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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2 in the reply filed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the two groups dealing with separate technologies allegedly require each other to work in synchronization and thus need to be examined together. This is not found persuasive because the groups do not rely on the same special technical features to function, as such the claims have entirely separate scope and utility.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/28/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description, paragraph 57-59: Step A-F. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a “FIG. 12” is referred to in paragraphs 38 & 64 and does not exist, FIG. 12A-B appears to be what is described.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “each of the plurality of holes are spaced apart at a distance of 250 mm” which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure thus rendering the claim indefinite.
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 17-20 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the transplantation tray" in lines 1-2. There are two transplantation trays recited within claim 16, it is not made clear which tray or if both are being recited within the claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the transplantation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites term “densely packed” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “dense” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the packing of the first transplantation tray and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the densely packed" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be a typographical error and the limitation will be interpreted as the densely packed tray.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "each of the plurality of holes" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the transplantation tray" in lines 1-2. There are two transplantation trays recited within claim 16, it is not made clear which tray or if both are being recited within the claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
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)(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 16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alexander et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0007590 A1; herein Alex.
Re claim 16, Alex discloses a process of transplantation using a transplantation tray holding growing plants, the process comprising:
sliding (para 30, wherein the jaw is slotted/slid into the jaw via the robotic plant manipulator) a plurality of extensions or fingers (fig. 1 & 4 and para 30, the jaws of the end effector) of a robotic apparatus (150; the robotic plant manipulator, fig. 1 & 4) under at least one ring structure (fig. 1 and para 30, the shoulder of each plant cup; 112) of a plurality of cups (112; the plant cups, fig. 1); and facilitating picking up and placing the growing plants (para 19 & 30, wherein the robotic plant manipular is transferring the plant cups from the first module to the second with the actuated jaw) from a first transplantation tray (110; the first module, fig. 1 & 4) to a second transplantation tray (120; the second module, fig. 1 & 4).
Re claim 18, as best understood, Alex discloses the invention of claim 16, Alex further discloses wherein the first transplantation tray is packed at a first density and the second transplantation tray is a less densely packed tray in comparison with the first density (para 19 & 30, wherein the first module has a plant array with first density and the second module has a plant array with a second density wherein the array with the second density is less than the first density, best seen in fig. 4).
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.
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 17 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex as applied to claim 16 above.
Re claim 17, as best understood, Alex discloses the invention of claim 16, Alex further discloses comprising moving the first transplantation tray subsequent to the transferring of the plant cups, to be cleaned prior to being reloaded with new seedlings (para 121, the first module is autonomously brought to the cleaning stations for cleaning to prepare for the new plants/sprouts). Alex further discloses another embodiment of a cleaning station that acts to clean and disinfect prior to being reloaded with new seedlings (para 131, the raft embodiment cleans and sanitizes the first module).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the tray being specifically disinfected however, Alex discloses that such a step in another embodiment. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of the sanitization step as taught by the additional embodiment to the cleaning station/process of the prior art to yield the predictable result of removing an potential contaminants on the tray. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 19, as best understood, Alex discloses the invention of claim 16, Alex further discloses a plurality of holes in each tray (111 & 121; the first and second array of plants, fig. 1 & 4) spaced apart at a distance from each other (fig. 1 & 4), and each of the plurality of holes has a diameter (fig. 1 & 4 and para 30, matching the exterior diameter of the plant cup for placement therein).
Alex discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of holes are spaced apart at a distance of 250 mm from each other and each of the plurality of holes has a diameter of 50 cm however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the array have a plurality of holes 250 mm apart with 50 cm diameters to grow herbs or compact vegetables as such spacings are known to be ideal, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A. or such a modification would only involve a mere change in size which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Re claim 20, Alex discloses the invention of claim 16, Alex further discloses wherein a dimension of the transplantation tray is 4x12 ft or a standard size (para 14 & 21, 4x12 ft is equivalent to ~122x366 cm or each module may be a standard size and geometry).
Alex discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a dimension of the transplantation tray is 990x500 cm however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have a tray of such size to have a larger scale operation where each tray holds and yields more plants/crops, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 5,215,427 A which discloses a transporter for potted plants that uses a sliding mechanism. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0000019 A1 which discloses an automated transfer method utilizing a robot appendage. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0135912 A1 which discloses a robotic system for handling a plurality of objects in a row. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0218862 A1 which discloses an apparatus for storing and transporting a plurality of plats from a one tray to another.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua J 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642