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 were received on 08/31/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amended specification and abstract were received on 08/31/2026. The specification and abstract are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deschambault (US 20220087123 A1) in view of Gasmer et al. (US 20170142912 A1), hereinafter Gasmer.
Regarding claim 1, Deschambault discloses a vertical rotary plant cultivation system comprising:
an aerial rail installed along a circular track disposed at a predetermined level (top railings 1004; Fig. 1);
a plurality of planting structures (panels 1000; Fig. 1), each of which has rectangular planting surfaces (Fig. 1 shows cups 1012 for plants disposed on rectangular surfaces of panels 1000) and which move in a line along the circular track while one side thereof is suspended from the aerial rail such that the planting surface is vertically disposed (Fig. 1; ¶ 0060, “The aeroponic growing apparatus A also includes variable speed motorization assembly 1024 to selectively drive the articulated wall 1002 when operating as a carousel, e.g., selectively clockwise and anti-clockwise, and top railings 1004 [FIG. 3] for guiding the elongated panels 1000 during the driven displacement of the articulated wall 1002, the elongated panels 1000 having upper ends thereof engaged respectively in the top railings 1004”);
a work platform installed at one side or each of two sides of the circular track to face the planting surface of the planting structure (movable platform 1020; Fig. 1);
a driving device configured to consecutively move the planting structures along the aerial rail (motorization assembly 1024; Fig. 1; ¶ 0060); and
a water supply device configured to supply water or a nutrient solution necessary for growing the crops planted in the planting structure (spraying system 1025; Fig. 3; ¶ 0073, “The articulated wall 1002 is adapted to move horizontally in a closed loop around fixed spraying systems 1025 [see FIG. 3] mounted inwardly of the articulated wall 1002, the spraying systems 1025 being adapted to deliver a nutrient solution to the roots of the plants 1014”),
wherein the circular track of the aerial rail includes a plurality of straight sections arranged parallel to one another, curved sections connecting opposite ends of the straight sections so that the straight sections are connected in series to form a single line, and a connecting section connecting two outermost straight sections among the straight sections (Fig. 1 shows circular track comprised of top railings 1004, with two straight sections connected by curved connecting sections that connect the outermost ends of each straight section; Figs. 24A-F),
Deschambault, however, fails to specifically disclose a plurality of planting structures, each of which has rectangular planting surfaces on both surfaces thereof for planting crops, first and second work platforms installed at both sides of the circular track so as to respectively face the planting surfaces on both sides of each planting structure, and wherein each planting structure passing through the connecting section passes between the first and second work platforms.
Gasmer is in the field of vertical plant cultivation and teaches a plurality of planting structures, each of which has rectangular planting surfaces on both surfaces thereof for planting crops (Fig. 2 shows planting structures with first and second rectangular growing panels 225, 236).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vertical plant cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the planting structures of Deschambault such that each of which has rectangular planting surfaces on both surfaces thereof for planting crops, as taught by the planting structures of Gasmer. The planting surfaces on both sides of the structures would allow for growing more plants per structure, which would result in higher crop yields. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Deschambault in view of Gasmer to include first and second work platforms installed at both sides of the circular track so as to respectively face the planting surfaces on both sides of each planting structure, and wherein each planting structure passing through the connecting section passes between the first and second work platforms, in order to increase the amount of trimming, planting, picking and maintenance operations that may be performed at a given time. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 2, Deschambault in view of Gasmer discloses the device of claim 1.
Deschambault discloses wherein the planting structure is a grid-shaped structure having a hollow to accommodate roots of the crops (¶ 0066, lines 5-9, “Complementary openings 1013 are defined in the elongated panels 1000 such that the cups 1012 are e.g., removably, mounted thereto and to allow the roots of the plants 1014 to extend inwardly of the articulated wall 1002”), and a support roller rotating along the aerial rail is installed at one side of the planting structure (rail attachment member 1076; Figs. 15A-16B).
Regarding claim 3, Deschambault in view of Gasmer discloses the device of claim 1.
Deschambault discloses wherein a planting mat, a planting net, or a planting pot configured to support roots of the crops is installed on the planting surface of the planting structure (planting cups 1012; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Deschambault in view of Gasmer discloses the device of claim 1.
Deschambault discloses wherein the water supply device is a water-dropping hose installed along the aerial rail to allow the water or the nutrient solution to flow or a spray nozzle configured to spray the water or the nutrient solution toward roots of the crops planted in the planting structure (Fig. 3 shows spraying systems 1025 have nozzles; ¶ 0073).
Regarding claim 6, Deschambault in view of Gasmer discloses the device of claim 1.
Deschambault discloses a lighting device configured to radiate light necessary for growing the crops is installed between the planting surfaces of the planting structures at both sides which are adjacent to each other to move across each other in the straight section of the aerial rail (lighting system 1026; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Deschambault in view of Gasmer discloses the device of claim 6.
Deschambault discloses wherein the lighting device is installed to be movable toward or away from the planting surfaces of the planting structures at both sides (¶ 0076, “Transversal rails 1050 may be mounted about the top of the aeroponic growing apparatuses A, perpendicular to the longitudinal directions of the carousels, for components to be suspended to the transversal rails 1050. According to a realization, the lighting system 1026 is attached to the transversal rails 1050, allowing to increase or decrease clearance between the lighting system 1026 and the carousel by changing location of attachment of the lighting system 1026 to the transversal rails 1050 at the top. For example, FIG. 8 depicts the capability through displacement of the suspended lighting system 1026 to set its distance to the side of the carousel”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deschambault (US 20220087123 A1) in view of Gasmer (US 20170142912 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20230397536 A1), hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 4, Deschambault in view of Gasmer discloses the device of claim 1, including a guardrail is installed at an edge of the layer (Fig. 1), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the work platform has a multi-layer structure, and a guardrail is installed at an edge of each layer.
Smith is in the field of vertical plant cultivation and teaches wherein the first and second work platforms have a multi-layer structure (Fig. 3; ¶ 0038, “In one embodiment, the lowermost platform 306 of each harvest region 308, 310, 312 is coupled to a support base 314 by a first lift 316. The support base 314 is only illustrated in the harvest region 312 for the sake of simplicity. The first lift 316 extends from the support base 314 to the first surface 320 of the lowermost platform 306. A second lift 318 extends from the second surface 322 of the lowermost platform 306 to the first surface 320 of the uppermost platform 306. Additional platforms and lifts are contemplated and may be arranged similar to the illustrated platforms 306 and lifts 316, 318”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vertical plant cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Deschambault in view of Gasmer such that the work platform has a multi-layer structure, as taught by the multi-layer work platform structure of Smith. The multi-layer platforms would allow for work to be completed on different layers of the same planting structure sector simultaneously, which would improve the overall operation and accessibility of the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Deschambault in view of Gasmer and Smith such that a guardrail is installed at an edge of each layer, in order to improve safety. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 9 that “Deschambault discloses a single carousel track (1002) consisting of a simple oval/race-track loop with only two straight paths. In contrast, amended Claim 1 defines a highly space-efficient layout where a single continuous line is formed by multiple parallel straight sections connected in series by curved sections, with a connecting section joining the two outermost straight sections. This specific serial arrangement allows high-density crop cultivation while channeling all planting structures into a centralized maintenance zone,” the Examiner submits that Deschambault discloses the claimed track structure, as the claims recite “a plurality of straight sections arranged parallel to one another, curved sections connecting opposite ends of the straight sections so that the straight sections are connected in series to form a single line, and a connecting section connecting two outermost straight sections among the straight sections,” which is represented in Fig. 1 that shows top railings 1004 forming two straight sections connected by curved connecting sections that connect the outermost ends of each straight section. Figs. 24A-F also show the extremities of two loops being connected by connecting rails.
Regarding the argument on page 10 that “Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have no motivation to modify Deschambault's system to arrive at the claimed invention. In Deschambault's design, the roots *must* face inward toward the carousel to receive nutrients from the internal spray system (1025). If a PHOSITA tried to make the panels double-sided (planting crops on both sides): 1. The internal spray system would drown the foliage on the inside; 2. There would be no proper way to contain the roots and provide misting without ruining the crops on the opposite side; and 3. The lighting configuration would have to be entirely redesigned,” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation is found in Gasmer, which teaches planting surfaces on both sides of the planting structures, allowing for the benefit of growth of additional plants per each structure and higher crop yields. There is no evidence that the internal spray system would drown the foliage on the inside, that there would be no proper way to contain the roots and provide misting without ruining the crops on the opposite side, or that the lighting configuration of Deschambault would have to be entirely redesigned, if Deschambault is modified to include planting surfaces on both sides of the planting structures, as Figs. 24A-F show that the orientation of the growing surfaces can be inverted to allow for lighting and irrigation of the opposite side of each planting structure. Additionally, the planting structures of Gasmer are provided with internal irrigation systems, that would not conflict with the existing structure of Deschambault.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Creechley et al., US 20180014486 A1, discusses control and sensor systems for an environmentally controlled vertical farming system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
