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 09/11/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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, and 7-15 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.
The term “mainly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mainly” 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. The scope of “mainly horizontally” and “mainly vertically” is unclear as a result of this relativity.
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, claim 12 goes on to claim that the cantilever comprises a supporting element connected to the first free end section for supporting the cantilever with respect to a 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. By reciting supports at both ends of the cantilever in claim 12, 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 special definition to redefine cantilever in the specification. Given the lack of clarity around the terms “cantilever” and “free end” in claim 12, 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).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first wall rail" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “a first wall rail” was introduced in claim 4, but claim 13 does not depend on claim 4.
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, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmitt (US 12162164), 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 mainly horizontally and comprises a cantilever axis and the beam is arranged mainly 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) 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 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 a 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 a 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 (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).
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wilhelmus (NL 2022411 B1), hereinafter referred to as Wilhelmus, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 12:
Schmitt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses
Wherein the cantilever comprises a supporting element connected to the first free end section, the supporting element supporting the cantilever with respect to a facility ground (the supporting element is the part of the cantilever which connects with the second wall rail, that opposite the first wall rail of Claim 4 above, – see Fig 3 for clearer depiction of the cantilever supported by two rails; inherently supports relative to a ground).
Schmitt fails to specifically disclose that the supporting element is rotatably connected to the first free end section, as the connection mechanism is undisclosed .
Wilhelmus discloses a similar device with a beam guided on rails via rotatable supporting elements (see Figs 1-3).
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 provided motile rotary supporting elements to facilitate connection of the cantilever to the wall rails which guide it, as in Wilhelmus, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so may allow for smoother motion, with less friction, thereby preventing machine failure or accidental plant destruction.
Regarding claim 13:
Schmitt as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 above and further discloses
Wherein the cantilever comprises a further supporting element that is rotatably connected to the first connecting end section (connection to first wall rail, of claim 4, made via rotatable supporting element in rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the support element is guided by a second wall rail (second wall rail is that opposite the first wall rail of Claim 4 above, – see Fig 3 for clearer depiction of the cantilever supported by the two rails; element guided, given cantilever is guided see Fig 3) and the further supporting element is guided by the first wall rail, the first wall rail and the second wall rail being parallel to each other (see Fig 3; element guided, given cantilever is guided).
Claim 14 is 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Zelkind (US 20210137028), Yamada (WO 2019004385 A1), Hu (CN 106034511 A), Cheng (CN 112042439 A), and Zhang (CN 112753436 A).
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