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 1-15 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 contains the limitations “configured to receive or comprise a guide” “configured to guide a plurality of cultivation receptacles”. It is unclear if the applicant intends to claim a guide or cultivation receptacles as part of the germination unit. This causes further confusion within the claims when limitations containing a guide are elaborated on (an input of a guide in claim 1 and a cultivation receptable in claim 9). The fact that a guide is not positively claimed in claims 1-11, 14 and 15 is evidenced by claim 12, which positively adds a guide to the system. For purposes of examination a guide and limitations relating to the guide are considered a functional limitation of the invention and not positively recited by the claims.
Line 1 of claim 1 recites “a germination unit of or for a rotating horticultural growing system”. The wording “of or for” makes it unclear if a rotating horticultural growing system is included as part of the germination unit. This causes further confusion in claim 9 when limitations containing a rotating horticultural growth system are elaborated on. For purposes of examination a rotating horticultural growing system and limitations relating to a rotating horticultural growing system are considered functional and not positively recited by the claims.
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, 4-7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crichton GB 2214945.
Regarding claim 1, Crichton discloses a germination unit, said germination unit comprising: an enclosure (Crichton, Figure 1); an output of the enclosure (door on wall 3) that is arranged downstream of the input of the guide (as best understood), wherein the output is arranged in a displaceable wall (3) of the enclosure; and at least one retractable wall (part of 1) connected to the displaceable wall; wherein an offset between the input of the guide (as best understood) and the output of the enclosure defines a total capacity of cultivation receptacles that may be simultaneously housed inside the enclosure (Crichton, Figure 1); and wherein said offset is selectively adjustable to thereby allow a retention time of the cultivation receptacles (as best understood) in the enclosure to be set (Crichton, Figures 1 and 2). Crichton is capable of performing the functional language of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Crichton further discloses the displaceable wall extends along only a part of a height of the germination unit (Crichton, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Crichton further discloses at least two retractable walls (sidewalls of the structure)(Crichton, Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 6, Crichton further discloses the displaceable wall is interposed between the at least two retractable walls (Crichton, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Crichton further discloses the displaceable wall comprises a longitudinal slot (door) configured to allow cultivation receptacles to be transversely displaced therethrough.
Regarding claim 10, Crichton further discloses the input coincides (as best understood) with a location within the germination unit directly adjacent to a backwall of the enclosure arranged opposite the output of the enclosure (Crichton, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Crichton further discloses the enclosure comprising a translucent material (Crichton, title).
Regarding claim 14, Crichton discloses a method for growing a crop, the method comprising: providing a controllable climate for the germination of crops inside the enclosure of the germination unit according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the enclosure defines a total capacity of cultivation receptacles that maybe simultaneously housed therein; and adjusting an interior space of the enclosure of the germination unit by adjusting the offset between the input of a the guide and an output of the enclosure in dependence of a growth cycle duration of the crop (Crichton, page 1: “In practice, internal volume may be advantageously reduced during colder weather”).
Regarding claim 15, Crichton further discloses the step of adjusting the interior space comprises displacing the displaceable wall of the enclosure that comprises the output (Crichton, page 4: “In addition…section”.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crichton GB 2214945 in view of DE 1286799 (hereinafter DE ‘799).
Regarding claim 12, Crichton discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose a guide. DE ‘799 teaches a horticultural system having a guide (21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Crichton with a guide as taught by DE ‘799 as to provide a way to transport items throughout the system.
Regarding claim 13, Crichton in view of DE ‘799 further discloses the displaceable wall defining a partition between a climate controlled germination section (interior of enclosure) and a non-climate controlled growing section (exterior of enclosure) of the rotating horticultural growing system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed invention wherein the slot is angularly disposed or the slots circumference in relation to receptacle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 9,551,143.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights