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 5-6, 8, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 reads “wherein the plurality of grow towers traverse the grow line and pass by the
plurality of emitters” which should read “wherein the plurality of grow towers are configured to traverse the grow line and pass by the plurality of emitters.”
Claim 6 reads “wherein the plurality of emitters are moved relative to the plurality of grow
towers” which should read “wherein the plurality of emitters are configured to be moved relative to the plurality of grow towers.
Claim 8 reads “a plurality of emitters adjacent to a grow tower of the plurality of grow
towers, the plurality of emitters; a plurality of rails coupled to the plurality of emitters.” Unless there is a missing limitation that Applicant intends to add, this should read “a plurality of emitters adjacent to a grow tower of the plurality of grow towers,
Claim 17 reads “wherein the first emitter and the second emitter move relative to the
plurality of grow towers” which should read “wherein the first emitter and the second emitter are configured to move relative to the plurality of grow towers.”
Claim 17 reads “wherein the plurality of grow towers traverse the grow line and pass by the
first emitter and the second emitter” which should read “wherein the plurality of grow towers are configured to traverse the grow line and pass by the first emitter and the second emitter.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffit (US-11089744-B2) in view of Millar (US-11191224-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Moffit discloses a system, comprising:
a grow line having a plurality of grow towers (1101) disposed thereon (see fig 11);
a plurality of emitters (1150a-c) adjacent to a grow tower of the plurality of grow towers (see fig 11);
and a plurality of rails (scaffold assemblies 1140a-d) coupled to the plurality of emitters (see fig 11).
Moffit fails to disclose the plurality of emitters comprising a plurality of nozzles configured to spray in a direction toward a grow tower of the plurality of grow towers.
Millar teaches the plurality of emitters (112) comprising a plurality of nozzles (304) configured to spray in a direction toward a grow tower of the plurality of grow towers (see fig 4 and col 11, lines 16-28).
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 emitters with the nozzles of Millar with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plants receive fresh air for conducting photosynthesis and because the movement of fresh air will prevent spores and other contaminants from adhering to the plants (see Millar, col 9, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Moffit further discloses a first emitter (1150b) coupled to and suspended by a first rail (scaffold assemblies 1140a-d), wherein the first emitter is disposed adjacent to a first side of the grow towers (see fig 11, emitters 1150b-d on both sides on grow towers); and a second emitter (1150c) coupled to and suspended by a second rail (scaffold assemblies 1140a-d), wherein the second emitter is disposed adjacent to a second side of the grow towers opposite the first emitter (see fig 11, emitters 1150b-d on both sides on grow towers).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Moffit further discloses wherein the plurality of rails are disposed in a common plane as the grow line (see fig 11).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Millar further teaches wherein the plurality of emitters (112 and 304) are configured to utilize compressed air to propel pollen (see col 11, lines 16-28).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Moffit further discloses wherein the plurality of grow towers traverse the grow line and pass by the plurality of emitters (arrow of grow tower movement direction 1161, see fig 11).
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Moffit further discloses wherein the plurality of emitters are moved relative to the plurality of grow towers (see col 11, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 14, Moffit discloses a system, comprising:
a grow line (130) having a plurality of grow towers (1101) disposed thereon;
a first emitter (1150b) coupled to and suspended by a first rail (scaffold assemblies 1140a-d),
wherein the first emitter is disposed adjacent to a first side of the grow towers (see fig 11, emitters 1150b-d on both sides on grow towers); and
a second emitter (1150c) coupled to and suspended by a second rail (scaffold assemblies 1140a-d),
wherein the second emitter is disposed adjacent to a second side of the grow towers opposite the first emitter (see fig 11, emitters 1150b-d on both sides on grow towers).
Moffit fails to disclose one or more first nozzles coupled to the first emitter and configured to spray in a direction toward the grow tower of the plurality of grow towers; and one or more second nozzles coupled to the second emitter and configured to spray in a direction toward the grow tower of the plurality of grow towers.
Millar teaches one or more first nozzles (304) coupled to the first emitter (112) configured to spray in a direction toward a grow tower of the plurality of grow towers (see fig 4 and col 11, lines 16-28); and one or more second nozzles (304) coupled to the second emitter (112) configured to spray in a direction toward a grow tower of the plurality of grow towers (see fig 4, also fig 9, multiple airflow lines and grow towers); and
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 emitters with the nozzles of Millar with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plants receive fresh air for conducting photosynthesis and because the movement of fresh air will prevent spores and other contaminants from adhering to the plants (see Millar, col 9, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 14, and Millar further teaches wherein the first emitter and the second emitter (112s with 304) are configured to utilize compressed air to propel pollen (see col 11, lines 16-28).
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 14, and Moffit further discloses wherein the plurality of grow towers (grow towers on each line 1130) traverse the grow line and pass by the first emitter and the second emitter (see arrow direction of grow tower travel 1161).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffit (US-11089744-B2) in view of Millar (US-11191224-B2) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Burrows (WO-2020033433-A1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 6.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising a plurality of motors coupled to the plurality of rails and configured to facilitate translation of the plurality of emitters along the rails.
Burrows teaches further comprising a plurality of motors (motor for conveyor 85, see page 10) coupled to the plurality of rails and configured to facilitate translation of the plurality of emitters (26) along the rails.
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 emitter rail system with the motors of Burrows with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a more autonomous plant growing system that allows for emitter movement as needed without requiring user intervention.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffit (US-11089744-B2) in view of Millar (US-11191224-B2) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cope (US-9433161-B2).
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 14.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising: a first distributor coupled to the first emitter, wherein the one or more first nozzles are coupled to the first distributor; a first camera coupled to the first distributor; a second distributor coupled to the second emitter, wherein the one or more second nozzles are coupled to the second distributor; and a second camera coupled to the second distributor.
Cope teaches a first distributor (left 102, see fig 2) coupled to the first emitter (left 106, see fig 1), wherein the one or more first nozzles (left 116) are coupled to the first distributor; a first optical sensor (left optical sensor 114) coupled to the first distributor; a second distributor (right 102) coupled to the second emitter (right 106), wherein the one or more second nozzles (right 114) are coupled to the second distributor (right 102); and a second optical sensor (right 114) coupled to the second distributor (see fig 2, see col 5, lines 6-12).
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 first and second distributors and corresponding optical sensors of Cope with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for more direct and therefore individually optimized treatment of the plants based on sensed data.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the optical sensor is specifically a camera. 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 optical sensor to be a camera with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide further image processing abilities for plant recognition and since the equivalence of an optical sensor and camera for their use in the visual and image sensing art and the selection of any known equivalents to visually sense and record the plants would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). Applicant does not provide criticality for a camera versus another type of optical or visual sensor.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffit (US-11089744-B2) in view of Millar (US-11191224-B2) and Cope (US-9433161-B2) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Elazary (US-10327399-B2).
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 15.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the first distributor and the second distributor further comprise a motor configured to enable movement of the first distributor along the first emitter and the second distributor along the second emitters.
Elazary teaches wherein the distributor (710) further comprises a motor (pneumatic lift 640 operated by motor) configured to enable movement of the first distributor along the emitter (pneumatic lift 640 operated by motor for distributor 710 along emitter to change position of the nozzle for working on the plants).
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 distributors with the motor for movement along the emitter as taught by Elazary with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for more direct and therefore individually optimized treatment of the plants due to increased height and position adjustments.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except for there being two distributors, each with their own motor. 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 each of the first and second distributors having their own motor with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a more efficient system that can treat multiple rows or towers of plants at once, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 16, and Moffit further discloses wherein the first emitter and the second emitter move relative to the plurality of grow towers (see col 11, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 17, and Cope further teaches wherein first camera and the second camera are configured to enable an operator to selectively pollinate a plant within the grow tower (see col 5, lines 6-12).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffit (US-11089744-B2) in view of Cope (US-9433161-B2).
Regarding claim 8, Moffit discloses a system, comprising:
a grow line (130) having a plurality of grow towers (1101) disposed thereon;
a plurality of emitters (1150a-c) adjacent to a grow tower of the plurality of grow towers (see fig 11),
the plurality of emitters (1150a-c);
a plurality of rails (scaffold assemblies 1140a-d) coupled to the plurality of emitters (see fig 11).
Moffit fails to disclose a distributor coupled to each of the plurality of emitters; a nozzle coupled to the distributor and configured to spray in a direction toward the grow tower of the plurality of grow towers; and a camera coupled to the distributor.
Cope teaches a distributor (102, see fig 2) coupled to each of the plurality of emitter (left and right 106, see fig 1), a nozzle (116) coupled to the distributor (102) configured to spray in a direction toward a grow tower of the plurality of grow towers (see figs 1-2 and col 5, lines 6-12 and 24-42); and, an optical sensor (114) coupled to the distributor (see fig 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 system with the distributor and corresponding optical sensor of Cope with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for more direct and therefore individually optimized treatment of the plants based on sensed data.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the optical sensor is specifically a camera. 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 optical sensor to be a camera with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide further image processing abilities for plant recognition and since the equivalence of an optical sensor and camera for their use in the visual and image sensing art and the selection of any known equivalents to visually sense and record the plants would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). Applicant does not provide criticality for a camera versus another type of optical or visual sensor.
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 8, and Moffit further discloses further comprising: a first emitter (1150b) coupled to and suspended by a first rail (scaffold assemblies 1140a-d), wherein the first emitter is disposed adjacent to a first side of the grow towers (see fig 11, emitters 1150b-d on both sides on grow towers); and a second emitter (1150c) coupled to and suspended by a second rail (scaffold assemblies 1140a-d), wherein the second emitter is disposed adjacent to a second side of the grow towers opposite the first emitter (see fig 11, emitters 1150b-d on both sides on grow towers).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except for there being two distributors, each with their own camera. 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 each of the first and second distributors having their own motor with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a more efficient system that can treat multiple rows or towers of plants at once, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 8, and Cope further teaches wherein the camera is configured to enable an operator to selectively pollinate a plant within the grow tower (see col 5, lines 6-12).
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 8, and Moffit further discloses wherein the plurality of rails are disposed in a common plane as the grow line (see fig 11).
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 8, and Cope further teaches wherein the plurality of emitters are configured to utilize compressed air to propel pollen (see col 5, lines 6-12 and 24-42).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffit (US-11089744-B2) in view of Cope (US-9433161-B2) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Elazary (US-10327399-B2).
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 8.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the distributor further comprises a motor configured to enable movement of the distributor along each of the plurality of emitters.
Elazary teaches wherein the distributor (710) further comprises a motor (pneumatic lift 640 operated by motor) configured to enable movement of the distributor along each of the plurality of emitters (pneumatic lift 640 operated by motor for distributor 710 along emitter to change position of the nozzle for working on the plants).
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 distributors with the motor for movement along the emitter as taught by Elazary with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for more direct and therefore individually optimized treatment of the plants due to increased height and position adjustments.
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, Brusatore (US 10070594 B2) which discloses a grow tower with pollinator arms attached to posts adjacent the grow tower and Lin (CN-110692352-A) which discloses a mobile pollinator robot with a camera and a pollen sprayer.
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