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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for excessive shading, see MPEP 1.84(m). New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because some of the drawings are shaded in black and grey, which reduces legibility. According to MPEP CFR 1.84(m), shading is only acceptable if it does not reduce legibility. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the interleaving of the first and second sets plant support structures of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Figures 39-40d pertain to the interleaving of the sets of plant support structures. However, due to the shading and distance of the drawings, the interleaving aspect is not apparent in these figures. The drawings merely show two sets of grow towers situated next to one another, not grow towers interleaved with one another. While figure 44B is a better depiction of the tower interleaving, based on the conveyance direction and mechanism shown in figs 40A-D, it is unclear how the grow towers reach the configuration shown in 44B without knocking or disturbing the grow towers from the other set. It would appear that as the second set of grow towers on 3904b1 is conveyed, that those grow towers would hit or interfere with the grow towers on cradle 3904a1. Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to for the term “interleaving” and “deinterleaving.” As discussed in the drawing objection, based on several of the drawings, it appears the sets of plant towers are just situated next to one another. The dictionary definition of interleaving requires multiple elements combined in alternate layers, sections, or segments. Also, in the drawings that do adequately depict interleaving grow towers (i.e. fig 44B), based on the conveyance direction and mechanism shown in figs 40A-D, it is unclear how the grow towers reach the configuration shown in 44B without knocking or disturbing the grow towers from the other set. It would appear that as the second set of grow towers on 3904b1 is conveyed, that those grow towers would hit or interfere with the grow towers on cradle 3904a1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 9832938 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses A system for transforming a first set of first plant support structures (43a) and a second set of second plant support structures (43b) from a high density arrangement (left fig 1, fig 6a) to a low density arrangement (right fig 1, fig 6b),
wherein each first plant support structure includes a plurality of first plant sites (4 plant sites per structure, see figs 1 and 6a), and each second plant support structure including a plurality of second plant sites (4 plant sites per structure, see figs 1 and 6),
the system comprising:
at least one actuator (driving unit 20 with motor 21, see col 4, lines 44-49) for deinterleaving the first and second sets to thereby move from the high density arrangement, in which the first and second sets are interleaved such that at least one second plant support structure is interposed between two first plant support structures (see left fig 1 and fig 6a, 43a and 43b are overlapping, alternating, and layered, therefore interleaved) to the low density arrangement, in which the first and second sets are not interleaved (fig 6b, 43a and 43b are not overlapping or alternating).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second sets reside in a controlled agricultural environment (plant structures within greenhouse, see fig 8 and abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a first attachment member (412 and 413) for holding together the first plant support structures of the first set, and a second attachment member (411) for holding together the second plant support structures of the second set.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the first attachment member comprises a first support load bar (412 and 413), and the second attachment member comprises a second support load bar (411).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the system of claim 3, wherein each first plant support structure includes at least one first complementary attachment member to attach to the first attachment member (see annotated fig 6b), each second plant support structure includes at least one second complementary attachment member to attach to the second attachment member (see annotated fig 6b).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 6b
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the system of claim 3, further comprising at least one conveyance member (conveyance member 30) that attaches to the first and second attachment members (see annotated fig 6b).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the at least one conveyance member comprises at least one conveyance load bar (conveyance bar 30, see figs 6a-b).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the at least one conveyance member is configured to engage with and move along a conveyance line (conveyance load bar 30 with conveyance wires 43 and 43’, see col 4, lines 65-67 and col 5, lines 30-54).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one actuator is operably coupleable to the first and second attachment members to perform the deinterleaving operation (driving unit 20 with motor 21, see col 4, lines 44-49, coupleable to the attachment members via conveyance wires 43 and 43’, see fig 6b).
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one actuator is operable to move the deinterleaved second set to a position behind or in front of the first deinterleaved set with respect to a direction of conveyance (see fig 6b and col 4, lines 44-49).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the at least one actuator is operable to couple the moved, deinterleaved second set to engage with another conveyance member (see fig 6a, see also fig 3c, multiple conveyance members engaged together).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second plant support structures are grow towers (grow towers 50, see fig 2).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses a method for transforming a first set of first plant support structures (43a) and a second set of second plant support structures (43b) from a high density arrangement (left fig 1, fig 6a) to a low density arrangement (right fig 1, fig 6b),
wherein each first plant support structure includes a plurality of first plant sites (4 plant sites per structure, see figs 1 and 6a), and each second plant support structure including a plurality of second plant sites (4 plant sites per structure, see figs 1 and 6),
the method comprising: deinterleaving the first and second sets to thereby move from the high density arrangement (see figs 6a vs 6b, also left and right fig 1, driving unit 20 with motor 21, see col 4, lines 44-49, coupleable to the attachment members via conveyance wires 43 and 43’, see fig 6b),
in which the first and second sets are interleaved such that at least one second plant support structure is interposed between two first plant support structures (see left fig 1 and fig 6a, 43a and 43b are overlapping, alternating, and layered, therefore interleaved), to the low density arrangement, in which the first and second sets are not interleaved (fig 6b, 43a and 43b are not overlapping or alternating).
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) 6, 9, 15-18, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 9832938 B2) as applied to claims 1, 5, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Clemmer (US 20220046875 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the system of claim 5.
Park fails to disclose wherein the first and second complementary attachment members each comprise at least one hook.
Clemmer teaches wherein the first and second complementary attachment members each comprise at least one hook (hook 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the complementary attachment members of Park with the hooks of Clemmer with a reasonable expectation of success as these will provide a secure and stable connecting mechanism, and since the equivalence of hooks and wire hangers for their use in the hanging connectors art and the selection of any known equivalents to hang grow towers would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses the system of claim 8.
Park fails to disclose wherein the at least one conveyance load bar is coupled to at least one trolley.
Clemmer teaches wherein the at least one conveyance load bar is coupled to at least one trolley (trolley assemblies 204a and 204b, coupled to conveyance load bar 206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the conveyance load bar of Park with the trolley of Clemmer with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide an easily maneuverable conveyance mechanism to ensure the grow towers are able to be efficiently and conveniently moved throughout the conveyance system.
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses the system of claim 1.
Park fails to disclose wherein the at least one actuator comprises a robot or a forklift.
Clemmer teaches wherein the at least one actuator comprises a robot or a forklift (robot 160, see para 0027-0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the actuator to be a robot as taught by Clemmer with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide for a more autonomous system, which lessens the need for user intervention, and therefore provides a more efficient and economical system
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses the system of claim 7.
Park fails to disclose wherein the at least one conveyance member comprises hangers.
Clemmer teaches wherein the at least one conveyance member comprises hangers (conveyance member 204a and 204b have hangers 208, see figs 6 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the conveyance member with the hangers of Clemmer with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a more secure connection mechanism, and allow for ease of disassembly as needed for cleaning or maintenance.
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 16.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein each attachment member comprises at least one hanger window for engaging with one or more of the hangers.
Clemmer teaches wherein each attachment member comprises at least one hanger window for engaging with one or more of the hangers (hanger window 211 in attachment member 206 for 210a, see figs 6 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the hanger window as taught by Clemmer with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for a secure connection mechanism, yet also allow for ease of disassembly as needed for cleaning or maintenance.
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 17, and Clemmer further teaches wherein the second attachment member comprises the same form as the first attachment member (hanger window 211 in attachment member 206 for 210b, see figs 6 and 14).
Regarding claim 37, Park discloses the system of claim 1.
Park fails to disclose further comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one of more processors, operable coupled to the one or memories, for executing the instructions to cause the at least one actuator to deinterleave the first and second sets to thereby move from the high density arrangement to the low density arrangement.
Clemmer teaches further comprising: one or more memories storing instructions (system memory 22); and one of more processors (processing unit 21), operable coupled to the one or memories, for executing the instructions to cause the at least one actuator to deinterleave the first and second sets to thereby move from the high density arrangement to the low density arrangement (processing unit 21, for operating conveyance structure & moving grow towers, see para 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park with the memory and processor of Clemmer with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for increased automation and different conveyance timing or schedules depending on the needs of the plants in the grow towers, such as timing of harvesting or lighting needs.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 9832938 B2) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Van Der Gaag (US-12336465-B2).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses the system of claim 7.
Park fails to disclose wherein, in the high density arrangement, the first and second attachment members are arranged in reverse orientations with respect to each other on opposing sides of the at least one conveyance member.
Van Der Gaag teaches wherein, in the high density arrangement, the first and second attachment members are arranged in reverse orientations with respect to each other on opposing sides of the at least one conveyance member (first and second attachment members in opposite orientations, see annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
584
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system of Park with the reverse orientations of the first and second attachment members as taught by Van Der Gaag with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for more efficient conveyance and entry or removal of the grow towers to easily change the tower placement as needed during the plants life cycles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above, exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Choe, which discloses grow towers with a trolley conveyor system, and Johnson, which discloses grow towers on a conveyor trolley system with a robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights