DETAILED ACTION
Please note there has been a change in examiners to the undersigned.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 18 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 December 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1, “wire fixing parts (2)” should read --wire fixing parts (12)--
Claim 6, lien 2, “(1$)” should read --(14)--
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 1-7 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.
In regards to claim 1, line 3 recites, “…if cultivation beds are stacked in multiple stages”. This recitation is a conditional statement. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitations after the recitation are required if the conditional statement is not met. It is suggested Applicant positively set forth the structure of the apparatus, and then recite conditional statements as wherein clauses, and/or use configured to statements to recite functional limitations. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring all recited limitations, to include cultivation beds stacked in multiple stages.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 7-12 appear to be reciting a method step within an apparatus claim (e.g.; “…as the upper rack and the lower rack move rectilinearly...the respective cultivation beds…are raised and lowered in opposite to each other…), which renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested Applicant positively set forth the structure of the apparatus, and recite functional limitations as configured to language.
In regards to claim 2, “the upper and lower transfer pipe rollers (15, 15a)” in line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regards to claim 7, lines 1-2 recite, “…if gutters of the cultivation beds are not stacked”. This recitation is a conditional statement. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitations after the recitation are required if the conditional statement is not met. It is suggested Applicant positively set forth the structure of the apparatus, and then recite conditional statements as wherein clauses, and/or use configured to statements to recite functional limitations. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as requiring all recited limitations, to include cultivation beds not stacked.
Further regarding claim 7, line 2 recites “one rack (4)” and “the upper rack (4)”. It is unclear if the one rack is the same or different than the upper rack.
Claims 3-6 are rejected based on their respective dependencies. Appropriate explanations or corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Park (US Pat. No. 9,832,938 B2) is considered the closest prior art of record.
Park teaches an apparatus for adjusting vertical spacings between plant cultivation units and gutter holders movable up and down, wherein: if cultivation beds (50) are stacked in multiple stages, two racks comprising an upper rack (12) and a lower rack (30) are provided, and a pinion gear (22), and a driving motor (21); as the lower rack (30) moves rectilinearly in opposite directions by rotation of the pinion gear (3), the respective cultivation beds of a plurality of plant cultivation units connected to both ends of wires (43) connected to lower wire transfer pipes (33, 33’) connected to respective ends of the the lower rack (30) are raised and lowered in opposite to each other due to rotation of lower wire rollers (42, 42’); and the lower rack (30) is coupled to a cultivation line of an upper layer and a cultivation line of the lower layer, and when the cultivation beds are raised and lowered in opposite to each other, the cultivation beds are moved up and down while maintaining balance with forces symmetrical to each other with respect to the pinion gear (22).
Park does not teach a reduction gear configured to drive the pinion gear; the pinion gear, driving motor, and reduction gear installed at a center between the upper rack and the lower rack; the upper rack moves rectilinearly in opposite directions by rotation of the pinion gear; upper wire transfer pipes connected to ends of the upper rack; the cultivation units raised and lowered in opposite to each other due to rotation of upper wire rollers; and the upper rack is coupled to the cultivation line of the upper layer and the cultivation line of a lower layer on a floor surface.
The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious an apparatus having the combination of structural and functional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights