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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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 is unclear whether each bed has a plurality of blower assemblies that together extend to the side walls or whether each bed has one blower assembly that extends to the side wall. If the latter is the case, then the Office suggests updated wording such as “wherein each blower assembly of the plurality of blower assemblies extends to side walls of the cultivation space, [[and]] each light assembly of the plurality of light assemblies and each bed of the plurality of beds to cover the heat exchanger. 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 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.” Similarly to claim 21, it is unclear whether plurality of blower assemblies extends lengthwise together or whether each blower assembly extends lengthwise. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 34 is rejected in regards to the limitation “wherein water supply pipes to supply water to the plurality of beds are covered when the plurality of blower assemblies is mounted in the cultivation space.” It is unclear how the pipes may be covered by the blower assembly yet still transport water to the grow beds. The specification only shows pipes 497 and 498 in figures 13 and 14, and does not depict how they function while covered by the blower. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 23-26, 29-31 and 33-35 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 29-41 of U.S. Patent No. 12329076. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Patent 12329076 claims an apparatus for cultivating plants, comprising:
a cabinet having a cultivation space (claim 29, line 2);
a door configured to open and close the cultivation space (claim 29, line 4);
a plurality of beds spaced vertically apart from each other in the cultivation space and on which plants are cultivated (claim 29, lines 6-7, see fig 2 for vertically spaced);
a plurality of light assemblies disposed above the plurality of beds, respectively, and that radiates light toward the plurality of beds (claim 29, lines 8-9);
a heat exchanger disposed on a rear wall of the cultivation space and configured to control a temperature of the cultivation space (claim 29, lines 10-11); and
a plurality of blower assemblies disposes in front of the heat exchanger (claim 29, line 17-18) and configured to circulate air in the cultivation space (claim 29, lines 24-27);
wherein the plurality of blower assemblies is disposed between each bed of the plurality of beds and each light assembly of the plurality of light assemblies (claim 29, lines 14-15); and
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 (claim 29, line 17-19).
Regarding claim 23, Patent 12329076 claims wherein the heat exchanger overlaps the plurality of blower assemblies (claim 40).
Regarding claim 24, Patent 12329076 claims wherein the cultivation space is defined by an inner case including side plates, an upper plate, a bottom plate, and a rear plate (claim 29, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 25, Patent 12329076 claims wherein the heat exchanger is interposed between the rear plate of the inner case and the plurality of blower assemblies (claim 33).
Regarding claim 26, Patent 12329076 claims wherein 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 (see claim 29, lines 26-27 and claim 30)
Regarding claim 29, Patent 12329076 claims wherein each of the plurality of blower assemblies comprises (claim 29): a blower fan (claim 29, line 20); a blower body, on which the blower fan is mounted (claim 29, lines 21); and a blower cover provided in front of the blower body to cover the blower body and the rear plate (claim 29, lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 30, Patent 12329076 claims 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 (claim 29, lines 23-24), 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 (claim 29, lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 31, Patent 12329076 claims wherein the air circulated by the blower assembly flows while passing through and along the top surface of the bed and the bottom surface of the light assembly (claim 41).
Regarding claim 33, Patent 12329076 claims wherein the plurality of beds is configured to be introduced into or withdrawn from the cultivation (claim 29, lines 6-7), and wherein a lower end of the blower cover extends further lower from a rear portion of the respective bed (claim 29, lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 34, Patent 12329076 claims wherein water supply pipes to supply water to the plurality of beds are covered when the plurality of blower assemblies is mounted in the cultivation space (claim 29, lines 12-13 and 17-18).
Regarding claim 35, Patent 12329076 claims wherein an upper end portion of the blower assembly is configured to be coupled to a rear end portion of the light assembly (claim 29, lines 23-24).
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).
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 (climate control device 440, including led cooling blowers 434, see fig 4 and col 9 lines 41-67 and 10 lines 1-6, also 549a & b, see fig 5) disposes in front of the heat exchanger and configured to circulate air in the cultivation space,
wherein the plurality of blower assemblies is disposed between each bed of the plurality of beds and each light assembly of the plurality of light assemblies (see fig blowers 634 spaced between lights 632 and beds, see also 549a & b in figs 4-5).
Loessl fails to disclose the heat exchanged on the rear wall of the cultivation space, and 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.
Yoneda teaches a heat exchanger (57) disposed on a rear wall of the cultivation space (see fig 6) and configured to control a temperature of the cultivation space (see para 0091); and 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 (blowers 50 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 heat exchanger being on the rear wall and the blower assemblies 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.
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.
Yoneda teaches wherein the heat exchanger is interposed between the rear plate of the inner case and the plurality of blower assemblies (see fig 7, heat exchanger 57 is on rear wall & between rear wall and blower 50, blower 50 extends further outwards).
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 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.
Regarding claim 26, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants according to claim 24.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein 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.
Yoneda teaches wherein 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 50 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.
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 Loessl further teaches wherein water supply pipes (22/23) to supply water to the plurality of beds (50) are covered when the plurality of blower assemblies is mounted in the cultivation space (see fig 1, water pipes covered when system is fully assembled).
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) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art noted in the References Cited document is relevant as it pertains to similar systems for climate control. Specifically, Arbel discloses a relevant air circulation pathway.
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