Detail 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 configuration wherein the screen extends across the volume and is in contact with the base of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings, specifically fig 3a, show the screen in contact with the walls 302, not the base 308. 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 6, 9 and 15 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 6, 9 and 15 are rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “wherein the screen has a mesh size of about 1 μm to about 100 μm.” The term “about” in claims 6, 9 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term about is indefinite as it does not provide the acceptable amount of variation or degrees of freedom from the given range intended by the Applicant. 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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “The system of claim 2, wherein at least one wall of the plurality of walls is configured to enable passage of a grow tower of the one or more grow towers therethrough.” However, claim 2 states “wherein at least two walls of the plurality of walls comprise openings to enable passage of the grow towers therethrough,” and therefore, claim 3 does not appear to further limit claim 2, rather, the limitations of claim 3 appear to be broader than those of claim 2. 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. 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 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-17 and 19-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12514181. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, Patent 12514181 claims a system, comprising:
a grow line having a plurality of grow towers disposed thereon (claim 16, line 2);
a chamber defining a volume, the chamber coupled to the grow line and operable to isolate one or more grow towers within the volume from a surrounding environment (claim 16, lines 3-4); and
a blower in fluid communication with the volume (claim 16, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 2, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 1, wherein the chamber comprises a plurality of walls (claim 16), wherein at least two walls of the plurality of walls comprise openings to enable passage of the grow towers therethrough (claim 21).
Regarding claim 3, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 2, wherein at least one wall of the plurality of walls is configured to enable passage of a grow tower of the one or more grow towers therethrough (claim 20).
Regarding claim 4, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 1, further comprising: a screen disposed between the blower and the volume (claim 16).
Regarding claim 5, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of walls (claim 16); and a screen extending between the plurality of walls and defining a lower bound of the volume (claim 16).
Regarding claim 7, Patent 12514181 claims a system, comprising:
a grow line having a plurality of grow towers disposed thereon (claim 16, line 2);
a chamber defining a volume, the chamber coupled to the grow line and operable to isolate one or more grow towers within the volume, the volume at least partially defined by (claim 16, lines 3-4):
a plurality of walls (claim 16, line 5);
a ceiling coupled to the plurality of walls (claim 16, line 6); and
a base coupled to the plurality of walls opposite the ceiling (claim 16, line 7);
a screen coupled to each wall of the plurality of walls and extending across the volume (claim 16, line 8); and
a blower in fluid communication with the volume via an outlet formed in the base (claim 16, line 10).
Regarding claim 8, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 7, wherein the blower is in fluid communication with the volume via an inlet formed in the base (claim 17).
Regarding claim 10, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 7, wherein the screen extends across the volume and is in contact with the base (claim 16, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 11, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 7, wherein at least one wall of the plurality of walls is configured to enable passage of a grow tower of the one or more grow towers therethrough (claim 20).
Regarding claim 12, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 11, wherein a first wall of the plurality of walls comprises a first opening and a second wall of the plurality of walls comprises a second opening (claim 21), and wherein the first opening and the second opening are opposite one another (claim 21).
Regarding claim 13, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 12, further comprising: a first door coupled to the first wall, the first door operable to move relative to the first opening (claim 22); and a second door coupled to the second wall, the second door operable to move relative to the second opening (claim 22).
Regarding claim 14, Patent 12514181 claims a system, comprising:
a grow line having a plurality of grow towers disposed thereon (claim 16, line 2);
a chamber defining a volume, the chamber coupled to the grow line and operable to isolate one or more grow towers within the volume, the volume at least partially defined by (claim 16, lines 3-4):
a plurality of walls (claim 16, line 5);
a ceiling coupled to the plurality of walls (claim 16, line 6); and
a base coupled to the plurality of walls opposite the ceiling (claim 16, line 7);
a screen coupled to each wall of the plurality of walls and extending across the volume (claim 16, line 8),
wherein the screen, the plurality of walls, and the base define a plenum (claim 16, lines 8-12, screen, blower and base); and
a blower in fluid communication with the plenum via an outlet formed in the base (claim 16, line 10, while not identical wording, but found in claim 16).
Regarding claim 16, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 14, wherein at least one wall of the plurality of walls is configured to enable passage of a grow tower of the one or more grow towers therethrough (claim 20).
Regarding claim 17, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 16, wherein a first wall of the plurality of walls comprises a first opening and a second wall of the plurality of walls comprises a second opening (claim 21), and wherein the first opening and the second opening are opposite one another (claim 21).
Regarding claim 18, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 17, further comprising: a first door coupled to the first wall, the first door operable to move relative to the first opening (claim 22); and a second door coupled to the second wall, the second door operable to move relative to the second opening (claim 22).
Regarding claim 20, Patent 12514181 claims the system of claim 14, further comprising a pollen source in fluid communication with the volume via a conduit, wherein the conduit extends through the plenum (claim 16, lines 13-15, while not identical wording, but found in claim 16).
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colless (US-8234812-B1) in view of Moffit (US-11089744-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Colless discloses a system comprising:
a grow line (50) having a plurality of grow walls (60) disposed thereon;
a chamber (interior of container 20, see fig 2) defining a volume, the chamber coupled to the grow line and operable to isolate one or more grow towers within the volume (interior of 20) from a surrounding environment; and
a blower (160 thermal control system with fan) in fluid communication with the volume (see fig 2).
Colless fails to disclose the grow line having a plurality of grow towers.
Moffit teaches a grow line (700) having a plurality of grow towers (702) disposed thereon (see fig 7, see also figs 9 and 11 and col 7, lines 4-25).
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 of Colless with the towers of Moffit with a reasonable expectation of success as grow towers are more easily maneuverable due to their smaller size, thereby allowing for more variation within the growing configuration, and ease of movement for disassembly for maintenance or cleaning.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Colless further discloses wherein the chamber (20) comprises a plurality of walls (25), wherein at least two walls (25) of the plurality of walls comprise openings to enable passage of the grow towers therethrough (opening at 28 and 22, see annotated fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 2
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Colless further discloses wherein at least one wall (25) of the plurality of walls (25) is configured to enable passage of a grow tower of the one or more grow towers therethrough (see annotated fig 2 above).
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colless (US-8234812-B1) in view of Moffit (US-11089744-B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moschopoulos (WO-2020021253-A1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising: a screen disposed between the blower and the volume.
Moschopoulos teaches further comprising: a screen disposed between the blower (131) and the volume (screen 111 between volume 120 and blower 131).
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 with the screen of Moschopoulos with a reasonable expectation of success as this will prevent debris and insects from entering the planting zone or into the fan assembly.
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Colless further discloses further comprising: a plurality of walls (side walls 25).
The modified reference fails to teach a screen extending between the plurality of walls and defining a lower bound of the volume.
Moschopoulos teaches a screen (perforated mesh grid floor 111) between the plurality of walls (110) and defining a lower bound of the volume (120, see figs 2 and 5 and page 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 screen defining the boundary of the lower volume as taught by Moschopoulos with a reasonable expectation of success as this will securely support the plants while still allowing for air flow (see Moschopoulos page 9).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colless (US-8234812-B1) in view of Moffit (US-11089744-B2) and Moschopoulos (WO-2020021253-A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wang (CN-110583473-A).
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 5.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the screen has a mesh size of about 1 μm to about 100 μm.
Wang teaches wherein the screen has a mesh size of about 1 μm to about 100 μm (filter plate 3 has mesh screen with 30-100 micron, see page 2).
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 screen with the mesh size of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success as this will prevent debris and insects from entering through or into the fan assembly while still allowing pollen to flow as needed.
Claim(s) 7-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colless (US-8234812-B1) in view of Moffit (US-11089744-B2) and Moschopoulos (WO-2020021253-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Colless discloses a system comprising:
a grow line (50) having a plurality of grow walls (60) disposed thereon;
a chamber (interior of container 20, see fig 2) defining a volume, the chamber coupled to the grow line and operable to isolate one or more grow towers within the volume (interior of 20), the volume frat least partially defined by:
a plurality of walls (side walls 25);
a ceiling (top of 20) coupled to the plurality of walls; and
a base (21) coupled to the plurality of walls opposite the ceiling;
a blower (160 thermal control system with fan) in fluid communication with the volume (see fig 2).
Colless fails to disclose the grow line having a plurality of grow towers, a screen coupled to each wall of the plurality of walls and extending across the volume; and the blower communication being via an outlet formed in the base.
Moffit teaches a grow line (700) having a plurality of grow towers (702) disposed thereon (see fig 7, see also figs 9 and 11 and col 7, lines 4-25).
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 of Colless with the towers of Moffit with a reasonable expectation of success as grow towers are more easily maneuverable due to their smaller size, thereby allowing for more variation within the growing configuration, and ease of movement for disassembly for maintenance or cleaning.
Moschopoulos teaches a screen (perforated mesh grid floor 111) coupled to each wall of the plurality of walls (110) and extending across the volume (120, see figs 2 and 5 and page 9); and a blower (131) in fluid communication with the volume (120) via an outlet (136b) formed in the base (116, see figs 2 and 5 and page 8).
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 screen defining the boundary of the lower volume and the blower in the base as taught by Moschopoulos with a reasonable expectation of success as this will securely support the plants while still allowing for air flow (see Moschopoulos page 9) and ensuring the air is circulated adequately throughout the growing system.
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 7.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the blower is in fluid communication with the volume via an inlet formed in the base.
Moschopoulos teaches wherein the blower (131) is in fluid communication with the volume via an inlet (119a) formed in the base (116, see figs 2 and 5 and page 8).
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 screen defining the boundary of the lower volume and the blower in the base as taught by Moschopoulos with a reasonable expectation of success as will ensure that fresh air is circulated adequately throughout the growing system to optimize the environment for photosynthesis and plant growth.
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 7, and Moschopoulos further teaches wherein the screen (111) extends across the volume (120) and is in contact with the base (116, see figs 2 and 5 and pages 8-9).
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 7, and Colless further discloses wherein at least one wall (25) of the plurality of walls (25) is configured to enable passage of a grow tower of the one or more grow towers therethrough (opening at 28 and 22, see annotated fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 11, and Colless further discloses wherein a first wall of the plurality of walls comprises a first opening and a second wall of the plurality of walls comprises a second opening (see annotated fig 2 above), and wherein the first opening and the second opening are opposite one another (see annotated fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 12, and Colless further discloses further comprising: a first door (29) coupled to the first wall, the first door operable to move relative to the first opening (see annotated fig 2 above); and a second door (29) coupled to the second wall, the second door operable to move relative to the second opening (see annotated fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 14, Colless discloses a system comprising:
a grow line (50) having a plurality of grow walls (60) disposed thereon;
a chamber (interior of container 20, see fig 2) defining a volume (see fig 2), the chamber coupled to the grow line and operable to isolate one or more grow towers within the volume (interior of 20), the volume frat least partially defined by:
a plurality of walls (side walls 25);
a ceiling (top of 20) coupled to the plurality of walls (25); and
a base (21) coupled to the plurality of walls opposite the ceiling (see fig 2);
a blower (160 thermal control system with fan) in fluid communication with the volume (see fig 2).
Colless fails to disclose the grow line having a plurality of grow towers, a screen coupled to each wall of the plurality of walls and extending across the volume, wherein the screen, the plurality of walls, and the base define a plenum; and a blower in fluid communication with the plenum via an outlet formed in the base.
Moffit teaches a grow line (700) having a plurality of grow towers (702) disposed thereon (see fig 7, see also figs 9 and 11 and col 7, lines 4-25).
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 of Colless with the towers of Moffit with a reasonable expectation of success as grow towers are more easily maneuverable due to their smaller size, thereby allowing for more variation within the growing configuration, and ease of movement for disassembly for maintenance or cleaning.
Moschopoulos teaches a screen (perforated mesh grid floor 111) coupled to each wall of the plurality of walls (110) and extending across the volume (120, see figs 1-2 and page 9), wherein the screen (111), the plurality of walls (110), and the base (116) define a plenum (134); and a blower (131) in fluid communication with the plenum (134) via an outlet (136b) formed in the base (116, see figs 2 and 5 and page 8-9).
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 screen, walls and base defining a plenum and the blower in communication with the plenum as taught by Moschopoulos with a reasonable expectation of success as this will securely support the plants while still allowing for air flow (see Moschopoulos page 9) while ensuring the air is circulated adequately throughout the growing system.
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 14, and Colless further discloses wherein at least one wall (25) of the plurality of walls (25) is configured to enable passage of a grow tower of the one or more grow towers therethrough (opening at 28 and 22, see annotated fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 16, and Colless further discloses wherein a first wall of the plurality of walls comprises a first opening and a second wall of the plurality of walls comprises a second opening (see annotated fig 2 above), and wherein the first opening and the second opening are opposite one another (see annotated fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 14, and Colless further discloses further comprising: a first door (29) coupled to the first wall, the first door operable to move relative to the first opening (see annotated fig 2 above); and a second door (29) coupled to the second wall, the second door operable to move relative to the second opening (see annotated fig 2 above).
Claim(s) 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colless (US-8234812-B1) in view of Moffit (US-11089744-B2) and Moschopoulos (WO-2020021253-A1) as applied to claims 7 and 14 above, and further in view of Wang (CN-110583473-A).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 7.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the screen has a mesh size of about 1 μm to about 100 μm.
Wang teaches wherein the screen has a mesh size of about 1 μm to about 100 μm (filter plate 3 has mesh screen with 30-100 micron, see page 2).
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 screen with the mesh size of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success as this will prevent debris and insects from entering into the plant growing zone or the fan assembly while still allowing pollen to flow as needed.
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 14.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the screen has a mesh size of about 1 μm to about 100 μm.
Wang teaches wherein the screen has a mesh size of about 1 μm to about 100 μm (filter plate 3 has mesh screen with 30-100 micron, see page 2).
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 screen with the mesh size of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success as this will prevent debris and insects from entering the plant growing zone or the fan assembly while still allowing pollen to flow as needed.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colless (US-8234812-B1) in view of Moffit (US-11089744-B2) and Moschopoulos (WO-2020021253-A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Nakaminami (US-20170258010-A1).
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 14.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the first opening and the second opening are an air curtain.
Nakaminami teaches wherein the first opening and the second opening are an air curtain (air curtain for the door to prevent the entry of outside air, see para 0055).
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 first and second openings with the air curtain of Nakaminami with a reasonable expectation of success as this will prevent inside air from escaping and outside air, which could include debris or bacteria, from entering the chamber (see Nakaminami para 0055).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
While grow systems with chambers including screens or filters, grow towers and blowers or air circulation devices are known in the prior art of record, the configuration of the above claim 20 is not known in the prior art of record. Specifically, a grow chamber with a screen coupled to each wall of the plurality of walls and extending across the volume, wherein the screen, the plurality of walls, and the base define a plenum; and a blower in fluid communication with the plenum via an outlet formed in the base, further comprising a pollen source in fluid communication with the volume via a conduit, wherein the conduit extends through the plenum is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art of record. More specifically, the pollen source and blower in fluid communication with the plenum in the base is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art of record. Further, it would not be obvious to modify a grow system such as Colless (US 8234812 B1) or Moschopoulos (WO 2020021253 A1) with a pollination system as neither grow system contemplates artificial pollination. Further, existing pollination systems either disclose pollination from above the plants, such as Franco (WO 2018173028 A2) and Kim (KR 20160128592 A), or handheld or separate external pollination devices, such as Luo (CN 108739365 A). Therefore, it would require significant reconstruction of the current prior art of record to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 20.
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, Franco (WO 2018173028 A2), which discloses a pollination chamber for pollination distribution to grow lines.
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