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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the length of the plurality of blower assemblies together corresponding to a length of the rear plate of amended claim 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 blower assemblies covering the water supply pipes from a front side of amended claim 34 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claims 21-35 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 21 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the following limitation: “wherein the plurality of blower assemblies is configured to form a rear surface of the cultivation space by covering the heat exchanger from a front side.” It is unclear how the blower assemblies form a rear surface if they are covering the front side of the heat exchanger, as the heat exchanger would then be a more rear surface, as they would necessarily be behind the blower assemblies. Claims 22-35 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 21 remains rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the following limitation: "wherein the plurality of blower assemblies extends to side walls of the cultivation space and the plurality of light assemblies and the plurality of beds to cover the heat exchanger." While Applicant has amended the limitation before it clarify that each blower assembly is between each bed and each light assembly, this limitation is still unclear. Particularly, the portion “blower assemblies extends to side walls of the cultivation space and the plurality of light assemblies and the plurality of beds to cover the heat exchanger." It appears that Applicant may be trying to claim that the blower assembly extends such that it covers the entirety of the rear wall, but the current claim language is not entirely clear. Claims 22-35 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 26 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the following limitation: “wherein a length of the plurality of blower assemblies together is configured to correspond to a length of the rear plate in the lengthwise direction.” As discussed above, this is not shown in the drawings, and further, specification paragraph 0286 states “The blower assembly 80 may longitudinally extend in a lengthwise direction and may be configured corresponding to a length of the inner rear plate 146 in the lengthwise direction.” This suggests that it is actually a singular blower assembly that is configured to correspond to a length of the rear plate in the lengthwise direction. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 34 is rejected in regards to the limitation “wherein the plurality of blower assemblies covers the water supply pipes from a front side of the water supply pipes.” As discussed above, this is not shown in the drawings. Specifically, figures 13-14 show water supply pipes 497 and 498 on the inner side plate 141 of the growing chamber. Blower assembly 80 is repeatedly discussed as being located at the rear of the growing chamber. Figures 40-41 that show details of the blower assembly do not include the water supply pipes 497 or 498. Therefore it is unclear how exactly the blower assemblies can cover the front side of the water supply pipes when they appear to be located in different areas of the growing chamber. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Double Patenting
A terminal disclaimer has been filed and approved and therefore the previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
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) 21-28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loessl (US-11058070-B2) in view of Yoneda (US-20030005626-A1) and Choi (US-11632914-B2).
Regarding claim 21, Loessl discloses an apparatus for cultivating plants, comprising:
a cabinet having a cultivation space (cabinet 10/300/400/500 with interior cultivation space, see figs 1-5);
a door (16) configured to open and close the cultivation space (see fig 1);
a plurality of beds spaced vertically apart from each other in the cultivation space and on which plants are cultivated (50, see fig 1);
a plurality of light assemblies (30) disposed above the plurality of beds, respectively, and that radiates light toward the plurality of beds (30 radiate beds 50, see fig 1);
a heat exchanger (641) configured to control a temperature of the cultivation space; and
a plurality of blower assemblies (led cooling blowers 434, see fig 4 and col 9 lines 41-67 and 10 lines 1-6, also 549a & b, see fig 5) disposed in front of the heat exchanger (440) and configured to circulate air in the cultivation space.
Loessl fails to disclose the heat exchanger disposed on the rear wall of the cultivation space, the plurality of blower assemblies being disposed in the cultivation space in front of the heat exchanger, wherein each blower assembly of the plurality of blower assemblies is disposed between a corresponding bed of the plurality of beds and a corresponding light assembly of the plurality of light assemblies, wherein the plurality of blower assemblies extends to side walls of the cultivation space and the plurality of light assemblies and the plurality of beds to cover the heat exchanger, and wherein the plurality of blower assemblies is configured to form a rear surface of the cultivation space by covering the heat exchanger from a front side.
Yoneda teaches the plurality of blower assemblies (57 with fans 58, see fig 6) being disposed in the cultivation space (interior of cabinet, see fig 6), wherein the plurality of blower assemblies extends to side walls of the cultivation space (blowers 57 extend in a lengthwise direction on the rear wall, see fig 6, see also 112(b) rejection above).
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 blower assemblies being in the cultivation space and extending to the side walls and light as taught by Yoneda with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for optimized heating and cooling as the air will be better circulated throughout each growing level and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Choi teaches the heat exchanger (263) disposed on the rear wall of the cultivation space (263 on wall s4 behind cultivation space, see figs 5 and 15, and col 8, lines 4-9), wherein each blower assembly (264, see fig 16-17) of the plurality of blower assemblies is disposed between a corresponding bed (220, see fig 16-17) of the plurality of beds and a corresponding light assembly (230, see figs 16-17) of the plurality of light assemblies, the plurality of blower assemblies (264, see fig 17) being disposed in front of the heat exchanger (263), and wherein the plurality of the blower assembly extends to side walls of the cultivation space and the plurality of light assemblies (230, see fig 16) and the plurality of beds (220, see fig 16) to cover the heat exchanger (264 extends to cover the heat exchanger 263, see fig 17), and wherein the plurality of blower assemblies (264) is configured to form a rear surface of the cultivation space by covering the heat exchanger (263) from a front side (see fig 17, on wall s4 behind cultivation space, see figs 5 and 15, and col 8, lines 4-9).
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 blower in front of the heat exchanger with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the air circulated through the growing space by the blower is properly conditioned to the proper temperature for the plants.
Regarding claim 22, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 21, and Loessl further discloses wherein the heat exchanger extends from above a bed of the plurality of beds to below the bed (heat exchanger 540 extends above bed 532a, and below, see fig 5).
Regarding claim 23, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 21, and Loessl further discloses wherein the heat exchanger overlaps the plurality of blower assemblies (heat exchanger 540 overlaps the blowing assemblies 549a and b, see fig 5).
Regarding claim 24, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 21, and Loessl further discloses wherein the cultivation space is defined by an inner case including side plates (406, 507, 607, see figs 4-6a), an upper plate (inside of 610), a bottom plate (plate for 613, see fig 6a), and a rear plate (rear plate by 612, see fig 6a).
Regarding claim 25, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 24.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the heat exchanger is interposed between the rear plate of the inner case and the plurality of blower assemblies.
Choi teaches wherein the heat exchanger is interposed between the rear plate of the inner case and the plurality of blower assemblies (see fig 15, heat exchanger 263 between rear plate and blower 264).
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 heat exchanger to be between the rear plate and the blower assemblies as taught by Choi with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for optimized heating and cooling as the air will be better circulated throughout each growing level and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 26, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 24.
The modified reference fails to explicitly teach wherein each blower assembly of the plurality of blower assemblies extends in a lengthwise direction, and wherein a length of the plurality of blower assemblies together is configured to correspond to a length of the rear plate in the lengthwise direction.
Yoneda teaches wherein each blower assembly of the plurality of blower assemblies extends in a lengthwise direction, and is configured to correspond to a length of the rear plate in the lengthwise direction (blowers 57 extend in a lengthwise direction on the rear wall, see fig 6, see also 112(b) rejection above).
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 blower assemblies extending lengthwise as taught by Yoneda with a reasonable expectation of success because ------------------------this will allow for a blower assembly to be sized to optimally circulate air through each grow space, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein a length of the plurality of blower assemblies together is configured to correspond to a length of the rear plate in the lengthwise direction. 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 plurality of blower assemblies together corresponding to a length of the rear plate in the lengthwise direction with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the entirety of the rear wall is covered with blower assemblies, as this will provide an even flow of air throughout the entire width of the growing space, such that all plants will receive the same amount of air flow, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 27, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 21, and Loessl further discloses wherein the plurality of blower assemblies is vertically arranged (blower 434, see also 549a&b, figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 28, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 21, and Loessl further discloses wherein the plurality of blower assemblies is provided in a number corresponding to a number of the plurality of beds (see fig 6a), and air circulation is independently performed in each of internal spaces of the cultivating space partitioned by the beds (see fig 6a).
Regarding claim 34, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 21, and Lossel further discloses wherein each of the plurality of beds includes a water supply portion (23) that protrudes at a rear end portion of the respective bed (outlet23 protruding up into rear of bed, see fig 2b), wherein water supply pipes are configured to supply water to the water supply portion (pipes in trough 22).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein water supply pipes are configured to supply water to the water supply portion from above, and wherein the plurality of blower assemblies covers the water supply pipes from a front side of the water supply pipes.
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 water supply portion supplying water from above with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow the leaves of the plants to receive water as well as the roots, to provide a more natural rain-like watering system, and allowing the water to rinse the leaves from dust or debris, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
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 wherein the plurality of blower assemblies covers the water supply pipes from a front side of the water supply pipes with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure cold air is not blown onto the water supply line, to prevent plants from receiving too cold of water, and to ensure the air flowing to the cultivation space is not obstructed by the pipes and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 29 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loessl (US-11058070-B2) in view of Yoneda (US-20030005626-A1) and Choi (US-11632914-B2) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Gongben (WO-2018103651-A1).
Regarding claim 29, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 24.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of blower assemblies comprises: a blower fan; a blower body, on which the blower fan is mounted; and a blower cover provided in front of the blower body to cover the blower body and the rear plate.
Gongben teaches wherein each of the plurality of blower assemblies comprises: a blower fan (37, see fig 3); a blower body (35, see figs 2-3), on which the blower fan is mounted; and a blower cover (51, see fig 3) provided in front of the blower body to cover the blower body and the rear plate (see figs 2-3).
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 blower assemblies with the cover and fan of Gongben with a reasonable expectation of success as the fan will ensure the air is well circulated and the cover will provide protection from damage or debris, and therefore help maintain optimal functioning.
Regarding claim 32, the modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the blower cover is formed of a same metal material as plates defining the cultivation space. 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 blower cover and sides to be made of the same material with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide easier and more efficient manufacturing, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 33, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 24, and Loessl further discloses wherein the plurality of beds (50, see fig 1) is configured to be introduced into or withdrawn from the cultivation (drawer like units 50, see col 3, lines 65-67).
The modified reference fails to teach and wherein a lower end of the blower cover extends further lower from a rear portion of the respective bed.
Gongben teaches and wherein a lower end of the blower cover extends further lower from a rear portion of the respective bed (blower cover 51 has attached partition 46 extending further lower, see fig 3).
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 blower cover with the lower extension as taught by Gongben with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the entirety of the blower is protected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 and 35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious wherein an upper end of the blower cover extends to a bottom surface of the respective light assembly and is open to discharge air to the bottom of the respective light assembly, and wherein a lower end of the blower cover extends to a rear end of the respective bed and is spaced apart from the rear end of the respective bed to suction air from a top surface of the bed, and wherein an upper end portion of the blower assembly is configured to be coupled to a rear end portion of the light assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, a new reference, Choi, has been brought in to teach the blower assembly being in front of the heat exchanger, and the blowers being vertically disposed in between the light assemblies and the beds and therefore Applicant’s arguments regarding these limitation are moot.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments to Yoneda, the Office respectfully disagrees. Yoneda does indeed teach blower assemblies (elements 57, with fans 58) that are located in the cultivation space, and disposed on the rear wall of the cultivation space.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the blower assemblies extending to the side walls, this limitation remains rejected under 112(b) as Applicant did not amend to fix the previous 112(b) rejection.
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, Hall, which teaches a fan 62 on the inner rear wall of the cultivation space, vertically disposed in between the bed 58 and the light assemblies 52.
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 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
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights