 24”.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), Matsumura discloses a first set of shelves A for holding growing plants which have reached 10 days of the growing plants' lifecycle; a second set of shelves B for holding growing plants which have reached 20 days of the growing plants' lifecycle; a third set of shelves C for holding growing plants which have reached 25 days of the growing plants' lifecycle; a fourth set of shelves D for holding growing plants which have reached 30 days of the growing plants' lifecycle. Figure 2 shows four sets of shelves, and the use of the shelves for growing plants at different lifecycles is intended use that does not further limit the structure of the claims.
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 1), Matsumura discloses the vertical shelf arrangement is positioned in a grow room (cultivation room 1).
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2019/0289794 by Matsumura in view of US Patent Application Number 2015/0150202 by Hessel.
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Matsumura does not disclose each of the plurality of layers comprise a curvature or C shaped portion at an upper portion of each of the plurality of layers, to allow for the plurality of transplantation trays to be placed aptly on each of the plurality of layers. However, this limitation is taught by Hessel. Hessel discloses a hydroponic system with trays 12 that float inside water bed 14, and Figures 1B and 1C show water bed 14 having a C shaped portion facing upwards in order to hold the nutrient solution 16 and trays 12. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumura using the teachings from Hessel in order to use known types of vessels to hold nutrient solutions and floating plant trays.
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 4), Matsumura does not disclose a length of the curvature or C shaped portion is 15 cm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the tubs of whatever size is desired to support different types and sizes of plants, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2019/0289794 by Matsumura in view of US Patent Application Number 2020/0045900 by Ghirlanda
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Matsumura does not disclose each of the growing plants are positioned within holes of the plurality of transplantation 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 transplantation trays. However, this limitation is taught by Ghirlanda. Ghirlanda discloses a floating tray for hydroponic cultivation, and paragraph 24 discloses “The housing 2 has a hole 3 with dimensions such as to support the bulb or plant to be grown without allowing it to fall through, keeping it suspended so that the roots may protrude below the tray 100 and, while growing, may become immersed in the water on which the tray 100 is floating”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumura using the teachings from Ghirlanda in order to allow the roots to be immersed in the nutrient solution that the tray is floating on.
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 5), Matsumura discloses the liquid is water or a hydroponic nutrient solution (nutrient solution in tub 24).
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 5), Ghirlanda further teaches each of the growing plants are positioned within holes of the plurality of plantation trays. Paragraph 24 discloses “The housing 2 has a hole 3 with dimensions such as to support the bulb or plant to be grown without allowing it to fall through”.
Ghirlanda does not explicitly disclose minimum empty spaces between the growing plants for achieving optical efficiency and for adequate area utilization. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide optimal spacing for plant spacing for plant cultivation, 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 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2019/0289794 by Matsumura
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Matsumura does not disclose dimensions of each of the plurality of layers is 1030x70 cm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the nutrient-solution tubs of whatever size was desired to cultivate the amount of plants needed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2019/0289794 by Matsumura in view of US Patent Application Number 2023/0309477 by Urrutigoity.
Regarding claims 13 (dependent on claim 1), 14 (dependent on claim 1), Matsumura does not disclose an ex it side transport robot is used for moving the plurality of transplantation trays, from the vertical shelf arrangement in the grow room to a processing room for transplantation or an entry side transport robot facilitates placing of the plurality of transplantation trays coming from the processing room on the plurality of layers of the vertical shelf arrangement in the grow room. However, this limitation is taught by Urrutigoity. Urrutigoity discloses an automated vertical farm with a pick and place robot 103, and paragraph 86 discloses “The pick and place robot 103 moves plants from the nursery 101 and places them into the grow towers 102…For plants growing on the grow towers 102, the pick and place robot 103 retrieves the plants from the grow towers 102 and takes them to the produce processing and packing machine 104”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumura using the teachings from Urrutigoity in order to automate the plant transportation process.
Regarding claim 15 (dependent on claim 13), Urrutigoity discloses the exit side and entry side transportation robot is a Cartesian robot which moves along x, y and z-axes. Paragraph 87 discloses “The pick and place robot 103 may be a Cartesian robot that moves in three moving directions/axes of X, Y, and Z”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 5 stage robotic system, the C-shaped shelves reducing/eradicating algae production, the system being fully robotic with no human intervention) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 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 MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642