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. The suction duct inlet and outlet arrangement of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Figures 20-22 fail to show the fan guide 510, and merely show the blower assembly 500 as a whole. No new matter should be entered. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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.
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A Terminal Disclaimer has been filed and approved and therefore the previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn.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) 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (US-20210105955-A1) in view of Kang (KR-20020086004-A) and Yoneda (US-6725598-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Schroeder discloses an apparatus for cultivating plants, comprising:
a cabinet (104, see fig 1) including: an outer case defining an outer appearance (outer shell 104), an inner case defining a cultivation space (interior of liner 120), and an insulating material (insulating liner 120);
a door (134) configured to open and close the cultivation space;
a temperature adjustment device, and configured to adjust a temperature of the cultivation space (heat exchanger 154, see para 0033-0033);
a cultivation shelf disposed in the cultivation space and configured to accommodate plants for cultivation (grow module 210 with planting holes, see figs 1-3); and
a suction duct (310 and inlet 304, see para 0062 and fig 9);
the suction duct being configured to pass outdoor air therethrough into the inner case (see para 0062 and fig 9).
Schroeder fails to explicitly disclose an insulating material disposed in a space defined between the inner case and the outer case; the temperature adjustment device being disposed in the cultivation space, a suction duct disposed between the outer case and the inner case and passing through the insulating material; wherein an inlet of the suction duct is formed at a back plate defining a rear surface of the outer case, and an outlet of the suction duct is formed at a side plate defining a side surface of the inner case, the suction duct being configured to pass outdoor air therethrough into the inner case.
Yoneda teaches a temperature adjustment device disposed in the cultivation space and configured to adjust a temperature of the cultivation space (temperature generative device 57 in cultivation area, see figs 6-7).
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 temperature adjustment device to be in the cultivation area as taught by Yoneda with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for quicker and more efficient temperature adjustments, 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.
Kang teaches an insulating material (101) disposed in a space defined between the inner case and the outer case (see fig 3); a suction duct (210) disposed between the outer case and the inner case and passing through the insulating material (see fig 3); wherein an inlet of the suction duct is formed at a plate defining a surface of the outer case (inlet 210 defining surface of outer case see fig 3), and an outlet of the suction duct is formed at a side plate defining a side surface of the inner case (side plate of inner casing defined by outlet 210, see fig 3), the suction duct being configured to pass outdoor air therethrough into the inner case (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 suction duct to be passing through the insulated material with the inlets and outlets defining surfaces as taught by Kang with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the cultivation space is properly insulated, and that incoming air from outside is of an adequate temperature as it passes through the duct.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein an inlet of the suction duct is formed at a back plate defining a rear surface of the outer case. 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 suction inlet to be formed at a back plate defining a rear surface of the outer case with a reasonable expectation of success as this will optimize space and stability of the plant growing unit and facilitate efficient temperature stabilization after the plant chamber doors are opened for maintenance or harvesting.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the opening of the outer case is defined at a rear surface of the cabinet.
Yoneda teaches wherein the opening of the outer case is defined at a rear surface of the cabinet (opening for temperature devices 57 at rear of cabinet, see figs 6-7).
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 opening of the outer case to be at the rear as taught by Yoneda with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the duct does not interfere with use of the cultivation space or the doors, 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.
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 1, and Kang further teaches wherein the outlet of the suction duct is open in a direction intersecting the inlet of the suction duct (direction of inlet to 236 vs direction of outlet of 210, see fig 3).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 1, and Yoneda further teaches wherein the temperature adjustment device is disposed at a rear portion of the cultivation space (temperature generating device 57 at rear of cultivation area, see fig 6).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the suction duct passes through a side of the temperature adjustment device. 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 suction duct to pass through the side of the temperature adjustment device with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure that incoming air from outside is adjusted to an adequate temperature before reaching the plants to ensure they receive stable environmental conditions.
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 (see also drawing objection above).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 1, and Yoneda further teaches wherein the inlet of the suction duct is disposed behind the temperature adjustment device (inlet for suction duct at 61, which is behind 57, see fig 7).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except and wherein a front end of the outlet of the suction duct is disposed in front of the temperature adjustment device. 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 outlet to be in front of the temperature adjustment device with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure incoming air is circulated throughout the entirety of the grow space, 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.
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 5.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a blower assembly configured to circulate air in the cultivation space is disposed in front of the temperature adjustment device, and wherein the outlet of the suction duct is disposed between the temperature adjustment device and the blower assembly, the suction duct being configured to supply the outdoor air to a rear space of the blower assembly.
Yoneda teaches wherein a blower assembly configured to circulate air in the cultivation space is disposed in front of the temperature adjustment device (fan 58 is frontward of 57, see figs 6-7).
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 temperature adjustment device with the blower of Yoneda with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure optimal temperature air is circulated throughout the growing space.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except and wherein the front end of the outlet of the suction duct is disposed between the temperature adjustment device and the blower assembly, the suction duct being configured to supply the outdoor air to a rear space the blower assembly. 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 outlet to be in between the temperature adjustment device and the blower and the duct supplying air to the rear space of the blower with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure temperature adjusted air is circulated throughout the entirety of the grow space, 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.
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 1, and Schroeder further discloses wherein a filter (320) is disposed at the opening of the inner case (314, see fig 9).
Claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (US-20210105955-A1) in view of Kang (KR-20020086004-A) and Yoneda (US-6725598-B2) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gongben (WO-2018103651-A1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 6.
The modified reference fails to teach the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 6, wherein the blower assembly includes: a blower fan; and a fan guide accommodating the blower fan and configured to guide the air discharged from the blower fan, and wherein at least a portion of the outlet of the suction duct overlaps a portion of a space defined between the fan guide and the temperature adjustment device in a lateral direction.
Gongben teaches a blower fan (37, see fig 3); and a fan guide accommodating the blower fan (cover 51 and guide 59, see fig 3) and configured to guide the air discharged from the blower fan (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 assembly with the fan and guide of Gongben with a reasonable expectation of success as this will prevent debris from clogging the fan, thereby ensuring efficient airflow.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except and wherein at least a portion of the outlet of the suction duct overlaps a portion of a space defined between the fan guide and the temperature adjustment device in a lateral 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 outlet to overlap the fan guide and temperature adjustment device in a lateral direction with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure temperature adjusted air is circulated throughout the entirety of the grow space, 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 (see also drawing objection above).
Claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (US-20210105955-A1) in view of Kang (KR-20020086004-A) and Yoneda (US-6725598-B2) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wu (US-7364602-B2).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 8.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a filter guide configured to guide a detachment of the filter is defined in the inner case, and wherein the filter guide is configured to accommodate the filter from the inside of the cultivation space.
Wu teaches wherein a filter guide (200) configured to guide a detachment of the filter (170) is defined in the inner case (see fig 25), and wherein the filter guide is configured to accommodate the filter from the inside of the cultivation space (filter guide 200 for filter element 170, see fig 25 and col 16, lines 39-45).
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 filter guide of Wu with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for ease of removing and changing the filter, which will ensure the plants have clean air optimal for growth.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (US-20210105955-A1) in view of Kang (KR-20020086004-A), Yoneda (US-6725598-B2), as and Sugimoto (US 8161762 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Schroeder discloses an apparatus for cultivating plants comprising:
a cabinet (104, see fig 1) defining a cultivation space (122) surrounded by an insulating material (liner 120, see para 0026);
a door (134) configured to open and close the cultivation space;
a suction duct (310) configured to pass outdoor air therethrough such that an outside of the cabinet is in fluid communication with the cultivation space (310 and inlet 304, see para 0062, and fig 9);
an evaporator (154) configured to adjust a temperature of the cultivation space (see para 0032-0033);
a machine room (sealed system 150) defining a space separate from the cultivation space and having a compressor (152), a condenser (156), and a heat dissipation fan therein (fan, see para 0034); and
a discharge duct (342, see fig 9 and para 0069);
the discharge duct is configured to discharge the outdoor air in the cultivation space (342, see fig 9 and para 0069).
Schroeder fails to explicitly disclose a suction duct defined to pass through the insulating material; an evaporator disposed in the cultivation space, a discharge duct configured to communicate the cultivation space with the machine room, the discharge duct is configured to discharge the outdoor air in the cultivation space into the machine room, and wherein an inlet of the suction duct is formed at a back plate defining a rear surface of the cabinet and an outlet of the suction duct is formed at a side plate defining an inner side of the cultivation space.
Kang teaches a suction duct (210) defined to pass through the insulating material (101, see fig 3) and configured to pass outdoor air therethrough such that an outside of the cabinet is in fluid communication with the cultivation space (see fig 3), and wherein an inlet of the suction duct is formed at a plate defining a surface of the cabinet (inlet 210 defining surface of outer case see fig 3), and an outlet of the suction duct is formed at a side plate defining a side surface of the cultivation space (side plate of inner casing defined by outlet 210, 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 suction duct to be passing through the insulated material with the inlets and outlets defining surfaces as taught by Kang with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the cultivation space is properly insulated, and that incoming air from outside is of an adequate temperature as it passes through the duct.
Yoneda teaches an evaporator disposed in the cultivation space and configured to adjust a temperature of the cultivation space (temperature generative device 57 in cultivation area, see figs 6-7).
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 evaporator to be in the cultivation area as taught by Yoneda with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for quicker and more efficient temperature adjustments, 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.
Sugimoto teaches a discharge duct (157) configured to communicate the cultivation space (101) with the machine room (140), the discharge duct is configured to discharge the outdoor air in the cultivation space into the machine room (see fig 1, air flow from cultivation space 101, through duct 157 to machine room 140).
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 discharge duct of Sugimoto with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure air that has been sufficiently circulated is discharged efficiently.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein an inlet of the suction duct is formed at a back plate defining a rear surface of the cabinet. 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 suction inlet to be formed at a back plate defining a rear surface of the cabinet with a reasonable expectation of success as this will optimize space and stability of the plant growing unit and facilitate efficient temperature stabilization after the plant chamber doors are opened for maintenance or harvesting.
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 10, and Schroeder further discloses the inlet of the suction duct configured to pass the outdoor air therethrough (see fig 9 and para 0062).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except and wherein an inlet of the suction duct is defined at a rear surface of the cabinet. 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 inlet of the suction duct to be at the rear with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the duct does not interfere with use of the cultivation space or the doors, 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.
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 10, and Schroeder further discloses wherein the machine room is disposed below the cultivation space (150 below cultivation space, see fig 3).
Sugimoto further teaches wherein an inlet of the discharge duct is defined at a lower surface of the cultivation space (see annotated fig 1 below), and an outlet of the discharge duct is defined at an upper surface of the machine room (see annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 10.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the machine room further includes a barrier dividing the inside of the machine room into a suction-side space and a discharge-side space, wherein the condenser is disposed in the suction-side space and the compressor is disposed in the discharge-side space, and wherein an outlet of the discharge duct is in fluid communication with the suction-side space.
Sugimoto teaches wherein the machine room further includes a barrier (partition 154, see fig 1) dividing the inside of the machine room into a suction-side space (right of barrier 154) and a discharge-side space (left of barrier 154), wherein the condenser (143) is disposed in the suction-side space (see fig 1) and the compressor (141) is disposed in the discharge-side space (see fig 1), and wherein an outlet of (157) the discharge duct is in fluid communication with the suction-side space (see fig 1).
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 machine room with the partition and suction and discharge sides of Sugimoto with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure that stale air from the cultivation space is properly circulated to the machine room to be discharged, such that plants have an adequate supply of fresh air to aid photosynthesis.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (US-20210105955-A1) in view of Kang (KR-20020086004-A), Yoneda (US-6725598-B2), and Sugimoto (US 8161762 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view Lee (KR-101917033-B1).
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 10.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein an exhaust fan is further disposed in the discharge duct, and wherein the discharge duct is configured to, based on the exhaust fan operating, discharge the air in the cultivation space to the outside of the cabinet via the machine room.
Lee teaches wherein an exhaust fan (125) is further disposed in the discharge duct (121), and wherein the discharge duct is configured to, based on the exhaust fan operating, discharge the air in the cultivation space to the machine room (see figs 11a-b and page 5, see also drawing objection and 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 exhaust fan in the discharge duct as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure stale or used air is transferred from the cultivation space to the machine room to be discharged to the outside such that the cultivation space maintains fresh air and adequate circulation to optimize the plant’s photosynthesis.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except the exhaust fan being disposed in at an inlet of the discharge duct. 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 exhaust fan to be at an inlet of the discharge duct with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the air is efficiently evacuated from the growing space, to ensure adequate circulation of fresh air throughout the system, 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) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (US-20210105955-A1) in view of Kang (KR-20020086004-A), Yoneda (US-6725598-B2), and Sugimoto (US 8161762 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view Massey (US 11937564 B2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the apparatus for cultivating plants of claim 10, and Schroeder further discloses wherein a seal is provided with the door (sealing elements 224, see para 0045), based on the door being closed, to provide an airtight seal between the cabinet and the door (sealing elements 224, see para 0045).
The modified reference fails to explicitly teach wherein a gasket in contact with the cabinet is disposed at a rear surface of the door, the gasket being configured, based on the door being closed, to provide an airtight seal between the cabinet and the door.
Massey teaches wherein a gasket (29) in contact with the cabinet is disposed at a rear surface of the door (19), the gasket being configured, based on the door being closed, to provide an airtight seal between the cabinet and the door (see col 4, lines 10-16).
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 seal to be a gasket as taught by Massey with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a strong airtight seal, to ensure the cultivation environment is optimized to the plants needs and isolated from the ambient environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments over Kang concerning independent claims 1 and 10, the Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that Kang fails to disclose the newly amended features of claims 1 and 10. However, Kang does indeed teach an inner and out case, as made by the walls on either side of the insulating material 101, as seen in figure 3. Kang also teaches suction inlets and outlets on the outer and inner side of the outer and inner casing, respectively. Kang is silent regarding the suction inlet being on the rear of the cabinet, however it is not relied upon for that limitation and therefore this argument is moot.
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, Kawachi, which teaches a suction duct inlet, outlet and a blower.
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 /JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights