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 of Group I and the species IV, D, dd, aaa, aaaa, 16, and 3c in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-16, 18, & 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 63/362,471, PCT/US22/73896, 63/376,589, PCT/US2023/073914, & 18/580,950, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 17 & 19 include the details of the track ends and reversing mechanism that are not disclosed in the parent applications.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper punctuation in line 8 of the claim. 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.
Claim 17 & 19 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 17 recites the limitation "the direction of travel" in section b. of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 fails to remedy such deficiency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 27 recites the limitations of “wherein the plurality of segments includes a first segment vertically disposed above a second segment, which itself is disposed above a third segment, each plant site holds a plant capsule” which have already been set forth in claim 20 from which 27 depends. As such, applicant has failed to further limit said subject matter established within independent claim. Claims 28-30 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 20-22, 26-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rouxel, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0392834 A1; herein Roux.
Re claim 1, Roux discloses a plant capsule (500 & 600; the plant growing container and seed receptacle, fig. 5A-7) for use in a vertical arrangement of plant capsules (as shown in fig. 1A-D & 10-11C), wherein the vertical arrangement comprises at least a first plant capsule (fig. 1A-D, 7, & 10-11C, within the uppermost module; 300A) vertically disposed above a second plant capsule (fig. 1A-D, the module directly beneath the uppermost module; 300B), each capsule comprising:
a. an opening (602; the cavity of the seed receptacle, fig. 6A-C) for receiving a plant growth medium (para 106-107, wherein the cavity contains plant medium);
b. one or more supply openings for receiving fluid (314; the second apertures, fig. 3A-4 & 10-11C and para 78, wherein the second aperture allows a fluid to be supplied there through); and
c. one or more drainage openings for passing fluid (312; the first apertures, fig. 3A-C & 10-11C and para 75-77, wherein the conical surface allows water to drain and direct a fluid therefrom).
Re claim 2, Roux discloses the invention of claim 2, Roux further discloses , wherein the one or more drainage openings of the first plant capsule enable fluid from the first plant capsule to drain from the first plant capsule (fig. 3A-C & 10-11C and para 75-77, wherein the conical surface allows water to drain and direct a fluid therefrom).
Re claim 3, Roux discloses the invention of claim 1, Roux further discloses including an inset area in which the one or more supply openings reside (fig. 3A-C & 10-11C and para 75-77, the conical surface).
Re claim 5, Roux discloses the invention of claim 1, Roux further discloses wherein the opening has at least four sides, some of which are disposed at 90 degrees to each other (fig. 6A-C and para 70, wherein the shape of the orifice and port are additionally square, and both the complementary to the plant growing container and the seed receptacle).
Re claim 6, Roux discloses the invention of claim 1, Roux further discloses a top side (306/510/602; the orifices and cavity, fig. 3A-C, 5a, 5C, 6A, & 7) that includes the opening for receiving the plant growth medium (fig. 3A-C, 5a, 5C, 6A, & 7 and para 116, wherein the orifice of the plant growing container and cavity are inserted), a first surface (fig. 3A-4 & 10-11C and para 72, the upper surface/above the member of the module; 304a) comprising at least some of the one or more supply openings (fig. 10-11C), and a second surface comprising at least some of the one or more drainage openings (fig. 3A-4 & 10-11C and para 72, the lower surface/below the member of the module; 304b).
Re claim 7, Roux discloses the invention of claim 1, Roux further discloses wherein a bottom of the capsule (fig. 3A-4 & 10-11C and para 72, the lower surface/below the member of the module; 304b) comprises one or more drainage openings (fig. 3A-4 & 10-11C).
Re claim 20, Roux discloses plant support structure comprising:
a plurality of segments (300; the module, fig. 1A-D, 3A-4, 7, 9B-11C) each segment including at least one plant site (306; the orifice, fig. 3A-4 & 7),
wherein the plurality of segments includes a first segment (300A; the uppermost module, fig. 1A-D & 10-11C) vertically disposed above a second segment (300B; the module directly beneath the top module, fig. 1A-D & 10-11C), which itself is disposed above a third segment (300C; the module under 300B and above 300D, fig. 1A-D & 10-11C),
each segment includes one or more drainage channels (312 & 314; the first & second apertures, fig. 3A-4 & 10-11C and para 75-78, wherein the apertures allow a fluid to be supplied there through and drained therefrom), and at least one of the one or more drainage channels of the second segment is communicatively coupled to at least one of the one or more drainage channels of the first segment (fig. 1A-D, 3A-4, & 9B-11C and para 85, 89, & 136-141, via the fastening of the modules), and
each plant site comprises an opening (306; the orifice, fig. 3A-4 & 7) for receiving a plant capsule (500 & 600; the plant growing container and seed receptacle, fig. 5A-7), and
a coupling associated with one or more segments of the plurality of segments (para 85 & 89, the engagement portions of the respective modules).
Re claim 21, Roux discloses the invention of claim 20, Roux further discloses wherein the coupling comprises, for each segment, an attachment (360; the lower engagement portion, fig. 4), wherein the attachment is attached to at least two segments of the plurality of segments (fig. 1A-D, 4, & 10-11C, for attaching the modules together, again see para 85 & 89).
Re claim 22, Roux discloses the invention of claim 21, Roux further discloses wherein each attachment comprises a hook integral (450; the protrusion, fig. 3A & 4) with the corresponding segment (at the upper engagement portion; 350, fig. 4).
Re claim 26, Roux discloses the invention of claim 20, Roux further discloses wherein the one or more drainage channels include a first drainage channel (312; the first apertures, fig. 3A-C & 10-11C ) and a second drainage channel (314; the second apertures, fig. 3A-4 & 10-11C), the first drainage channel of the second segment is communicatively coupled to the first and second drainage channels of the first segment (fig. 4 & fig. 10-11C, via the assembly thereof), the second drainage channel of the second segment is disposed to receive fluid from drainage openings in a plant capsule in the second segment (fig. 4 & fig. 10-11C, via the assembly thereof), and the first drainage channel of the third segment is communicatively coupled to the first and second drainage channels of the second segment (fig. 4 & fig. 10-11C, via the assembly thereof).
Re claim 27, as best understood, Roux discloses the invention of claim 20, Roux further discloses wherein each capsule comprises:
a. an opening (602; the cavity of the seed receptacle, fig. 6A-C) for receiving a plant growth medium (para 106-107, wherein the cavity contains plant medium);
b. one or more supply openings for receiving fluid (512; the aperture, fig. 5A-B & 10-11C); and
c. one or more drainage openings for passing fluid (para 109, the slots within the bottom of the seed receptacle and 514; the second aperture, fig. 5A-B & 10-11C).
Re claim 28, as best understood, Roux discloses the invention of claim 27, Roux further discloses wherein the one or more drainage openings of the first plant capsule enable fluid from a first plant capsule held in a plant site of the first segment to drain from the first plant capsule (as shown within fig. 10-11C).
Re claim 29, as best understood, Roux discloses the invention of claim 27, Roux discloses the invention of claim 27, Roux further discloses Roux further discloses including an inset area in which at least the some of the supply openings reside (fig. 5A-B & 10-11C, the opening is inset from the surface of the growing container).
Re claim 30, as best understood, Roux discloses the invention of claim 27, Roux further discloses comprising a top side that includes the opening for receiving the plant growth medium (306/510/602; the orifices and cavity, fig. 3A-C, 5A, 5C, 6A, & 7), a first surface comprising at least some of the one or more supply openings (fig. 5A-B & 10-11C, the upper surface of the plant growing container), and a second surface comprising at least some of the one or more drainage openings (fig. 5A-B & 10-11C, the side of the plant growing container).
Re claim 31, as best understood, Roux discloses the invention of claim 27, Roux further discloses wherein a bottom of the capsule comprises at least some of one or more drainage openings (para 109, wherein there are a plurality of holes within the bottom of the seed receptacle).
Re claim 32, Roux discloses the invention of claim 20, Roux further discloses wherein moving the attachments apart from each other along a longitudinal axis moves the at least two segments apart along the longitudinal axis (para 89, via the slot and protrusion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 3 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Roux as stated above, or if applicant is of the opinion more than one draining opening is being expressly claimed, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roux.
Alt claim 3, Roux discloses the invention of claim 1, Roux further discloses including an inset area in which the supply opening resides (fig. 3A-C & 10-11C and para 75-77, the conical surface).
Roux discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of drain openings residing within the inset area however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide multiple openings within the conical area to prevent potential clogging of the drain, since it has been held that a mere duplication of essential working parts is generally held as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Alt claim 7, Roux discloses the invention of claim 1, Roux further discloses wherein a bottom of the capsule (fig. 3A-4 & 10-11C and para 72, the lower surface/below the member of the module; 304b) comprises a drainage opening (fig. 3A-4 & 10-11C).
Roux discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of drain openings on a bottom of the capsule however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide multiple openings within the conical area to prevent potential clogging of the drain, since it has been held that a mere duplication of essential working parts is generally held as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 17 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roux as applied to claim 20 above, in view of Barth et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0083068 A1; herein Bar and Diamos et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0349476 A1; herein Dia.
Re claim 17, as best understood, Roux discloses the invention of claim 20, Roux further discloses wherein each plant support structure comprises a grow tower (fig. 1A-D & 10-11C).
Roux fails to disclose a tower conveyance system comprising: a. a track for carrying one or more of the plant support structures the track has a forward end and a return end, and each tower has two sides; and b. a reversing mechanism for receiving a set of the one or more towers at the return end, wherein the set has a leading edge and a trailing edge relative to a direction of travel, and for repositioning the set so that the leading edge of the set received by the reversing mechanism becomes the trailing edge of the set when the reversing mechanism moves the towers to the forward end. However, Bar discloses a conveyance system comprising:
a. a track (30; the overhead conveyor, fig. 1A) for carrying one or more plant support structures (fig. 1B-G and para 20 & 219, the plants are located in containers and are supported and moved about via the conveyor), the track has a forward end (31; the main conveyor section, fig. 1A-G) and a return end (32; the secondary conveyor sections, fig. 1A-G); and
b. a reversing mechanism for receiving a set of the one or more towers at the return end (fig. 1A-G and para 219 & 225, the switching mechanism of the conveyor allows the plant containers to be reversed back into the respective growing zone if they bypass harvesting), wherein the set has a leading edge (the front of the train of containers) and a trailing edge (the rear end of the train of containers) relative to a direction of travel (fig. 1A-G, the path of the plant containers), and for repositioning the set so that the leading edge of the set received by the reversing mechanism becomes the trailing edge of the set when the reversing mechanism moves the towers to the forward end (para 225, when the trailing end becomes the leading end and vice versa, due to the nature of the dead end).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a tower conveyance system comprising: a. a track for carrying one or more of the plant support structures the track has a forward end and a return end, and each tower has two sides; and b. a reversing mechanism for receiving a set of the one or more towers at the return end, wherein the set has a leading edge and a trailing edge relative to a direction of travel, and for repositioning the set so that the leading edge of the set received by the reversing mechanism becomes the trailing edge of the set when the reversing mechanism moves the towers to the forward end however, Bar discloses a similar conveyance system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of having plant containers on a functional conveyance system as taught by Bar to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the grow towers to be monitored and harvested in an efficient manner. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Roux and Bar fails to disclose a tower conveyance system wherein each plant support structure comprises a double-sided grow tower. However, Dia discloses a tower conveyance system comprising: a double-sided grow tower, wherein each tower has two sides (fig. 1 & 4A-B).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a tower conveyance system wherein each plant support structure comprises a double-sided grow tower however, Dia discloses such structure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of a grow tower with openings on opposite sides thereof as taught by Dia to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing yield to be increased with minimal impact to the system’s footprint. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 19, the combination of Roux, Bar, and Dia discloses the invention of claim 17, Dia as applied to Roux and Bar further discloses wherein the track has a return track section (11; the growing zones, fig. 1A-G) at the return end (fig. 1A-G) and a forward track section at the forward end (20; the central operating area, fig. 1A-G), and the reversing mechanism comprises a shuttle for translating the set of towers from the return track section to the forward track section (para 220, 221, & 225, the switching device allows the towers to be shuttled therein).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0082617 A1 which discloses a conveyance system for a grow tower. U.S. Patent No. 12,089,545 B1 which discloses grow towers having overlapping funnels and a conveyance system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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 J Michener 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights