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 for excessive shading, see MPEP 1.84(m). New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because some of the drawings are shaded in black and grey, which reduces legibility. According to MPEP CFR 1.84(m), shading is only acceptable if it does not reduce legibility. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 light emitters remaining parallel to the planting walls when moved between the operating position and non-operating position of claim 5 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 plane with the light emitters being movable within the plane and the plane being at angles between 0 and 90 degrees to the planting wall of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally the planes are not given reference numbers in the specification or marked in the drawings. 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 Objections
Claims 1-2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “multiple planting walls, the planting walls are arranged parallel to each other, the planting walls are movable towards each other;” 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;”
Claim 1 recites “a lighting system that is directly or indirectly connected to the container ceiling, the lighting system comprises at least one light emitting element, particularly a controllable LED;” which should read either “a lighting system that is directly or indirectly connected to the container ceiling, wherein the lighting system comprises at least one light emitting element, particularly a controllable LED;” or “a lighting system that is directly or indirectly connected to the container ceiling, the lighting system comprising at least one light emitting element, particularly a controllable LED;”
Claim 9 recites “wherein the lighting system comprises a holding means, the holding means comprises a light emitting element, the light emitting element is movable relative to the holdings means” which should read “wherein the lighting system comprises a holding means, the holding means comprises a light emitting element, and the light emitting element is movable relative to the holdings means.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 2-3 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph. The claim language recites the term “holding means.” This limitation meets the three-prong test for 112f due to its use of “means” modified by functional language (configured to) and lack of sufficient structure in the claims or the specification. The specification states that the “holding means comprises an elongated portion, particularly a rail, bar, beam, column or cantilever, wherein the elongated portion comprises the multiple light emitting elements,” and therefore will be interpreted as an elongated portion that also includes multiple light emitters.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected for lack of antecedent basis as claim 1 recites “at least one light emitting element,” whereas claims 4-8 recite “multiple light emitting elements.” It is recommended to amend either claim 1 to recite “multiple light emitting elements” or amend the dependent claims to recite “wherein the at least one light emitting element comprises multiple light emitting elements.” Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 1 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “the lighting system comprises at least one light emitting element, particularly a controllable LED.” The term “particularly” renders this limitation indefinite as it is unclear if the controllable LED is the only option and therefore required by the claim or just one example. Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 5 is rejected for lack of clarity and inconsistency with the drawings. Firstly, claim 5 states that the light emitting elements pivot towards each other as they move from the operating to the non-operating position and away from each other as they move from the non-operating to the operating positions. Figure 1 does not show this, rather, in the figure 1, the light emitting elements would move in parallel with each other as they transfer from the operating and non-operating positions. The claimed configuration appears to be shown in figure 3, however, due to the excessive shading of the plane it is not clear. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 5 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “such that two adjacent light emitting elements: ii) remain parallel to the planting walls and within the plane when moved between the operating position and the non-operating position.” Based on the figures, particularly figure 1,, the light emitting elements are hanging parallel to the planting walls when in their operating positions. However, based on the figures, it is clear that the light emitters are in fact perpendicular to the planting walls when they are arranged in their non-operating positions. Further, while in figure 3, the plane is oriented such that the light emitting elements can move within the vertical plane while moving between their operating and non-operating positions, it appears that for the horizontal plane of figure 4, they would be moving out of the plane as the pivot downwards to their operating positions. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 6 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitations “wherein a first light emitting element is movable within a first plane and a second light emitting element is movable within a second plane, wherein a first angle is formed between the first plane and a planting wall, wherein a second angle is formed between the second plane and a planting wall, wherein the first angle and the second angle are: i) greater than zero degrees, and ii) less than or equal to ninety degrees.” Firstly, while in figure 3, the plane is oriented such that the light emitting elements can move within the vertical plane while moving between their operating and non-operating positions, it appears that for the horizontal plane of figure 4, they would be moving out of the plane as they pivot downwards to their operating positions. It is unclear whether the plane of figure 4 is meant to also be a vertical plane extending downwards from the ceiling. Additionally, the figures do not depict the plane having an angle greater than 0 and less than or equal to 90 degrees with the planting wall. Figure 4 depicts the planes as being parallel to the planting walls and therefore having an angle of 0 or 180 degrees relative to the planting wall. The angles depicted as α and β in figure 4 are the angles of the light emitting element. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 8 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “wherein the holding means comprises an elongated portion, particularly a rail, bar, beam, column or cantilever.” The term “particularly” renders this limitation indefinite as it is unclear if the listed options are the only options and therefore required by the claim or just some examples. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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) 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son (JP 2024521776 A, as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 12/11/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Son discloses a vertical farming container comprising:
multiple planting walls (vertical beds 100), the planting walls are arranged parallel to each other (see fig 1), the planting walls are movable towards each other (movable via wheels 140, see fig 1 and para 0075);
a container ceiling (ceiling structure 600, see figs 1 and 5-6); and
a lighting system (artificial lamp system 500, see figs 1 and 5-6) that is directly or indirectly connected to the container ceiling, the lighting system (lamp 520 on system 500) comprises at least one light emitting element (lamp 520 may include multiple LEDs, see para 0057), particularly a controllable LED (lamp 520 may include multiple LEDs, see para 0057);
wherein the light emitting element is pivotable relative to the container ceiling between an operating position and a non-operating position (see figs 5-6, light pivotable via pulley system 620).
Regarding claim 2, Son discloses the vertical farming container according to claim 1, wherein the lighting system comprises a holding means (510) with a free end section (see annotated fig 5 below) and a connecting end section ( see annotated fig 5 below), the holding means is connected to the container ceiling by the connecting end section (see fig 6 and annotated fig 5 below), the free end section comprises the at least one light emitting element (lamp 520), the holding means is pivotable relative to the container ceiling (see fig 6 and annotated fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 5
Regarding claim 4, Son discloses the vertical farming container according to claim 1,
wherein multiple light emitting elements are arranged between two adjacent planting walls (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, Son discloses the vertical farming container according to claim 1,
wherein multiple light emitting elements are arranged between two adjacent planting walls (see fig 1), wherein the multiple light emitting elements are arranged in a plane parallel to the planting walls (see fig 1), wherein the container ceiling is configured such that two adjacent light emitting elements: i) are pivoted towards each other when moving from the operating position to the non- operating position, and away from each other when moving from the non-operating position to the operating position (light elements move towards each other between figs 5 and 6), and away from each other when moving from the non-operating position to the operating position (light elements move away from each other between figs 6 and 5), and ii) remain parallel to the planting walls and within the plane when moved between the operating position and the non-operating position (see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 6, Son discloses the vertical farming container according to claim 1,
wherein multiple light emitting elements are arranged between two adjacent planting walls (see fig 1), wherein a first light emitting element is movable within a first plane and a second light emitting element is movable within a second plane (plane extending downward from the ceiling, see figs 5-6), wherein a first angle is formed between the first plane and a planting wall, wherein a second angle is formed between the second plane and a planting wall, wherein the first angle and the second angle are: i) greater than zero degrees, and ii) less than or equal to ninety degrees (see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 7, Son discloses the vertical farming container according to claim 1,
wherein the lighting system comprises a holding means that comprises multiple light emitting elements (lamp 520 may include multiple LEDs, see para 0057).
Regarding claim 8, Son discloses the vertical farming container according to claim 1,
wherein the lighting system comprises a holding means (510, see fig 6 and annotated fig 5 above), wherein the holding means comprises an elongated portion (elongated portion 520), particularly a rail, bar, beam, column or cantilever, wherein the elongated portion comprises multiple light emitting elements (elongated lamp 520 may include multiple LEDs, see para 0057).
Regarding claim 9, Son discloses the vertical farming container according to claim 1,
wherein the lighting system comprises a holding means (510, see fig 6 and annotated fig 5 above), the holding means comprises a light emitting element (lamp 520, see annotated fig 5 above), the light emitting element is movable relative to the holdings means (see figs 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, Son discloses the vertical farming container according to claim 1,
wherein the lighting system comprises a holding means (510, see fig 6 and annotated fig 5), the holding means comprises a light emitting element (lamp 520, see annotated fig 5 above), wherein the container ceiling comprises a two-dimensional surface or a two- dimensional surface portion (see annotated fig 5 above), wherein the light emitting element and/or the holding means is translationally movable along a direction perpendicular to the two-dimensional surface or the two- dimensional surface portion (see fig 6 and annotated fig 5 above).
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (JP 2024521776 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rajala (WO 2010089455 A1, as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 12/11/2025).
Regarding claim 3, Son discloses the vertical farming container according to claim 1,
wherein the lighting system comprises a holding means with a holding axis (see annotated fig 5 above and fig 6), wherein the container ceiling comprises a two-dimensional surface or a two-dimensional surface portion (see annotated fig 5 above), wherein, in the operating position, an angle is formed between the holding axis and the two-dimensional surface or the two-dimensional surface portion (see annotated fig 5, approximately 90 degree angle between ceiling and holding axis).
Son fails to disclose wherein, in the non-operating position, the holding axis is parallel to the two- dimensional surface or the two-dimensional surface portion.
Rajala teaches wherein, in the non-operating position, the holding axis is parallel to the two- dimensional surface or the two-dimensional surface portion (see figs 2-3, light folds up to be parallel to ceiling portion).
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 holding means and axis to be parallel to the two-dimensional surface portion of the ceiling as taught by Rajala with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the holding means and light emitting elements are securely and compactly stowed away when not in use, providing a more space efficient lighting system.
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 lighting systems for plant cultivation. Specifically, Venkata discloses lights pivotable between an operating and a non-operating position.
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