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
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 03/09/2026.
Applicant's election of Group I (Claims 1-2, 4-10) in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 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)).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stichting (NL 9201632 A) in view of Alexander (US 20190021238 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Stichting discloses a method of cultivating indeterminate plants, that are suspended from an overhead conveyor device (Fig. 1), in a cultivation area of an indoor farming location with multiple growing zones (Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of:
scanning one or more parameters produce of the plants with an optical scanning device (scanners 11) arranged in a central operating area of the farming location, wherein the step of the scanning comprises:
obtaining one or more images of the produce of the plants, and processing the images to deduct the plant parameters from the images (scanners 11 detect size and/or ripeness of fruit).
Stichting fails to teach characterizing the plants into multiple different harvest readiness stages on the basis of the scanned parameters, wherein the harvest readiness stages are determined based on a ripeness of a next piece of the produce to be harvested from the plants, moving the plants towards the cultivation area, and sorting of plants into the multiple growing zones on the basis of their harvest readiness stage.
However, Alexander teaches characterizing the plants into multiple different harvest readiness stages on the basis of the scanned parameters, wherein the harvest readiness stages are determined based on a ripeness of a next piece of the produce to be harvested from the plants (para 90), moving the plants towards the cultivation area, and sorting of plants into the multiple growing zones on the basis of their harvest readiness stage (para 16, describes placing plants at different stages with respect to their readiness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the growing trellis as disclosed by Stichting with the zones as taught by Alexander with a reasonable expectation of success because providing various zones in the environment would allow for a user to provide optimal conditions to the plant dependent on their growth stage, as well as allow for a continuous supply of produce year-round by having various plants at various stages.
Regarding claim 2: Stichting as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the plant parameters comprise one or more of: a colour of the produce, a texture of the produce, a shape of the produce, a size of the produce, a chemical composition of the produce, in particular a sugar content thereof, a fluorescence of the produce, in particular a chlorophyll fluorescence, and/or hyperspectral colour bandwidths thereof, and/or a plant identifier (scanners 11 detect size and/or ripeness of fruit).
Regarding claim 4: Stichting as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the plants are sorted in a number of groups, and wherein each group of sorted plants is moved into a respective growing zone (various rows 2, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5: Stichting as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Alexander further teaches wherein the harvest readiness stage represents a predicted growing period remaining until at least part of the produce is ripe and/or until harvesting of the at least part of the produce is desired (para 58, discusses determining a time in which at least 90% of plants are expected to reach a certain size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the zones as disclosed by modified Stichting with the predicted period of growth as taught by Alexander with a reasonable expectation of success because having a predicted period in which a strong majority of plants are expected to be harvestable would achieve the predictable result of optimizing the picking stations, decreasing the probability that plants are directed to be harvested prematurely.
Regarding claim 6: Stichting as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as shown above, and Alexander further teaches after the predicted growing period of plants in a respective growing zone has elapsed, the steps of: moving the plants from that growing zone towards the central operating area, harvesting the at least part of the produce from the plants with a harvesting device arranged in the central operating area (paras 57-59 discusses time based harvest triggers) and moving the plants back towards their growing zone (para 124 discusses moving modules back).
Regarding claim 7: Stichting as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as shown above, and Alexander further teaches case the harvest readiness stage of a plant represents that the produce is ripe and/or that harvesting of the at least part of the produce is desired, moving the plant towards the harvesting device, harvesting the at least part of the produce from the plants with a harvesting device arranged in the central operating area (paras 57-59 discusses harvest triggers), and moving the plants back towards their growing zone (para 124 discusses moving modules back).
Regarding claim 8: Stichting as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and Alexander further teaches after the step of harvesting, the step of accumulating harvested plants, wherein the moving of the plants comprises moving the accumulated harvested plants towards a single growing zone (para 124, discuses moving modules back to assigned growing area).
Regarding claim 9: Stichting as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Alexander further teaches the step of spreading adjacent plants at the scanning device and/or the harvesting device to locally increase a mutual distance between subsequent plants (para 16, discusses increases space with the use of modules as they develop, para 91 discusses an optical scan to determine if a parameter is met before transferring plants, thus teaching this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the plants as disclosed by Stichting with the increased space between adjacent plants as taught by Alexander with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an increased distance between plants as they grow would achieve the predictable result of achieving a greater output of produce per square footage, achieving space efficiency as described in paragraph [0016] of Alexander.
Regarding claim 10: Stichting as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Alexander further teaches the step of adjusting the growth conditions, for example temperature, watering, supply of nutrients and/or lighting conditions, in each of the growing zones in dependence of the harvest readiness stage of the plants in that growing zone (para 106, discusses adjusting nutrient blend for plants in a first module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the zones as disclosed by modified Stichting with the adjustable conditions as taught by Alexander with a reasonable expectation of success because providing adjustable growth conditions for the plants in each module would allow for optimal conditions to be determined for each plant dependent on their stage of life, allowing for future production to be increased as a result of these adjustments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Stichting does not disclose sorting the plants based on readiness. The Office agrees that while Stichting does not discuss this, it does discuss the use of scanners (11) which determine whether the fruit is ready for harvest. As such this prior art would be able to be modified by the prior art of Alexander to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Alexander does not disclose characterizing plants into multiple harvest readiness stages based on the scanned parameters. The Office respectfully disagrees, as Alexander in paragraph [0016] discusses modules being designated for the plant’s stages of growth, and paragraph [0090] discusses the use of imagery to determine whether plants should be transferred module-to-module. As such, this language would be able to modify the prior art of Stichting to teach the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Alexander does not disclose sorting. The Office respectfully disagrees, as Alexander’s method of sorting via a predetermined sequence (namely dependent on the size of the plant) would naturally result in a distribution of plants based on a readiness stage, as the plant is progressed between modules once it has determined to enter a next stage where it must be transported to a module requiring more space.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Alexander discusses plant size and not produce. The Office agrees with this assessment however the focus of the art is whether such a modification would be considered obvious or not. The Office has interpreted this difference to be minimal, and that the art of Stichting in view of Alexander would be capable of arriving at the claimed invention, as the art of Stichting uses scanners (11) to determine whether fruits (9) art ready for harvest. As such, even though Alexander does not explicitly discuss the analysis of produce, Stichting already discusses the analysis of produce using imagery and would arrive at the claimed invention by modifying it to conduct similar sorting to that of Alexander.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Alexander is fixed progression while the claimed invention is dynamic, which are different operational concepts. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant argues that a resulting combination would not teach the limitations as they would not teach determining harvest readiness to sort the plants. The Office respectfully disagrees, because as discussed above, Stichting discusses the use of imagery via scanners (11) to determine whether fruits (9) are ready for harvest. Building upon this further via the sorting system of Alexander would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within Applicant’s related field of plant cultivation and image analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights