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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “multiple planting walls, wherein the planting walls are arranged parallel to each other, and the planting walls are movable towards each other in a direction that is perpendicular to planes defined by the planning walls” which should read “multiple planting walls, wherein the planting walls are arranged parallel to each other, and the planting walls are movable towards each other in a direction that is perpendicular to planes defined by the planting walls”
Claim 18 recites “The vertical farming container according to claim 5, wherein a first one of the adjacent light emitting elements is supported by a first holding means and a second one of the adjacent light emitting elements is supported by a second holding means, the first holding means being separate from the second holding means” which should read “The vertical farming container according to claim 5, wherein a first one of the adjacent light emitting elements is supported by a first holding means and a second one of the adjacent light emitting elements is supported by a second holding means, the first holding means being separate from the second holding means.”
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.
Claims 11, 16-17, and 19-20 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 11 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “wherein movement of a first holding means supporting a first one of the adjacent light emitting elements and movement of a second holding means supporting a second one of the adjacent light emitting elements are time-displaced from one another.” It is unclear how the movement of the first and second holding means and light adjacent elements is conducted, and therefore how the time-displacement occurs. Is there a controller that operates one of the holding means and light emitting elements while instructing the other to wait or remain stationary? Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are likewise rejected for lack of clarity as to how the movement of the holding means it initiated or conducted, or how the holding means are kept stationary – is there a controller that controls the holding means and light emitting elements to move or remain stationary? Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 is rejected for failing to further limit the claim upon which it depends (claim 6). Claim 13 states “wherein the first plane and the second plane are parallel to each other and are spaced apart from each other to avoid collision between the first light emitting element and the second light emitting element.” Claim 6 already states “wherein the first plane and the second plane are parallel to each other and are spaced apart from each other” and therefore the only additional limitations in claim 13 are functional. Claim 14 is likewise rejected for failing to further limit the claim upon which it depends (claim 13) as claim 14 only includes further functional language relating to the lack of collision between the first and second light emitting elements.
Claim 17 is rejected for failing to further limit the claim upon which it depends (claim 16). Claim 17 states “wherein the second holding means remains stationary while the first holding means initially moves from the operating position toward the non-operating position,” however, claim 16 already states that the first holding means begins movement before the second holding means, and therefore it is unclear how claim 17 further limits claim 16.
Claim 20 is rejected for failing to further limit the claim upon which it depends (claim 19). Claim 20 states “wherein the first holding means is movable from the operating position toward the non-operating position before movement of the second holding means begins,” however, claim 19 already states that the first holding means is movable before the second holding means, and therefore it is unclear how claim 20 further limits claim 19.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 06/23/2026 have been considered but are moot as Applicant’s amendments have rendered claim 1 allowable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12, 15, and 18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
While the prior art of record teaches a vertical farming container comprising: multiple planting walls, wherein the planting walls are arranged parallel to each other, and the planting walls are movable towards each other in a direction that is perpendicular to planes defined by the planning walls; a container ceiling; and a lighting system that is directly or indirectly connected to the container ceiling, wherein the lighting system comprises at least one light emitting element; wherein the light emitting element is pivotable relative to the container ceiling between an operating position and a non-operating position, see previous rejection with Son (JP 2024521776 A), the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the container ceiling comprises a recess, and in the non-operating position, the light emitting element is received at least partially within the recess.
One of the closest prior art of record is Kaplan (US 9746146 B2), which teaches a pivotable light fixture 310 attached to a holding means 332, that is positioned within a recess when in the non-operating position. However, the recess is contained within a housing that may then be attached to the ceiling, not a recess in the container ceiling itself. Further, there would be no motivation to modify this to have the recess in the ceiling as Kaplan specifically discusses drawbacks of having the light positioned in a recess directly on the ceiling, such as light clipping. Even if there was teaching of mounting the light source holding means into a recess directly on the ceiling, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the vertical farming system of Son with the ceiling recess as this would interfere with the pully pivot light movement system.
Another close prior art of record is Galke (US 20090201681 A1) which similarly teaches a light source and holding means positioned at least partially within a recess. However, similar to Kaplan, the recess is within a housing, with the housing mountable on a wall or ceiling, as opposed to the recess within the container ceiling itself, as in the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights