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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 is being considered in part by the examiner. Foreign Patent Document #4 is not being considered, as no translation has been found in the file wrapper.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cantilever, should it be claimed under plain meaning (only supported at one end), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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:
The terms ‘cantilever’ and ‘free end’ are used contrary to its plain meaning throughout the specification. If the applicant is providing a special definition for the term, it must be made clear, if not, this language needs to be changed to something more appropriate to the actual disclosed structure.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-11 and 13-23 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 1 recites a cantilever having a first free end section and a first connecting end section, the cantilever being connected to a first facility wall via the first connecting end section. However, claims 19 and 13 go on to claim that the cantilever comprises a supporting element guided by a second wall rail, the supporting element preventing the cantilever from physically touching the facility ground. The accepted meaning of the term “cantilever” is “a projecting beam or member supported at only one end” (Merriam Webster), with the recited “free end” being understood as the end that is not supported. However, by reciting the supporting element (clearly associated with element 19 in the spec), the applicant claims an embodiment of their invention where what is considered the ‘cantilever’ has supports on both of its ends. As such, the applicant appears to be using the terms “cantilever” and “free end” contrary to their accepted meaning, given a beam supported at both ends would not be a cantilever. There does not appear to be any clear special definition to redefine cantilever in the specification. Given the lack of clarity around the terms “cantilever” and “free end” in claims 19 and 13, this causes uncertainty around the scope of such terms in all claims where they are used. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Inconsistencies in the meaning of terms or phrases between claims may render the scope of the claims to be uncertain. Tvngo Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs. Inc., 861 Fed. Appx. 453, 459-60, 2021 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the planting walls" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “planting walls” were introduced in claim 8, but claim 17 does not depend on claim 4. Similarly for “the planting walls” in claims 18 and 21.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation "the facility ground" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11, 15, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmitt (US 12162164, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Schmitt, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Schmitt discloses a vertical farming facility (growing space 3, Fig 4) comprising a system for handling a working head (abstract), wherein the system comprises:
a cantilever and a beam, the beam being connected to the cantilever, the cantilever comprises a first free end section and a first connecting end section (see annotated Fig 4 below; ‘free’ and ‘cantilever’ are as best understood in light of the 112(b) above),
PNG
media_image1.png
690
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the cantilever is arranged horizontally and comprises a cantilever axis and the beam is arranged vertically and comprises a beam axis (see Fig 4),
the cantilever is movable within the vertical farming facility (see Fig 3),
a gripper that comprises the working head (robotic arm 4 with clamp tool 55, capable of gripping, Figs 4 and 6) and is movably connected to the beam (see Fig 3) and configured to handle plants and/or plant receptacles (Col 5, lines 50-60)
wherein the vertical farming facility comprises a first facility wall (back wall of 3 in Fig 4, formed by the horizontal and vertical framing elements shown) to which the cantilever is connected via the first connecting end section (see Fig 4), the cantilever is perpendicular and translationally movable with respect to the first facility wall (see Figs 3 and 4) or is pivotably connected to the first facility wall (not selected).
Regarding claim 2:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the beam comprises a second free end section and a second connecting end section, wherein the beam is connected via the second connecting end section to the cantilever (see annotated Fig 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
770
1057
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 2 above and further discloses wherein the cantilever is connected to the first facility wall by means of a first wall rail (see annotated Fig 4 below, and Fig 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
690
968
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the cantilever comprises a first guiding rail that is arranged parallel to the cantilever axis, the beam being translationally movable along the first guiding rail (rail portion of the cantilever along its longitudinal axis, which permits beam to translationally move along the cantilever, as depicted in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 7:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the beam comprises a second guiding rail that is arranged parallel to the beam axis, the gripper being movable along the second guiding rail (rail portion of the beam along its longitudinal axis, which permits the gripper to translationally move along the cantilever, as depicted in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 8:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the vertical farming facility comprises vertically arranged planting walls (see annotated Fig 4 below), the planting walls comprising grooves and/or openings wherein the plants and/or plant receptacles are insertable into the grooves and/or openings (see plant locations 6 in relation to the vertical racks, Fig 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
618
594
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein the beam is at least partly transportable between the planting walls (see Figs 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 15:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the cantilever and the beam comprise respectively at least one individual drive unit enabling motion of the cantilever, the beam, and the gripper (see motor boxes in Fig 3 for each axis of motion; Col 7, lines 5-35).
Regarding claim 22:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein a limiter is arranged at the first free end section of the cantilever (see annotated Fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
480
487
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein a limiter is arranged at the first connecting end section of the cantilever (see annotated Fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
480
487
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmitt (same reference as above, different interpretation of elements, and thus separate section for clarity), as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Schmitt discloses a vertical farming facility (growing space 3, Fig 4) comprising a system for handling a working head (abstract), wherein the system comprises:
a cantilever (robotic arm 4, Fig 3) and a beam (vertical rail 21, Fig 3), the beam being connected to the cantilever (see Fig 3), the cantilever comprises a first free end section (the end which holds tool 5, Fig 6) and a first connecting end section (that which is attached to vertical rail 21, Fig 6)
the cantilever is arranged horizontally and comprises a cantilever axis and the beam is arranged vertically and comprises a beam axis (see Figs 3 and 6),
the cantilever is movable within the vertical farming facility (see Fig 3),
a gripper that comprises the working head (tool 5 with clamps 55, capable of gripping, Fig 6) and is movably connected to the beam (see Fig 3) and configured to handle plants and/or plant receptacles (Col 5, lines 50-60)
wherein the vertical farming facility comprises a first facility wall (back wall of 3 in Fig 4, formed by the horizontal and vertical framing elements shown) to which the cantilever is connected via the first connecting end section (see Fig 3), the cantilever is perpendicular and translationally movable with respect to the first facility wall (see Figs 3 and 4) or is pivotably connected to the first facility wall (see Fig 3 – “180° rotation”).
Regarding claim 16:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the cantilever is pivotably connected to the first facility wall (see Fig 3 – “180° rotation”).
Regarding claim 20:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the cantilever is connected to the first facility wall by means of a first wall rail (see Fig 3), and wherein the cantilever is configured to be rotated around a pivoting axis (see Fig 3 – “180° rotation”) and moved linearly along the first wall rail (via the motion of rails 21-22, see Fig 3).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng (CN 112042439 A, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Cheng, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Cheng discloses a vertical farming facility (see Fig 1; abstract) comprising a system for handling a working head (abstract), wherein the system comprises:
a cantilever (cylinder 12, Fig 1, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues, under a different interpretation) and a beam (screw rod lifter 10, Fig 1), the beam being connected to the cantilever (see Fig 1), the cantilever comprises a first free end section (the end carrying the grasping device 15, Fig 1) and a first connecting end section (the other end, that supported by the lifting seat 13, Fig 1), the cantilever is arranged horizontally and comprises a cantilever axis and the beam is arranged vertically and comprises a beam axis (see Fig 1),
the cantilever is movable within the vertical farming facility (abstract),
a gripper that comprises the working head (plant grasping device 15, Fig 1) and is movably connected to the beam (abstract) and configured to handle plants and/or plant receptacles (abstract).
wherein the vertical farming facility comprises a first facility wall (either vertical seat, particularly back plate in which the groove 11 is formed, Fig 1; or the general wall in this indoor facility, not pictured.) to which the cantilever is connected via the first connecting end section (see Fig 1), the cantilever is perpendicular and translationally movable with respect to the first facility wall (see Fig 1) or is pivotably connected to the first facility wall (not selected).
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 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt, as applied to claim 1 above, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 14:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
In the embodiment of Schmitt where the beam carries a tool capable of ‘gripping’ (i.e. gripper – fulfilled by element 55, Fig 6) fails to disclose wherein the beam comprises a shelf with a shelf surface upon which the plants and/or the plant receptacles are placeable.
However, in an alternate tool embodiment, Schmitt contemplates a shelf, alongside a tool, with a shelf surface upon which the plants and/or the plant receptacles are placeable (basket 57, Fig 8, with bottom surface being the shelf surface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provided a basket 57 with the gripping tool 55 of Fig 5, as with the tool 56 in Fig 8, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for the collection of nearby plants, receptacles, seeds, fruit, etc. and deposition within the drawer 13 in a more timely fashion – with a basket, the gripper could gather several nearby plants, depositing each in the basket 57, then grabbing the next, and, when full, traveling to the drawer 13 for deposit, rather than having to go back and forth to the drawer, each time a plant, receptacle, or piece of plant is harvested. Further, a basket, would simply serve as a fail-safe – should the clamps 55 drop a plant or plant receptacle, prior to reaching the drawer 13, it would simply land in the basket 57, allowing for easier retrieval and clean up without needing to compromise the environment of the farm with a maintenance worker.
Regarding claim 21:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses planting walls (see annotated Fig 4 below), the planting walls having space on a side thereof along an axis parallel to the cantilever axis within the grow facility (see Fig 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
618
594
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schmitt fails to specifically disclose wherein the planting walls are individually movable along an axis parallel to the cantilever axis, because Schmitt fails to specifically disclose how/if the planting walls are mounted to the ground.
However, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have not permanently fixed the racks to the ground, but rather made the racks separable from the grow facility outer walls/floors/ceilings, so as to make the planting walls individually movable, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for rearrangement, adjustability, or removal of planting walls, as needed based on the planned growth or crops, or to allow for replacement or repair of planting walls, as needed. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179); it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art (In re Lindber, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952)); and it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 17-19, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Under best understanding of the scope of the claims, the reasoning for listing claims 9-10, 17-19, and 13 allowable is the lack of art teaching planting walls, with a cantilever/beam/gripper as claimed for handling plants, the cantilever being movable in a plane that is arranged beneath the planting walls. The prior art of record used in the rejection above is the closest prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 2-3, the applicant contends that the deletion of claim 12 overcomes and render’s moot the 112(b) rejection in regard to the term ‘cantilever’.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, noting the remaining rejection under 112(b) over the term cantilever above. Newly introduced/amended claims 19 and 13 discuss the same supporting element/second wall rail that was previously discussed in claims 12-13, and therefore pose the same inconsistency in the term ‘cantilever’ as was present in the last claim set. Further, even if all mentions of the supporting element and second wall rail were removed from the claim set, the scope of the term cantilever/free-end would still be unclear in the claims, particularly due to it being unclear, from the specification, whether the applicant is attempting to institute a special definition or broader scope of the terms cantilever/free end section, to include elements with supports/attachments on both ends (see Pg 4, lines 1-5; pg. 8 in entirety; and general attribution of the term cantilever to element 10, which is shown and discussed as having supports on both ends, but still called a ‘cantilever’. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification, and, per MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
On pages 2-3, the applicant traverses the rejection over Schmitt on the basis that the 112b rejection is moot, and the fact that Schmitt does not teach a “cantilever” having a free end as would be understood by a person having skill in the art, and does not meet the definition as posited by the examiner (“a projecting beam or member supported at only one end”).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the lack of clarity around the terms ‘cantilever’ and ‘free end’ is still very much present. Further, the examiner requests clarity; in arguing that Schmitt does not teach a cantilever/free end because it teaches a beam supported/attached to something at two ends (not fulfilling the plain-meaning definition), is the applicant saying that the term ‘cantilever’ in their disclosure should be interpreted under the plain meaning definition, and that this definition is consistent with their specification and invention scope? If so, it is unclear how they can make such an argument when their own disclosure and claims very clearly use the term cantilever contrary to the plain meaning. As above, the scope of the term ‘cantilever’ needs to be clarified for the record.
The examiner notes the additional rejection of claim 1 over Cheng, above, which, for the purposes of expediting prosecution, shows the applicant the breadth of their claim, even should ‘cantilever’ be understood under its plain meaning and there be no clarity and consistency issues with the other claims and specification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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 Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights