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 § 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.
Claims 1,5,6,8,10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sperry et al. (US 20200037526 A1) in view of Cross (US 11310976 B1) and Ward (US 4117805 A).
For claim 1, Sperry et al. teach an aeroponic farming appliance for plant growth comprising:
a housing (40);
a rotatable root chamber (16) rotatably mounted within the housing and rotatable relative to the housing about a root chamber rotation axis (axis where ref. 14 runs through), the root chamber having
a vertically extending root chamber sidewall (sidewall of ref. 16) having a cylindrical shape,
a root chamber upper end (18) having a root chamber upper wall connected to the root chamber sidewall,
an interior chamber volume (inside of ref. 16) bounded at least in part by the root chamber sidewall and root chamber upper wall,
the root chamber rotation axis extending vertically through a center of the cylindrical shape and the root chamber upper end (as shown in fig. 1, axis is in phantom or where ref. 14 is located), and
at least one standing plant riser (10) extending upwardly from the root chamber upper end, each standing plant riser having:
an interior riser volume (the inside of ref. 10), and
at least three riser crop pod carriers (17) open to the interior riser volume, each of the at least three crop pod carriers distributed vertically at different elevations (figs. 1, 3);
at least one of: a) a grow light (46) positioned to emit light towards the at least one standing plant riser, and b) a grow light power connector (para. 0028 can be the control system 50 or the power source for the whole system) positioned to supply power to a grow light source,
at least one spray nozzle (para. 0032 and fig. 6, not numbered but can be seen in fig. 6 that there is an inlet/nozzle from nutrient fluid blend 56 into the root chamber 16, to the right of ref. 14; also, ref. 13 per para. 0024) oriented to discharge into the interior chamber volume; and
a nutrient reservoir (56) located outside of the rotatable root chamber, wherein the at least one spray nozzle and the at least one standing plant riser are each fluidly connected to the nutrient reservoir (the at least one spray nozzle and the at least one standing plant riser are fluidly connected to the nutrient reservoir directly or indirectly).
However, Sperry et al. are silent about an access opening formed in the root chamber sidewall, the access opening having an area of at least 36 in2, an access door being movable to selectively open and close the access opening, the root chamber upper wall having at least four root chamber crop pod carriers open to the interior chamber volume; and at least a portion of the root chamber sidewall being transparent.
Ward teaches a plant growing device comprising an access opening (either the opening covered by ref. 32 or the opening covered by ref. 70) formed in the chamber sidewall (30), and an access door (either 32 or 70) being movable to selectively open and close the access opening. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an access opening and an access door as taught by Ward in the root chamber sidewall of Sperry et al. in order to allow installation of the pump, maintenance and repair of the elements in the root chamber sidewall (per Ward’s teaching and noting that Sperry includes a pump 48 and other elements inside the chamber sidewall 16 as shown in fig. 6 that will need maintenance and the like).
Cross teaches a hydroponic (of which aeroponic is a subset of) farming appliance for plant growth comprising a root chamber upper wall (wall of members 1000, 2990) having at least four root chamber crop pod carriers (3050 can hold flats of plants 3301 per col. 32, lines 4-23) open to the interior chamber volume; and at least a portion (3072) of the root chamber sidewall being transparent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the root chamber upper wall of Sperry et al. with at least four root chamber crop pod carriers open to the interior chamber volume as taught by Cross in order to further provide extra space for growing more plants than just in the plant riser. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least a portion of the root chamber sidewall of Sperry et al. being transparent as taught by Cross in order to allow the user to view the inside of the sidewall.
Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross are silent about the access opening having an area of at least 36 in2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the access opening of Cross with an area of at least 36in2, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art (depending on the size of the type of plants to be grown inside the interior volume so as to have the access opening big enough to allow the plants to be inserted). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 5, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 1, but are silent about wherein the at least one standing plant riser comprises at least four standing plant risers, the at least four standing plant risers evenly spaced around the root chamber rotation axis. In addition to the above, Cross teaches in fig. 30, at least four standing plant risers, the at least four standing plant risers evenly spaced around the root chamber rotation axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least four standing plant risers evenly spaced around the root chamber rotation axis as taught by Cross in the aeroponic farming appliance of Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross in order to allow the user to grow more plants for mass production.
For claim 6, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 5, where the appliance includes lights for the riser per para. 0028 of Sperry et a. and the grow lights positioned radially inward of the standing plant riser and oriented to emit light radially outwardly. Thus, if there is at least four standing plant risers as modified with Cross per claim 5 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least four grow lights, each of the at least four grow lights positioned radially inward of the at least four standing plant risers and oriented to emit light radially outwardly, in order to accommodate the at least four standing plant risers so as to provide proper lighting for the plants growing in each riser, since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
For claim 8, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 1, but are silent about wherein the root chamber further comprises a utility conduit extending vertically through a center of the root chamber, the at least one liquid outlet mounted to the utility conduit. In addition to the above, Cross teaches the root chamber further comprises a utility conduit (fig. 32, 3275,978,944) extending vertically through a center of the root chamber, the at least one liquid outlet mounted to the utility conduit (fig. 35, 3260). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a utility conduit extending vertically through a center of the root chamber, the at least one liquid outlet mounted to the utility conduit as taught by Cross in the aeroponic farming appliance of Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross in order to provide storage accommodation for electrical cables and irrigation conduit for organization and water proofing for electrical elements.
For claim 10, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 1, wherein the at least one standing plant riser has at least one riser liquid outlet (outlet of ref. 13 per para. 0023,0024 of Sperry et al.) oriented to discharge into the interior riser volume.
For claim 11, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 10, wherein the nutrient reservoir is fluidly connected to each of the at least one spray nozzle and to the at least one riser liquid outlet of each standing plant riser (nutrient reservoir 56 of Sperry et al. is fluidly connected to the at least one spray nozzle of ref. 13 and also to the nozzle coming into the root chamber 16 per fig. 6 to the right of ref. 14 as explained in claim 1 above; also, this fluid will travel to each of the riser which would make the nutrient reservoir be fluidly connected to the riser).
For claim 12, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 11, wherein the nutrient reservoir has a recirculation inlet downstream of the interior chamber volume and the interior riser volume of each standing plant riser (para. 0029,0032 of Sperry et al.; the pump 48 is located at the bottom-most area which is downstream from both the interior chamber volume and the interior riser volume).
For claim 13, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 1, wherein the housing surrounds the root chamber and the at least one standing plant riser (fig. 1 of Sperry et al.).
For claim 14, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 12, further comprising a pump (48) fluidly connected to the nutrient reservoir and a control system (50) having control over the pump.
For claim 15, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 14, wherein the control system has control over power to the at least one of the grow lights and the grow light power connector (para. 0027,0028, 0031,0032; the control system 50 controls all elements in the appliance).
For claim 16, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 15, further comprising at least one sensor (54A-54E) communicatively connected to the control system, the at least one sensor including at least one of a humidity sensor, a temperature sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a pH sensor.
For claim 17, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 16, further comprising a display (42, para. 0027) communicatively connected to the control system, wherein the control system is configured to direct the display to show information based at least in part on data from the at least one sensor.
For claim 18, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 14, wherein the control system is operable to monitor nutrient reservoir dosing (para. 0027,0028, 0031,0032; the control system 50 controls all elements in the appliance).
For claim 19, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 1, wherein each standing plant riser has a vertical rotation axis, and each standing plant riser is rotatable relative to the root chamber about the vertical rotation axis of that standing plant riser (para. 0027,0028,0030 of Sperry et al.; also, although the four risers are not claimed in claim 19, Cross teaches in col. 6, lines 1-14; fig. 50A,52A, that each one of the four risers is rotatable relative to the root chamber about the vertical rotation axis of that standing plant riser).
For claim 20, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 1, further comprising a light located inside the root chamber (para. 0028).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Egi et al. (JP 2018110535 A).
For claim 4, Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross teach the aeroponic farming appliance of claim 1, but are silent about wherein the at least one standing plant riser is rotatable about the root chamber rotation axis in unison with the root chamber.
Egi et al. teach a plant growing device comprising elements that are rotatable in unison and relative to each other. For example, plant container and risers 40,51’,31 are rotatable in unison with nutrient solution container (10), see translation stating: “Further, the rotation mechanism of the nutrient solution storage container 10 with respect to the culture medium storage container 40 is not limited to the mechanism of the embodiment, and may be another mechanism as long as the nutrient solution storage container 10 can rotate with respect to the culture medium storage container 40.”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one standing plant riser of Sperry et al. as modified by Ward and Cross be rotatable about the root chamber rotation axis in unison with the root chamber as taught by Egi et al., in order to assure that the plants growing therein can be expose to the environment (person viewing outside), light, or the like at 360º rotation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued the following:
However, Sperry only discloses a single vessel at the base: reservoir 16. If, as the Examiner asserts, Sperry's reservoir 16 corresponds to the claimed" root chamber," then Sperry lacks the claimed "nutrient reservoir located outside of the rotatable root chamber." Conversely, if Sperry's reservoir 16 corresponds to the claimed 'nutrient reservoir," then Sperry lacks the separate "rotatable root chamber" since the Examiner maps the root chamber to element 16.
As stated in the rejection above, the nutrient reservoir is ref. 56 which Sperry stated that it is a nutrient fluid blend and fig. 6 shows the reservoir 56 holding the fluid blend before it is discharged into the root chamber 16. Also, para. 0032 of Sperry explains the process. Thus, Sperry does teach the nutrient reservoir 56 located outside of the root chamber 16 as shown in fig. 6.
Sperry does not disclose a spray nozzle oriented to discharge mist into the reservoir 16. The nozzles in Sperry are located in the planting column 10 (Sperry, para [0023]), which is physically distinct from the reservoir 16. Therefore, Sperry fails to teach a spray nozzle discharging into the "root chamber" (reservoir 16) as defined by the Examiner's rejection.
As stated in the rejection above, not numbered but can be seen in fig. 6 that there is an inlet/nozzle from nutrient fluid blend 56 into the root chamber 16, to the right of ref. 14, and also explained para. 0032 and shown in fig. 6 of Sperry. The nozzles 13 can also be considered as the at least one spray nozzle because “at least one” can have multiple nozzles so one can go to the root chamber as stated in the above and the other can be ref. 13 in the riser.
Applicant acknowledges that Ward's pedestal 30 may be filled with water (Ward, col.3, lines 17-20). However, the purpose and function of the openings in Ward are fundamentally different from the Applicant's invention… Modifying Sperry with Ward would, at most, suggest placing a maintenance hatch in Sperry's reservoir 16 to access the pump 48. It would not suggest placing an access door in a sidewall of a rotatable growing chamber to access plant roots.
The claimed limitation did not state an intended use or purpose and function of the opening and door as argued by applicant. The claimed limitation simply states that there is an access opening formed in the root chamber sidewall and there is an access door being movable to selectively open and close the access opening. Thus, applicant is arguing more than what is being claimed.
In addition, even if applicant claimed the purpose and function of the opening and door, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. While applicant’s intention is to have the opening and door for access to the root chamber for accessing the plant roots, adding Ward’s opening and door to Sperry would allow the same function to be conducted if the user wishes to do so. The main idea of having the opening and the door is to allow access to the interior of the chamber for whatever reason the user wishes to have, be it for maintenance of the equipment, such as a pump, or the roots that may have grown into the chamber.
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 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