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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 24-26, 29-30, 32-41, 44-45, 47-57, 60-61 and 63-80 are pending in the application. Claims 1-23, 27-28, 31, 42-43, 46, 58-59 and 62 have been cancelled.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 24-26, 29-30, 32-41, 44-45, 47-57, 60-61 and 63-80 based on Ishibashi, made of record in the office action mailed 10/1/2025, have been withdrawn.
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 54-57, 60-61, 63-69, 72, 75 and 80 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 54 recites the limitation “iv. subsequently collecting and consolidating the man-made vitreous fibers.” It is unclear if “subsequently” means that step iv. follows all three of steps i, ii and iii or any of steps i, ii and iii. Claims 55-57, 60-61, 63-69, 72, 75 and 80 are rejected because they depend from claim 54.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 24-26, 29-30, 32-34, 37-41, 44-45, 47-49, 52-57, 60-61, 63-65, 68-75 and 77-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuypers et al. (WO 2008/009461 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2002/0006872 A1).
Regarding claims 24-26, 29-30, 32, 70, 73 and 78, Cuypers teaches a method of growing at least three plants simultaneously in a mineral wool growth substrate, wherein the method comprises positioning the plants for growth in a mineral wool growth substrate, and irrigating the plants with irrigation water over a period of at least three days (Abstract). The growth substrate comprises binder and wetting agent, the wetting agent comprising ionic surfactant (Abstract). The growth substrate is formed of mineral wool that can be any of the types of man-made vitreous fibers (page 6, lines 31-33). Each unit of growth substrate is preferably a coherent matrix of mineral fibers connected by cured binder (page 7, lines 9-10). Suitable anionic surfactants include salts (including, for example, sodium, potassium, ammonium and substituted ammonium salts such as mono-,di-and triethanolamine salts) of the anionic sulphate, sulphonate, carboxylate and sarcosinate surfactants (page 7 lines 24-32). The ionic surfactant is present in the growth substrate in amounts preferably from 0.01 to 3% (by weight), based on the growth substrate (page 8, lines 30-33).
Cuypers does not explicitly disclose wherein the anionic sulphate (the wetting agent) is an alkyl ether sulphate, wherein the alkyl has a carbon chain length of 8 to 18 carbons, and wherein the wetting agent has an average degree of ethoxylation in the range 1 to 50.
However, Suzuki teaches a plant-activating agent which is given and used in the state of solution, paste or solid to roots, stems, phylloplanes or fruits of a plant by methods such as spraying onto phylloplanes, spraying onto soil, water-introduction into soil, irrigating into soil and the like, or a method of adding to a culturing solution of hydroponics etc. ([0001]). The method of supplying the plant-activating agent includes a method of supplying to dilute and to mix into a liquid for hydroponics and a supplying water which are contacted with roots, such as hydroponics and a rock wool ([0128]). The plant activating agent may comprise the substance of Suzuki’s invention alone or may comprise other components ([0111]). The components include surfactants and chelating agents ([0111]). Examples of the sulfuric ester group-containing surfactant include polyoxyalkylene alkylsulfates (among others) (an alkyl ether sulphate as claimed) ([0114]). When these surfactants contain a polyoxyalkylene group, it is preferably polyoxyethylene group and the average number of moles added may be mentioned as from 1 to 50 ([0116]). Suzuki also teaches Examples in which Sodium POE(3) lauryl ether sulfate is used (Table 4 and Table 6). The examiner notes that lauryl has 12 carbons, and POE(3) represents a degree of ethoxylation of 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a lauryl ether sulphate such as sodium POE(3) lauryl ether sulfate as the sulphate wetting agent of Cuypers in order to provide a sulphate that suitably acts as a surfactant in compositions applied to rock wool growth substrates, wherein the sulphate may also satisfy several desirable plant growth parameters, including an improved degree in reproduction of green cells, as suggested by Suzuki ([0111], [0026]-[0031] and the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claim 33, Cuypers teaches that the density of the growth substrate can be up to 200 kg/m3 but is generally in the range 10 to 150 kg/m3 (page 7 lines 4-6).
Regarding claims 34 and 38, Cuypers teaches that the ionic surfactant is present in the growth substrate in amounts preferably from 0.01 to 3% (by weight), based on the growth substrate (page 8, lines 30-33). The binder is generally present in the mineral wool growth substrate in amounts of from 0.1 to 10% based on the substrate (page 7 lines 18-19). Preferably the amount (by weight) of ionic surfactant based on the weight of binder (dry matter) is in the range 0.01 to 5%, preferably 0.5 to 4% (page 9, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 37, Cuypers teaches that the binder is preferably a phenol formaldehyde resin or urea formaldehyde resin, in particular phenol urea formaldehyde (PUF) resin (page 7, lines 14-16).
Regarding claims 39-41, 44-45, 47-49, 52-53, 71, 74 and 79, Cuypers in view of Suzuki remains similarly as applied above to claims 24-26, 29-30, 32-34 and 37-38. Cuypers further teaches that the method may be any method of growing plants in a mineral wool substrate, wherein these applications include germination of seedlings (page 9, lines 20-22).
Regarding claims 54-57, 60-61, 63-65, 68-69, 72, 75 and 80, Cuypers in view of Suzuki remains similarly as applied above to claims 24-26, 29-30, 32-34 and 37-38. Cuypers further teaches that the mineral wool growth substrate can be made in conventional manner, including by collecting the fibers as a primary web and consolidating the collected fibers (page 14, lines 21-28). Cuypers teaches that a binder is, conventionally, usually added by spraying on to the fiber after formation but before collection and consolidation, wherein the binder is usually a curable binder and is normally cured as the consolidated product passes through a curing oven (same section). Cuypers further teaches that the binder is usually applied to the fibers by spraying of a solution of the binder components in finely divided/atomised form, that the wetting agent is also generally applied to the fibers as an atomised/finely divided spray, and that the wetting agent and binder may be applied to the fibers simultaneously or separately (page 15, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 77, Cuypers teaches that the fiber diameter is often in the range 3 to 20 microns, for instance 5 to 10 microns, as conventional (pages 6-7, lines 33-2).
Claims 24-26, 29-30, 32-36, 38-41, 44-45, 47-51, 53-57, 60-61, 63-67 and 69-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naerum et al. (WO 2012/028650 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2002/0006872 A1).
Regarding claims 24-26, 29-30, 32, 70, 73 and 78, Naerum teaches a method of growing plants in a mineral wool growth substrate by providing at least one mineral wool growth substrate comprising manmade vitreous fibers bonded with a cured binder composition, and positioning one or more seeds or plants for growth in the growth substrate (Abstract). The mineral fiber product has improved water handling properties, in particular a higher re-saturation value and higher WC-10 (irrigating as claimed) (page 5 lines 17-22, and page 20 line 20 to page 21 line 5). Naerum teaches that usually a wetting agent is also provided (page 1 lines 1-4). The growth substrate product preferably comprises a wetting agent, which is preferably an anionic surfactant, including salts (including, for example, sodium, potassium, ammonium and substituted ammonium salts such as mono-,di-and triethanolamine salts) of the anionic sulphate, sulphonate, carboxylate and sarcosinate surfactants (page 12, lines 3-14). The ionic surfactant (wetting agent) is present in the mineral fiber product in amounts preferably from 0.01 to 3% (by weight), based on mineral fiber product, more preferably 0.05 to 1%, in particular, 0.1 to 0.8% (page 14, lines 20-22).
Naerum does not explicitly disclose wherein the sulphate (the wetting agent) is an alkyl ether sulphate, wherein the alkyl has a carbon chain length of 8 to 18 carbons, and wherein the wetting agent has an average degree of ethoxylation in the range 1 to 50.
However, Suzuki teaches a plant-activating agent which is given and used in the state of solution, paste or solid to roots, stems, phylloplanes or fruits of a plant by methods such as spraying onto phylloplanes, spraying onto soil, water-introduction into soil, irrigating into soil and the like, or a method of adding to a culturing solution of hydroponics etc. ([0001]). The method of supplying the plant-activating agent includes a method of supplying to dilute and to mix into a liquid for hydroponics and a supplying water which are contacted with roots, such as hydroponics and a rock wool ([0128]). The plant activating agent may comprise the substance of Suzuki’s invention alone or may comprise other components ([0111]). The components include surfactants and chelating agents ([0111]). Examples of the sulfuric ester group-containing surfactant include polyoxyalkylene alkylsulfates (among others) (an alkyl ether sulphate as claimed) ([0114]). When these surfactants contain a polyoxyalkylene group, it is preferably polyoxyethylene group and the average number of moles added may be mentioned as from 1 to 50 ([0116]). Suzuki also teaches Examples in which Sodium POE(3) lauryl ether sulfate is used (Table 4 and Table 6). The examiner notes that lauryl has 12 carbons, and POE(3) represents a degree of ethoxylation of 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a lauryl ether sulphate such as sodium POE(3) lauryl ether sulfate as the sulphate wetting agent of Naerum in order to provide a sulphate that suitably acts as a surfactant in compositions applied to rock wool growth substrates, wherein the sulphate may also satisfy several desirable plant growth parameters, including an improved degree in reproduction of green cells, as suggested by Suzuki ([0111], [0026]-[0031] and the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claim 33, Naerum teaches that the average density of the growth substrate is preferably 50-100 kg/m3, preferably 60-95 kg/m3, most preferably 70-90 kg/m3 (page 17, lines 17-18).
Regarding claims 34 and 38, Naerum teaches that the ionic surfactant (wetting agent) is present in the mineral fiber product in amounts preferably from 0.01 to 3% (by weight), based on mineral fiber product, more preferably 0.05 to 1 %, in particular, 0.1 to 0.8% (page 14, lines 20-22). The aqueous binder composition is normally applied in an amount of 1.5 to 6% by weight of the bonded mineral fiber product on a dry basis (pages 18-19, lines 32-4). Naerum also teaches that the binder content can be relatively high in the invention, for instance at least 3% (same paragraph).
Regarding claims 35-36, Naerum teaches that the binder composition prior to curing comprises: a) a sugar component, and b) a reaction product of a polycarboxylic acid component and an alkanolamine, wherein the binder composition prior to curing contains at least 42% by weight, preferably 42-75% by weight, of the sugar component based on the total weight (dry matter) of the binder components (Abstract and page 9 lines 19-25).
Regarding claims 39-41, 44-45, 47-51, 53, 71, 74 and 79, Naerum in view of Suzuki remains similarly as applied above to claims 24-26, 29-30, 32-36 and 38. Naerum further teaches positioning one or more seeds for growth in the growth substrate, and a method of growing a plant from a seed, in particular a method of propagation (Abstract, pages 5-6 lines 27-4, and page 17 lines 19-25).
Regarding claims 54-57, 60-61, 63-67, 69, 72, 75 and 80, Naerum in view of Suzuki remains similarly as applied above to claims 24-26, 29-30, 32-36 and 38. Naerum further teaches a method of making a mineral fiber product comprising the steps of: (i) providing MMVF (man-made vitreous fibers); (ii) spraying the MMVF with a binder composition; (iii) spraying the MMVF with a wetting agent; (iv) collecting and consolidating the MMVF; and (v) curing the binder composition (page 4 lines 22-30). Naerum teaches that spraying of the binder composition and the wetting agent is often done substantially simultaneously but can be done sequentially (page 5 lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 76, Naerum teaches that, in a first case the volume of the growth substrate is often not more than 50 cm3, preferably not more than 40 cm3 (page 15, lines 21-26). In a second case the volume of the growth substrate product is most preferably in the range to 10 to 40 cm3 (same section).
Regarding claim 77, Naerum teaches that the fiber diameter is often in the range of 3 to 20 microns, in particular 5 to 10 microns, as conventional (page 17, lines 7-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24-26, 29-30, 32-41, 44-45, 47-57, 60-61 and 63-80 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights