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 .
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 11-14,17 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.
For claim 11, the limitation of “the tilt support” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 13, the limitation of “the at least one tilt support” lacks prior antecedent basis.
All other claims depending on one or more of the above rejected claims are also rejected the same.
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)(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 1,2,4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by de Combaud (US 20190335690 A1).
For claim 1, de Combaud discloses a cultivation trough (100-600) comprising at least one elongate receptacle extending in a longitudinal direction (fig. 1 shows the position of the trough, and the longitudinal direction is the longer length of refs. 100-600) and configured to receive one or more of crops, water and substrate;
wherein the cultivation trough is configured to be transportable by a transport system (10,1000; noting that the transport system is not being positively recited, even though de Combaud teaches the transport system, only the trough is considered based on the claimed limitation) in a transport direction transverse to the longitudinal direction of the cultivation trough (fig. 1 shows the position of the transport system and it is transverse to the longitudinal direction of the cultivation trough) and to be supported by an upper surface of at least one flange (fig. 3 where refs. 21,22,20 are pointing at) of the transport system), and
wherein the cultivation trough comprises a stabilizer (fig. 3 where refs 111,112,113,114 are pointing at; also, fig. 4 shows 3-D image of the stabilizer, which are not numbered but near where ref. 130 is pointing at) configured to at least partially enclose the at least one flange of the transport system (see fig. 3) and to engage with a lower surface of the at least one flange defining a tilt support of the transport system to thereby stabilize the cultivation trough to prevent tilting thereof (see fig. 3, the flange defines the tilt support so that the parts of the trough and the transport system fit together to prevent tilting; again, noting that the transport system is not being positively recited, even though de Combaud teaches the transport system, only the trough is considered based on the claimed limitation).
For claim 2, de Combaud discloses the cultivation trough according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the stabilizer comprises one or more than one hook (115,116) configured to extend along the tilt support of the transport system.
For claim 4, de Combaud discloses the cultivation trough according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the stabilizer comprises a recess (fig. 3, show a recess created from refs. 111,113,115 on the left side and refs. 112,114,116 on the right side; also, fig. 4 shows the recess on the left near ref. 130 and on the right but not numbered) configured to receive the tilt support of the transport system.
For claim 5, de Combaud discloses the cultivation trough according to claim 4, and further discloses wherein the recess is disposed in at least one wall of the cultivation trough (see figs. 3,4).
For claim 6, de Combaud discloses the cultivation trough according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the recess is arranged in one or more than one side wall of the cultivation trough (see figs. 3,4).
For claim 7, de Combaud discloses the cultivation trough according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the recess is arranged in a bottom wall of the cultivation trough (see figs. 3,4).
For claim 8, de Combaud discloses the cultivation trough according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the stabilizer is arranged at a vertical offset relative to the tilt support of the transport system in at least a non-tilted state of the cultivation trough (see fig. 3, the vertical offset is the space or open area between refs. 111,21 and refs. 112,22).
For claim 9, de Combaud discloses the cultivation trough according to claim 1, and further discloses a plurality of stabilizers (fig. 3 where refs 111,112,113,114 are pointing at; also, fig. 4 shows 3-D image of the stabilizer, which are not numbered but near where ref. 130 is pointing at) disposed substantially along a length of the cultivation trough.
For claim 10, de Combaud discloses the cultivation trough according to claim 1, and further discloses a crop accommodation (119 and substrate per para. 0053) that is arranged asymmetrical relative to a cross section of the cultivation trough.
For claim 11, de Combaud discloses a transport system (10,11, etc. per figs. 1-2) configured to transport a plurality of cultivation troughs (100-600; noting that the cultivation troughs are not being positively recited, even though de Combaud teaches the cultivation troughs, only the transport system is considered based on the claimed limitation) in a transport direction transverse to longitudinal directions of the cultivation troughs (fig. 1 shows the position of the transport system and it is transverse to the longitudinal direction of the cultivation trough ), wherein the transport system comprises at least one flange (fig. 3 where refs. 21,22,20 are pointing at) configured to extend along and engage with one or more of respective stabilizers (fig. 3 where refs 111,112,113,114 are pointing at; also, fig. 4 shows 3-D image of the stabilizer, which are not numbered but near where ref. 130 is pointing at) of each of the plurality of cultivation troughs, to thereby stabilize the cultivation troughs to prevent tilting thereof, wherein:
- an upper surface of the at least one flange defines a support configured to support the cultivation trough (fig. 3 shows upper surfaces of the flange where refs. 21,22,20 are pointing at); and
- a lower surface of the at least one flange defines the tilt support configured to prevent the cultivation trough against tilting (fig. 3 shows upper surfaces of the flange where refs. 21,22,20 are pointing at; the flange defines the tilt support so that the parts of the trough and the transport system fit together to prevent tilting).
For claim 12, de Combaud discloses the transport system according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein the at least one flange substantially extends along the transport system in the transport direction (see fig. 1 for the flange direction of extension).
For claim 13, de Combaud discloses the transport system according to claim 11, and further discloses at least one actuator (1000,1010) configured to engage and move each of the plurality of cultivation troughs in the transport direction, wherein the at least one tilt support is arranged adjacent to the at least one actuator (see figs. 1,3 for location of the parts adjacent to each other).
For claim 14, de Combaud discloses the transport system according to claim 11, and further discloses a plurality of tilt supports (see figs. 1,2, refs. 10,21,22,20, etc.) disposed substantially along a width direction of the transport system transverse to the transport direction.
For claim 15, de Combaud discloses a cultivation system comprising at least one transport system (10,11, etc. per figs. 1-2) configured to transport a plurality of cultivation troughs (100-600) in a transport direction transverse to longitudinal directions of the cultivation troughs (fig. 1 shows the position of the transport system and it is transverse to the longitudinal direction of the cultivation trough ), wherein the at least one transport system comprises at least one flange (fig. 3 where refs. 21,22,20 are pointing at) configured to extend along and engage with one or more of respective stabilizers (fig. 3 where refs 111,112,113,114 are pointing at; also, fig. 4 shows 3-D image of the stabilizer, which are not numbered but near where ref. 130 is pointing at) of each of the plurality of cultivation troughs, to thereby stabilize the cultivation troughs to prevent tilting thereof, wherein an upper surface (fig. 3 shows upper surfaces of the flange where refs. 21,22,20 are pointing at) of the at least one flange defines a support configured to support the cultivation trough, and a lower surface (fig. 3 shows upper surfaces of the flange where refs. 21,22,20 are pointing at; the flange defines the tilt support so that the parts of the trough and the transport system fit together to prevent tilting) of the at least one flange defines the tilt support configured to prevent the cultivation trough against tilting; and at least one cultivation trough (100-600) according to claim 1 (as explained in the above claim 1) supported by the at least one transport system.
For claim 16, de Combaud discloses a method for cultivating a crop, the method comprising using at least one of the cultivation troughs according to claim 1 (as explained in the above claim 1), wherein one or more of crops, substrate and water (para. 0053) are received in the elongate receptacle of the cultivation trough.
For claim 17, de Combaud discloses a method for cultivating a crop, the method comprising using the transport system according to claim 11 (as explained in the above claim 11) supporting a cultivation trough (100-600) having one or more of crops, substrate and water received in the cultivation trough.
For claim 18, de Combaud discloses a method for cultivating a crop, the method comprising using the cultivation system according to claim 15 (as explained in the above claim 15), wherein one or more of crops, substrate and water are received in the elongate receptacle of the cultivation trough.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Combaud (as above).
For claim 3, de Combaud teaches the cultivation trough according to claim 2, but is silent about wherein the one or more than one hook is configured to extend in the longitudinal direction of the cultivation trough. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hook configuration of the trough of de Combaud to have the one or more than one hook is configured to extend in the longitudinal direction of the cultivation trough, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both configurations would result in connection between the trough and the transport system). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a cultivation system that includes a cultivation trough and a transport system to transport the trough:
US 20190029198 A1 teaches hydroponic growing system,
US 20160021838 A1 teaches Hydroponic Vegetable Culture Device,
US 10485193 B2 teaches Automated hydroponics system and method,
US 10004187 B1 teaches Hydroponic growing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights