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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on May 06, 2026. Claims 1, 6, and 10-20 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, lines 3-4, it is suggested to amend “one grow pathway” to --one growing pathway-- to maintain more consistent terminology throughout the claims.
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 20 is 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 20, line 2, recites the limitation "the distribution assembly". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, the structural relationship of the plurality of channels with other components of the system, including the air handler, the plenum wall, and the plurality of manifolds, is unclear, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
Claim 20, lines 2-3, recites the limitation "the air handler". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, the structural relationship of the air handler with other components of the system, including the plurality of channels, the plenum wall, and the plurality of manifolds, is unclear, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses an indoor growing facility (plant factory 1) comprising:
a climate control apparatus (air circulation supply unit 50) configured to produce a plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows), each stream of airflow having predetermined climate conditions (para [0099], thermo-hygrostat 51 regulates temperature and humidity of streams of airflow);
an enclosure (building structure 2) separating an interior grow zone (cultivation chamber 5) from an external environment (space outside of building structure 2; fig. 7); and
a plurality of growing pathways (rows of planting beds 30) positioned inside the enclosure (fig. 5 and 7) and defined by a growing structure (cultivation layers 6, 7) wherein each growing pathway of the plurality of growing pathways is isolated from an adjacent growing pathway to allow introduction of a stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow into each growing pathway (fig. 4 and 7, individual streams of airflow are introduced to each row of planting beds 30 via air supply tubes 53),
wherein the enclosure is formed by a plenum wall (wall of building structure 2 with air supply tube 53) positioned on a first side of the growing structure (fig. 4 and 7) and a return wall (wall of building structure 2 with air discharge tube 54) positioned at a second side of the growing structure positioned opposite to the first side (fig. 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows) has substantially similar climate conditions (para [0103], air temperature and humidity are uniformly maintained).
Regarding claim 3, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the predetermined climate conditions comprise air speed, temperature, and humidity (para [0099] and [0101]).
Regarding claim 4, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the climate control apparatus (air circulation supply unit 50) comprises an air handler (thermo-hygrostat 51) coupled to a distribution assembly (comprises air supply pipe 52 and air supply tubes 53), the distribution assembly comprising a plurality of channels (air supply pipe 52 and air supply tubes 53) to separate and divide an initial airflow into the plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows).
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 4, and further discloses wherein the climate control apparatus (air circulation supply unit 50) further comprises a return system (comprises air discharge tubes 54 and air return pipes 55) coupled to the air handler (thermo-hygrostat 51) that is configured to return the plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows) from each of the growing pathways (rows of planting beds 30) to the air handler (fig. 7; para [0102], airflow is returned to thermo-hygrostat 51 via air return pipes 55).
Regarding claim 7, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the airflow is modified after the airflow is returned from the plurality of growing pathways to have the predetermined climate conditions before the airflow is re-introduced into the plurality of growing pathways (fig. 7; para [0099]-[0103], climate conditions of circulated airflow are regulated by thermo-hygrostat 51 (temperature and humidity) and blades 53a within air supply tubes 53 (speed)).
Regarding claim 9, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of growing pathways (rows of planting beds 30) are defined by a plurality of vertical barriers (vertical cultivation table frames 22) and a plurality of horizontal barriers (horizontal cultivation table frames 23; fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the climate control apparatus (air circulation supply unit 50) is separated from the plurality of growing pathways (rows of planting beds 30) by the enclosure (building structure 2; fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the growing structure (cultivation layers 6, 7) comprises:
a plurality of vertical barriers (vertical cultivation table frames 22) and a plurality of horizontal barriers (horizontal cultivation table frames 23; fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 16, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plenum wall (wall of building structure 2 with air supply tube 53) is coupled to a distribution assembly (air supply pipe 52) to separate an initial airflow from an air handler (thermo-hygrostat 51) into each stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Archambault et al. (WO 2022/046928 A1), hereinafter Archambault.
Regarding claim 5, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 4, but does not appear to specifically disclose further discloses wherein the distribution assembly further comprises a plurality of manifolds coupled to the plurality of channels, each manifold of the plurality of manifolds comprising at least one vent configured to introduce one stream of airflow to one growing pathway.
However, Archambault is in the field of plant cultivation ventilation (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the distribution assembly (air delivery apparatus 10) further comprises a plurality of manifolds (air chambers 12) coupled to the plurality of channels (chamber inlets 16), each manifold of the plurality of manifolds comprising at least one vent (channels 30a, 30b) configured to introduce one stream of airflow to one growing pathway (levels of plant grow rack apparatus 200; each channel 30a, 30b is capable of delivering one stream of airflow into a single level of rack 200).
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 indoor growing facility with climate control apparatus, air handler, and distribution assembly having a plurality of channels of Cho to incorporate the teachings of a plurality of manifolds having at least one vent as taught by Archambault with a reasonable expectation of success to more directly deliver air to plants in planting pathways, thus ensuring that plants receive air with desired environmental parameters (para [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 17, Cho as modified discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the plenum wall comprises a plurality of manifolds, each manifold of the plurality of manifolds positioned directly adjacent to another manifold to form the plenum wall.
However, Archambault is in the field of plant cultivation ventilation (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the plenum wall (wall of plant grow rack apparatus 200 holding air chambers 12) comprises a plurality of manifolds (air chambers 12), each manifold of the plurality of manifolds positioned directly adjacent to another manifold to form the plenum wall (fig. 9, bodies of air chambers 12 have no other components positioned therebetween and are thus interpreted as being positioned directly adjacent to one another).
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 indoor growing facility with plenum wall of Cho to incorporate the teachings of a plurality of manifolds as taught by Archambault with a reasonable expectation of success to more directly deliver air to plants in planting pathways, thus ensuring that plants receive air with desired environmental parameters (para [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 18, Cho as modified discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 17, and further discloses wherein each manifold of the plurality of manifolds (from Archambault, air chambers 12) comprises a plurality of vents (from Archambault, channels 30a, 30b) through which the airflow exits each manifold (from Archambault, fig. 9-10, air exits via channel vents 38 of channels 30a, 30b), each vent of the plurality of vents aligned with one grow pathway of the plurality of growing pathways (from Archambault, levels of plant grow rack apparatus 200; fig. 9, each channel 30a, 30b is aligned with one level of rack 200).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Cho as modified discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the distribution assembly (from Archambault, air delivery apparatus 10) comprises a plurality of channels (from Archambault, chamber inlets 16) coupled between the air handler (from Archambault, “fan” para [0064]) and the plenum wall (from Archambault, wall of plant grow rack apparatus 200 having air chambers 12) to separate the airflow (from Archambault, para [0064]; fig. 9), wherein a number of the plurality of channels (from Archambault, number of chamber inlets 16) corresponds to a number of the plurality of manifolds (from Archambault, number of air chambers 12), each channel of the plurality of channels coupled to one manifold of the plurality of manifolds (from Archambault, fig. 9).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Zimmerman (US 2019/0313588 A1), hereinafter Zimmerman.
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow comprise a laminar flow.
However, Zimmerman is in the field of plant cultivation (title; abstract) and teaches wherein each stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow comprise a laminar flow (para [0042], lines 9-19).
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 indoor growing facility with plurality of streams of airflow of Cho to incorporate the teaching of laminar streams of airflow as taught by Zimmerman with a reasonable expectation of success to provide uniform climate conditions to plants, thereby optimizing the growth and proliferation of the plants (para [0042]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Esaki et al. (US 2016/0014977 A1), hereinafter Esaki.
Regarding claim 12, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the grow zone comprises a loading lane positioned adjacent the plurality of growing pathways and a loading elevator positioned in the loading lane, wherein the loading elevator is configured to move in the loading lane to selectively load plants into one growing pathway of the plurality of growing pathways.
However, Esaki is in the field of indoor growing facilities (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the grow zone (interior of building 1) comprises a loading lane (defined by rails 5-1) positioned adjacent the plurality of growing pathways (rows of organism containers 2) and a loading elevator (conveying device 5; para [0172], conveying device may be an elevator) positioned in the loading lane (fig. 1), wherein the loading elevator is configured to move in the loading lane to selectively load plants into one growing pathway of the plurality of growing pathways (para [0164] and [0041], conveying device 5 moves along rails 5-1 and may be used to load plants into cultivation unit 4).
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 indoor growing facility with grow zone and growing pathways of Cho to incorporate the loading lane and loading elevator as taught by Esaki with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the time and user workload required to load plants into the growing structure (para [0164]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Esaki et al. (US 2016/0014977 A1), hereinafter Esaki, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kaplita et al. (WO 2021/202827 A1), hereinafter Kaplita.
Regarding claim 15, Cho as modified discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 12, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the grow zone further comprises a propagation zone positioned between the loading lane and the return wall, the propagation zone comprising a plurality of rows for supporting plants during a propagation stage of growth.
However, Kaplita is in the field of indoor growing facilities (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the grow zone (interior of multi-layer hydroponics grow system 200) further comprises a propagation zone (first carrier path 104a; para [0015], the bottom layer, or first carrier path 104a, is interpreted as a propagation zone since it is capable of supporting propagated plants in an early stage of development, as shown in fig. 2D) positioned between the loading lane (first end 101 with first elevator 144; fig. 2A) and the return wall (upper wall of system 200, comprising main air return duct 140; fig. 2A-2B), the propagation zone comprising a plurality of rows (defined by quadrilateral openings 320) for supporting plants during a propagation stage of growth (fig. 3, note that quadrilateral tray carrier 318 shown in fig. 3 is one of a number of potential crop carriers 108 that can be received in the first carrier path 104a, as shown in fig. 2D).
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 indoor growing facility with grow zone with loading lane and return wall of Cho as modified to incorporate the propagation zone as taught by Kaplita with a reasonable expectation of success to provide climate-controlled air to younger, smaller plants.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Archambault et al. (WO 2022/046928 A1), hereinafter Archambault, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Van Ekeren (US 3,012,493 A), hereinafter Van Ekeren.
Regarding claim 19, Cho as modified discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 18, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each manifold of the plurality of manifolds comprises a diverter positioned centrally between the plurality of vents, the diverter having a sloped surface to guide airflow toward each vent of the plurality of vents.
However, Van Ekeren is in the field of ventilation systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein each manifold (“air-box” col 3, lines 22-23) of the plurality of manifolds comprises a diverter (divergent nozzle 9) positioned centrally between the plurality of vents (grille plates 3, 4, 5, 6; fig. 1-2), the diverter having a sloped surface (blades 10, 11 are sloped) to guide airflow toward each vent of the plurality of vents (fig. 1; col 2, lines 61-68).
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 indoor growing facility with manifolds and vents of Cho as modified to incorporate the diverter positioned centrally between the vents as taught by Van Ekeren with a reasonable expectation of success to direct air entering the manifold toward each vent and ensure more even distribution of air across all vents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 1-3 of 6), filed May 06, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 16 under §102(a)(1) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1) does not disclose wherein an “indoor growing facility includes an enclosure and the enclosure is formed by a plenum wall and a return wall positioned on opposite sides of the enclosure” (Remarks, page 2 of 6).
In light of the amendments to the claims, filed on May 06, 2026, the Examiner has provided updated citation mapping to the prior art, as is detailed in the rejection above. In particular, the building structure (2) of Cho has been cited as the claimed “enclosure”, the wall of building structure (2) with air supply tube (53) of Cho has been cited as the claimed “plenum wall”, and the wall of building structure (2) with air discharge tube (54) of Cho has been cited as the claimed “return wall”. Herein, as no specific definition has been provided in the instant application for the terms “enclosure”, “plenum wall”, and “return wall”, the terms are interpreted with their plain meaning. Furthermore, the terms “plenum wall” and “return wall” may be broadly interpreted as being a wall merely capable of supporting a plenum and a wall merely capable of supporting a return function, so long as the prior art meets all further structural and functional claim limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 3-4 of 6), filed May 06, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 5, 17-18, and 20 under §103 have been fully considered, but they 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.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Kinnis (US 2004/0194371 A1) does not teach “wherein the plenum wall comprises a plurality of manifolds, each manifold of the plurality of manifolds positioned directly adjacent to another manifold to form the plenum wall” (Remarks, page 3 of 6). However, in the instant rejection, Archambault et al. (WO 2022/046928 A1) has been substituted for Kinnis for teaching the limitation in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against Kinnis moot.
Conclusion
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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights