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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III: Species C in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 7, 9, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/26
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, and similarly claim 17, states “wherein each of the one or more plant holders includes a channel and a spout.” However the specification (Paragraphs [0043], [0046], [0049]) and the figures (see Figure 5) show the spout and the channel located on the array unit, not on the plant holder. For purposes of examination, The Office will read these limitations to states “wherein each of the one or more array units includes a channel and a spout.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 2 recites “actuation module”. This limitation is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, and the specification does not provide sufficient description, stating “An actuation module may be in communication with the processor and may be configured to perform adjustments of one or more parameters,” in Paragraph [0008] and “an actuator (e.g., the actuation module 735 of Fig. 13) such as a motor (not illustrated) or a hydraulic cylinder (not illustrated)” in paragraph [0057] and “the actuation module 735 may include a light actuator 785 operatively coupled to the grow light module 615, a nutrient actuator 790 operatively coupled to the nutrient management module 695, a fan actuator 795 operatively coupled to the environmental control module 715, a pump actuator 800 operatively connected to the hydroponic module 610, and/or other actuators operatively coupled to other components of the plant growth system 600” in paragraph [0088].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-5 and 18 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the array system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “actuation module” in claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. This limitation is not modified by sufficient structure in the claim, and the specification does not provide sufficient description, stating “An actuation module may be in communication with the processor and may be configured to perform adjustments of one or more parameters,” in Paragraph [0008] and “an actuator (e.g., the actuation module 735 of Fig. 13) such as a motor (not illustrated) or a hydraulic cylinder (not illustrated)” in paragraph [0057] and “the actuation module 735 may include a light actuator 785 operatively coupled to the grow light module 615, a nutrient actuator 790 operatively coupled to the nutrient management module 695, a fan actuator 795 operatively coupled to the environmental control module 715, a pump actuator 800 operatively connected to the hydroponic module 610, and/or other actuators operatively coupled to other components of the plant growth system 600” in paragraph [0088]. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-5 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venkata et al. (US 2022/0369566).
Regarding Claim 1, Venkata discloses a plant growth system comprising:
a body for supporting one or more plants (appliance 100; lower housing 110);
a cover (support frame 102) including one or more through-holes (aperture 108; Figure 1), each plant configured to extend at least partially through one of the through-holes (plant 106; Figure 6); and
a grow light coupled to the body (light panel 184; Figure 6), the grow light movable between a first position and a second position (light 184 pivoting through angle 190; Figure 6; Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Claim 15, Venkata discloses a plant growth system comprising:
a body supporting one or more plants (appliance 100; lower housing 110), the one or more plants being received by one or more plant holders coupled to the body (plant pods 104; Figure 6);
a grow light movable between a first position and a second position and configured to emit light toward the one or more plants (light 184 pivoting through angle 190; Figure 6; Paragraph [0050]); and
a fluid delivery system configured to direct fluid toward the one or more plant holders (water 114, pump 126, discharge port 124; Figure 6).
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.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvinen (US 10694684) in view of Ting (US 2019/0059238).
Regarding Claim 1, Jarvinen discloses a plant growth system comprising:
a body for supporting one or more plants (apparatus 10; Figure 1);
a cover (front wall 34; Figure 1) including one or more through-holes (openings 17; Figure 2), each plant configured to extend at least partially through one of the through-holes (plants 12; Figures 1, 3, and 5); and
a grow light coupled to the body (“In addition, lights can be arranged outside the apparatus 10 to provide the plants 12 with sufficient illumination and these can be attached to hang from the upper end of the apparatus 10 or from the ceiling (not shown).” Col. 4 lines 42-46).
Jarvinen fails to disclose the grow light movable between a first position and a second position.
However, Ting teaches a similar plant growth system comprising: a body (base 210) for supporting one or more plants (planting slots 211); a grow light coupled to the body (light module 130), the grow light movable between a first position and a second position (Figures 2A-2C; “The supporters 220 are relatively movable to the base 210 in the first direction D1 to move the light module 130 to locate in a first position, a second position, a third position or between the second position and the third position.” Paragraph [0033]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grow lamp of Jarvinen with the adjustable grow lamp of Ting, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for customization of the amount of light supplied to the plants, in order to ensure healthy growing conditions.
Regarding Claim 15, Jarvinen discloses a plant growth system comprising: a body supporting one or more plants (apparatus 10; Figure 1), the one or more plants being received by one or more plant holders coupled to the body (growing units 16; Figures 1 and 3);
a grow light (“In addition, lights can be arranged outside the apparatus 10 to provide the plants 12 with sufficient illumination and these can be attached to hang from the upper end of the apparatus 10 or from the ceiling (not shown).” Col. 4 lines 42-46)
a fluid delivery system configured to direct fluid toward the one or more plant holders (pump P; Figure 3; “The pump P is connected by a pipe (not shown) to the means 24 arranged in the upper part of the frame 11 for distributing the irrigation liquid to the growing units 16” Col. 4 lines 13-16).
Jarvinen fails to disclose the grow light movable between a first position and a second position.
However, Ting teaches a plant growth system comprising: a body (base 210) supporting one or more plants (planting slots 211), the one or more plants being received by one or more plant holders coupled to the body (planting slots 211); a grow light (light module 130) movable between a first position and a second position and configured to emit light toward the one or more plants (Figures 2A-2C; “The supporters 220 are relatively movable to the base 210 in the first direction D1 to move the light module 130 to locate in a first position, a second position, a third position or between the second position and the third position.” Paragraph [0033]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grow lamp of Jarvinen with the adjustable grow lamp of Ting, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for customization of the amount of light supplied to the plants, in order to ensure healthy growing conditions.
Regarding Claim 18, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 15. Jarvinen further discloses the plant growth system, wherein the fluid delivery system comprises a reservoir (tank-shaped reserve 31; Figure 3) positioned below the array system (Figure 3) and configured to retain the fluid (“The trough 27 forms a tank-shaped reserve 31 for the irrigation liquid.” Col. 3 lines 23-24)and a pump in communication with the reservoir and configured to move the fluid from the reservoir to an upper portion of the array system (pump P; Figure 3; “The pump P is connected by a pipe (not shown) to the means 24 arranged in the upper part of the frame 11 for distributing the irrigation liquid to the growing units 16” Col. 4 lines 13-16).
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvinen in view of Ting as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rouxel (US 2021/0392834) (cited by Applicant in IDS dated 4/24/25).
Regarding Claim 2, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 1.
Jarvinen fails to disclose the plant growth system, further comprising a sensor module, an actuation module in communication with the sensor module, and a user interface module in communication with the sensor module.
However, Rouxel teaches a plant growth system the plant growth system, further comprising a sensor module (sensors 1202; Figure 12; Paragraph [0143]), an actuation module in communication with the sensor module (“based on the sensor data and/or image data, the controller 270 can control or adjust the plant-growing system 100 (e.g., the pump 220, the light source 904, etc.) to optimize the growth of the plants” Paragraph [0147]), and a user interface module in communication with the sensor module (“In some cases, based at least in part on the sensor data, the image data, and/or an internal clock, the controller 270 can output one or more notifications to a user.” Paragraph [0147]; “the controller 270 can control a user interface (not shown), which can provide information to a user. For example, the interface can allow a user to receive information relating to some or all of the plants growing” Paragraph [0150]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the plant growth system of Jarvinen, with the sensors, actuation module, and user interface of Rouxel, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant system is providing healthy environmental conditions to the plants.
Regarding Claim 3, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 2. Jarvinen further discloses the plant growth system, further comprising an array system positioned proximate to the cover (array of units 16; Figure 3), the array system including one or more interchangeable plant holders configured to receive the one or more plants (“the units 16 can include a collar 32 or similar seal (“In the front wall 34 of the frame 11 there are discrete openings 17, into which can be fitted growing units (reference number 16 in FIG. 3),” Col. 3 lines 25-28).
Regarding Claim 5, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 3. Jarvinen further discloses the plant growth system, wherein each of the one or more plant holders includes at least one permeable portion (opening 43 and perforations 20.1; Figures 4 and 8) configured to allow fluid to flow into and out of the plant holder (Figure 4) and at least one drip feature (holes 20.2; Figure 4; “excess liquid can flow out of the unit 16 from the perforation 20.1, 20.2 in the jacket of the chamber 36 and rear end 18.2 of the receptacle and to then flow along the outer surface of the receptacle 16 to the underside 21′ of the bottom 21 of the unit 16, from where it then drips in a controlled manner to the unit 16 in the corresponding lower position.” Col. 7 lines 59-65).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvinen in view of Ting and Rouxel as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Allgeier et al. (US 11785894) (cited by Applicant in IDS dated 4/24/25).
Regarding Claim 4, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 3.
Jarvinen fails to disclose the plant growth system, wherein each of the one or more plant holders includes a channel and a spout configured to direct fluid toward one of the one or more plants.
However, Allgeier teaches a plant growth system wherein each of the one or more plant holders includes a channel (defined by water collecting ribs 284; Figure 10) and a spout (tapered interface 292 between ribs 284; Figure 10) configured to direct fluid toward one of the one or more plants (“some or all of the water collecting ribs 284 may terminate against tapered interface 292, e.g., such that collected condensate is directed onto the roots of plants 124.” Col. 18 lines 19-22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the array and plant holders of Jarvinen, with the channel and spout of Allgeier, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase efficiency, by ensuring the water is directed to the roots or base of the plants in the plant holder.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvinen in view of Ting as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krack (EP 3533319).
Regarding Claim 6, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 1.
Jarvinen fails to disclose the plant growth system, wherein the cover is interchangeable.
However, Krack teaches a similar plant growth system, wherein the cover is interchangeable (casing 4; Figure 6; “Said casing 4 is a "push fit" installation or suitable bolts can be.” Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Jarvinen, to be interchangeable as taught by Krack, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow easier access to the interior of the system, for cleaning and maintenance purposes.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvinen in view of Ting as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Austrheim et al. (US 2024/0373793).
Regarding Claim 16, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 15. Jarvinen further discloses the plant growth system, wherein the fluid delivery system comprises a tank retaining the fluid (tank-shaped reserve 31; Figure 3).
Jarvinen fails to disclose a valve assembly in communication with the tank, and
at least one gutter in communication with the valve assembly and configured to direct the fluid to the one or more plants.
However, Austrheim teaches a plant growth system comprising: a tank (trough 48; Figure 5) a valve assembly in communication with the tank (Paragraph [0158]; Figure 5), and at least one gutter (trough 52; Figure 5) in communication with the valve assembly and configured to direct the fluid to the one or more plants (“When valve 56 is in an open position, water is permitted to flow downward out of the collection trough 52. When arranged in a stack of stackable modules, water flowing out of the water passage 54 will thus flow into the watering trough 48 of the next lower growth board in the stack.” Paragraph [0158]; “Holes 50 are positioned such that water that is introduced into watering trough 48 will flow through holes 50 and into a top edge of growth medium 18” Paragraph [0157]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the fluid delivery system of Jarvinen, with the valve assembly and gutter of Austrheim, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide more precise control over the fluid deliver, to help ensure the plants receive the proper amount of water.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvinen in view of Ting as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Allgeier et al. (US 11785894) (cited by Applicant in IDS dated 4/24/25).
Regarding Claim 17, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 15.
Jarvinen fails to disclose the plant growth system, wherein each of the one or more plant holders includes a channel, a spout, and at least one permeable portion positioned proximate to the spout, the permeable portion configured to allow fluid to enter and exit the plant holder.
However, Allgeier teaches a plant growth system, wherein each of the one or more plant holders includes a channel (defined by water collecting ribs 284; Figure 10), a spout (tapered interface 292 between ribs 284; Figure 10), and at least one permeable portion positioned proximate to the spout (“Plant pods 176 generally contain seedlings, root balls, or other plant material for growing plants 124 positioned within a mesh or other support structure through which roots of plants 124 may grow within grow tower 160.” Col. 8 lines 26-29; Figure 10), the permeable portion configured to allow fluid to enter and exit the plant holder (“water and other nutrients may be supplied to the root end of plant pods 176 within root chamber 172.” Col. 8 lines 36-38; Figures 9-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the array and plant holders of Jarvinen, with the channel, spout, and permeable portion of Allgeier, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase efficiency, by ensuring the water is directed to the roots or base of the plants in the plant holder.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvinen in view of Ting as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Krack (EP 3533319).
Regarding Claim 19, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 15. Jarvinen further discloses the system further comprising a cover (front wall 34; Figure 1), wherein the cover includes one or more through holes (openings 17; Figure 2), and wherein the one or more plants are arranged to extend at least partially through the through-holes of the cover (Figures 1 and 5).
Jarvinen fails to disclose wherein the cover is interchangeable and configured to be detachably coupled to the body.
However, Krack teaches a similar plant growth system, further comprising an interchangeable cover configured to be detachably coupled to the body (casing 4; Figure 6; “Said casing 4 is a "push fit" installation or suitable bolts can be.” Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Jarvinen, to be interchangeable as taught by Krack, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow easier access to the interior of the system, for cleaning and maintenance purposes.
Regarding Claim 20, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 19.
Jarvinen fails to explicitly disclose the plant growth system, wherein the cover is configured to reduce light exposure and/or retain humidity such that the plant growth system provides an in-situ germination system.
However, Krack teaches the plant growth system, wherein the cover is configured to reduce light exposure (“The main water tank 2 and secondary one 3, the grow box modules 12 and the casing 4 are made of, preferably, with resistant and opaque plastic like the Acrylonitrile Butadiene Stirene.” Paragraph [0052]) and/or retain humidity such that the plant growth system provides an in-situ germination system.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Jarvinen, to block light as taught by Krack, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent algae growth on the roots and base of the plants.
Claims 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvinen (US 10694684) in view of Austrheim et al. (US 2024/0373793).
Regarding Claim 8, Jarvinen discloses a plant growth system comprising:
a frame (apparatus 10 with frame 11; Figure 2)
a plurality of plant holders coupled to the frame (growing units 16; Figure 3), the plurality of plant holders retaining a plurality of plants (plants 12; Figure 1);
a cover (front wall 34; Figure 1) including a plurality of through-holes (openings 17; Figure 2), the plurality of plants each extending at least partially through one of the through-holes (Figures 1 and 5); and
a grow light configured to emit light toward the cover (“In addition, lights can be arranged outside the apparatus 10 to provide the plants 12 with sufficient illumination and these can be attached to hang from the upper end of the apparatus 10 or from the ceiling (not shown).” Col. 4 lines 42-46).
Jarvinen fails to disclose the frame being interchangeable.
However, Austrheim teaches a plant growth system comprising: an interchangeable frame (side support members 22; Figure 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Jarvinen, to be interchangeable as taught by Austrheim, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow easier access to the interior of the system, for cleaning and maintenance purposes.
Regarding Claim 10, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 8. Jarvinen further discloses the plant growth system, further comprising an array system(array of units 16) including a plurality of array units (piece 23.1; Figure 8), each array unit receiving one of the plant holders (piece 23.1; Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 10. Jarvinen further discloses the plant growth system of claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of array units includes a flange and each of the plurality of plant holders includes a lip (shown in annotated Figure 8 below), and wherein the flange of the array unit is configured to engage the lip of the associated plant holder when the plant holder is received by the array unit (Figures 4 and 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jarvinen fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of plant holders includes a flange and each of the plurality of array units includes a lip.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lip and flange of Jarvinen, to have the flange on the plant holder and the lip on the array unit, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to more easily fit the plant holder in place, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding Claim 12, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 8. Jarvinen further discloses the plant growth system further comprising a reservoir (tank-shaped reserve 31; Figure 3) positioned proximate to a lower portion of the frame (Figure 3) and retaining a supply of fluid (“The trough 27 forms a tank-shaped reserve 31 for the irrigation liquid.” Col. 3 lines 23-24) and a pump in communication with the reservoir and configured to direct the fluid from the reservoir to the plurality of plants (pump P; Figure 3; “The pump P is connected by a pipe (not shown) to the means 24 arranged in the upper part of the frame 11 for distributing the irrigation liquid to the growing units 16” Col. 4 lines 13-16).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvinen in view of Austrheim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ting (US 2019/0059238).
Regarding Claim 13, Jarvinen as modified teaches the plant growth system of claim 8.
Jarvinen fails to disclose the plant growth system, wherein the grow light is movable between a first position in which the grow light is positioned adjacent to the frame and a second position in which the grow light is retained at a distance from the frame and configured to emit light toward the cover.
However, Ting teaches a similar plant growth system, wherein the grow light (light module 130) is movable between a first position in which the grow light is positioned adjacent to the frame and a second position in which the grow light is retained at a distance from the frame and configured to emit light toward the cover (Figures 2A-2C; “The supporters 220 are relatively movable to the base 210 in the first direction D1 to move the light module 130 to locate in a first position, a second position, a third position or between the second position and the third position.” Paragraph [0033]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grow lamp of Jarvinen with the adjustable grow lamp of Ting, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for customization of the amount of light supplied to the plants, in order to ensure healthy growing conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Howe (US 2022/0400635), Tidd et al. (US 2021/0289726), Jang (US 2021/0059139), and Kincaid et al. (US 2020/0128761) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar plant growth systems with plant holders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights