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 § 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, 3, 11-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by James et al WO 2022/046564.
Regarding claim 1, James discloses a vertical farm system comprising: at least one enclosure (10), the at least one enclosure separated into a day section (20) and a night section (22) (James, ¶0023) ; a plurality of racks (32) disposed within the at least one enclosure and configured to hold plants, each of the plurality of racks comprising: a central frame and a plurality of gutters disposed on the central frame (James, ¶0021); and a conveyor system (40) configured to move the plurality of racks through the day and night section of the at least one enclosure, wherein the conveyor system moves the plurality of racks along a generally rectangular path (James, Figure 1) made up of a first section, a second section, a third section and a fourth section, the first and third sections of the path being longer than the second and fourth sections of the path (James, Figure 1), and wherein the first and third sections of the path are disposed in both the night and day sections of the at least one enclosure (James, Figure 1) so that, as the plurality of racks are moved along the first section of the path, the plurality of racks are moved from the day section and then into the night section, and as the plurality of racks are moved along the third section of the path, the plurality of racks are moved from the night section into the day section.
Regarding claim 3, James further discloses each of the plurality of gutters comprising one or more plant holders (James, ¶0021).
Regarding claim 11, James further discloses the vertical farm system further a lighting system (28) stationary relative to the plurality of racks as the plurality of racks are moved by the conveyor system (James, Figure 1, ¶0023).
Regarding claim 12, James further discloses the lighting system comprising components that are positioned between the plurality of gutters of a respective one of the plurality of racks as the plurality of racks are moved by the conveyor system (James, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, James further discloses the plurality of gutters extend parallel to one another on the central frame (James, Figure 1).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, James further discloses the plurality of racks hold the strawberry plants, and the plants are flowering crops. (James, ¶0020).
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) 2, 5-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James WO 2022/046564 in view of Johnson et al US 10,136,587.
Regarding claim 2, 5-10 and 14 James discloses the device of claim 1 but does not disclose details of the claimed racks. Johnson teaches racks having rollers (Johnson, column 2: lines 54-55) on a central frame (Johnson, Figure 1), top mount assemblies (5), a guide bar (2); and a powered (36) overhead conveyor system (4). 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 substitute the racks of Johnson for the racks of James as to provide a vertical grow system, and for the conveyor system of James to be a powered overhead conveyor system as to be able to convey the racks between night and day sections.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James US 2024/0023501.
Regarding claim 17, James further discloses the plants being flowering or fruiting plants (James, ¶0020) but fails to disclose the plants being tomatoes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the plants to be tomatoes, as tomatoes are flowering fruiting plants.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(a) rejection as well as the drawing objection. Although the correlation between the loop of ¶0137 and Figure 8 of the instant invention and the conveyor system of claim 1 is not clearly emphasized the subject matter can be found in the original disclosure as highlighted by the attorney.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the grow containers of James follow a meandering path within the grow chamber and the overall path through the system is not rectangular. The applicant has not only not claimed that the overall path through the system is rectangular but in fact has claimed “a generally rectangular path”. “Generally” adds breadth to the claim and allows the prior art of James to read on the claim language. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The path of James meets the limitations of the claim language.
The applicant has not clearly pointed out why James fails to disclose the “generally rectangular path” comprising first, second, third and fourth sections with first and third sections being longer than second and fourth, or how the first and third sections of James are not within both the night and day sections of the enclosure. The sections are claimed as being “generally rectangular” and language that would further define the sections in relation to each other such as, continuous, parallel, perpendicular, etc is not used.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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