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 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, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearinger (US-20180338440-A1) in view of Chen (US 9775330 B1) and Vezina (US-20150181812-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dearinger discloses a bracket for use in holding plants in an aqueous farm system, comprising: a base (130) that has a plurality of first openings (140, see figs 1-4), extending through the base from a first surface of the base to a second surface of the base (see fig 1, sidewall of apertures showing first to second surface), each of the plurality of openings (140) dimensioned to receive a plant or plant receptacle (see abstract), and wherein the base has a third opening (opening with fan shroud 150, see figs 1-4) into the internal volume; the third opening defined through a side on a first end of the base (third opening for fan 160, see figs 1-6); and a fan near the third opening to inject air into the internal volume (160, see figs 1-4).
Dearinger fails to disclose the base having an internal volume between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the base has a plurality of second openings through the first surface of the base into the internal volume.
Chen teaches wherein the base has a plurality of second openings (33) through a first surface of the base into the internal volume (first openings 32 next to second openings 33, see figs 4-6).
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 second openings of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success this will allow for smaller plants or greater airflow within the system.
Vezina teaches the base having an internal volume between the first surface and the second surface (see figs 1 and 3).
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 base with the internal volume of Vezina with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure air is properly circulated throughout the system.
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 1, and Dearinger further discloses wherein the fan is affixed in the third opening (160, see figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 1, and Dearinger further discloses wherein each of the plurality of first openings is configured to receive a plant receptacle holding a plant (apertures 140 for plants, see abstract, see also inserts and stem collars, para 0020).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 1, and Chen further teaches wherein a set of openings of the plurality of second openings (33) are located around one of the plurality of first openings (first openings 32 and second openings 33, see figs 4, 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 1 and Chen further teaches wherein each of the plurality of first openings is larger the each of the plurality of second openings (first openings 32, second openings 33, see figs 4, 6 and 7).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the wherein each of the plurality of first openings is at least ten times larger the each of the plurality of second openings. 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 openings of the modified reference with the first openings being at least 10 times larger than the second with a reasonable expectation of success because this configuration will allow for a variety of plants to be grown in the same space without overcrowding, and for increased airflow and space to the current plants.
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 1, and Dearinger further discloses wherein each of the plurality of first openings comprises a sidewall that separates an opening from the internal volume in the base (see fig 1, sidewall inside apertures 140).
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising a first pair of legs and a second pair of legs extending from the base.
Chen teaches further comprising a first pair of legs and a second pair of legs extending from the base (middle pairs of legs extending from frame, see fig 1).
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 legs of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the system is stable with a firm foundation.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearinger (US-20180338440-A1) in view of Chen (US 9775330 B1) and Vezina (US-20150181812-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pham (US 10709076 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein base
has a fourth opening defined through a side on a first end of the base and a further fan is affixed in the fourth opening. Pham teaches openings on both ends of the base (see 541 and 551, see fig 5) and fans on both ends (see 511 and 512, see fig 5). 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 with a fourth opening and fan affixed in the opening as taught by Pham with a reasonable expectation of success in order to maximize airflow to ensure the plants receive optimized environmental conditions for maximum plant growth, 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 5, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 4, and Chen further teaches wherein the plurality of second openings are smaller than the plurality of first openings and are proximate the plurality of first openings on the surface (first openings 32 and second openings 33, see figs 4, 6 & 7).
Claim(s) 11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Dearinger (US-20180338440-A1) in view of Chen (US 9775330 B1), Curtis (AU-2008212044-A8), and Vezina (US-20150181812-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Dearinger discloses a bracket for an aqueous farm system, comprising:
a base that extends along a longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end (130), and having a top surface and a bottom surface (see fig 1, 130 has top and bottom surface with holes 140 therethrough), with a plurality of first openings defined through the base from the top surface to the bottom surface substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see fig 1, apertures 140), wherein each of the plurality of openings is configured to receive one of a plurality of plant receptacles (apertures 140 for plants, see abstract, see also inserts and stem collars, para 0020), an internal volume defined within the base (see figs 1-4), the internal volume bounded by the top surface and the bottom surface (implicit based on sidewalls of apertures 140 and fan configuration as seen in fig 1), and a third opening defined through a side on a first end of the base (opening for fan 160, see figs 1-4), and a fan near the third opening to inject air into the internal volume (160, see figs 1-4).
Dearinger fails to disclose an internal volume defined within the base, the internal volume bounded by the top surface and the bottom surface, a plurality of second openings proximate the plurality of first openings that extend through the top surface into the internal volume; a first arm extending outwards from the top surface of the base proximate the first end of the base at a substantially perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of the base; a second arm extending outwards from the top surface of the base proximate the second end of the base at a substantially perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of the base.
Chen teaches and a plurality of second openings (33) proximate the plurality of first openings (32) that extend through the top surface into the internal volume (see figs 4, 6 & 7).
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 second openings of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success this will allow for smaller plants or greater airflow within the system.
Curtis teaches a first arm extending outwards from the top surface of the base proximate the first end of the base at a substantially perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of the base (34 at first end, see fig 1), and a second arm extending outwards from the top surface of the base proximate the second end of the base at a substantially perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of the base (34 at second end, see fig 1).
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 arms of Curtis with a reasonable expectation of success as these arms assist in stacking and transport of the growing tray.
Vezina teaches an internal volume defined within the base (see figs 1 and 3), the internal volume bounded by the top surface and the bottom surface (see figs 1 and 3).
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 base with the internal volume of Vezina with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure air is properly circulated throughout the system.
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 11, and Dearinger further discloses wherein each of the plurality of first openings is configured to receive a plant receptacle holding a plant (apertures 140 for plants, see abstract, see also inserts and stem collars, para 0020).
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 11 and Chen further teaches wherein a set of openings of the plurality of second openings (33) are located around one of the plurality of first openings (first openings 32 and second openings 33, see figs 4, 6 & 7).
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 11 and Chen further teaches wherein each of the plurality of first openings is larger than each of the plurality of second openings (first openings 32, second openings 33, see figs 4, 6 and 7).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the wherein each of the plurality of first openings is at least ten times larger the each of the plurality of second openings. 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 openings of the modified reference with the first openings being at least 10 times larger than the second with a reasonable expectation of success because this configuration will allow for a variety of plants to be grown in the same space without overcrowding, or for increased airflow and space to the current plants.
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 11, and Dearinger further discloses wherein each of the plurality of first openings comprises a sidewall that separates an opening from the internal volume in the base (see fig 1, sidewall inside apertures 140).
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 11.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising a first pair of legs and a second pair of legs extending from the base.
Chen teaches further comprising a first pair of legs and a second pair of legs extending from the base (middle pairs of legs extending from frame, see fig 1).
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 legs of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the system is stable with a firm foundation.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearinger (US-20180338440-A1) in view of Chen (US 9775330 B1) and Vezina (US-20150181812-A1) and Curtis (AU-2008212044-A8) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pham (US 10709076 B2).
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 11.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the base has a fourth opening defined through a side on a second end of the base.
Pham teaches wherein the base has a fourth opening (551) defined through a side on a second end of the base (see fig 5).
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 modified reference with the fourth opening of Pham with a reasonable expectation of success in order to maximize airflow to ensure the plants receive optimized environmental conditions for maximum plant growth, 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 15, the modified reference teaches the bracket of claim 14 and Pham further teaches further comprising a further fan (512) positioned to force air into the fourth opening (551, see col 7, lines 7-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Dearinger fails to teach the internal volume, this argument was found to be persuasive, however this limitation was also rejected by Vezina and the argument against Vezina and the combination of references remained unpersuasive. Applicant argues there is no motivation to modify Dearinger with the interval volume of Vezina for air circulation. The Office respectfully disagrees. The addition of a lower surface to create an internal volume as in Dearinger would allow for improved circulation in the lid portion as it would ensure the majority of the air is directed at the portions of the plants within the internal volume instead of flowing downward into the reservoir, thereby allowing for increased dissolved oxygen to the roots, and even temperature control across the root zone.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to add the smaller holes of Chen for air control, however the Office also cited the use of the smaller holes of Chen for providing a space for smaller plants and therefore the Office respectfully disagrees. The addition of smaller holes would allow for increased diversity of size of plants grown within the system, which could allow for plants of differing growth stages to be grown simultaneously. Further, in regards to the combination of Dearinger, Vezina and Chen, the internal volume and first and second holes would provide further structure to the root zone and also separation from neighboring plants to ensure roots do not become entangled. Dearinger contemplates inserts for promoting stability of the plants in apertures 140 in paragraph 0020, and therefore using an internal volume with two sets of holes would similarly provide further stability and separation to plants in the root zone.
Applicant also argues that Pham and Curtis do not teach the internal volume, however neither of these references are cited to teach the internal volume and therefore this argument is moot.
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 systems for plant cultivation. Specifically, Williams teaches a stacked bracket growing arrangement.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642