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 § 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 1-3 and 8-26 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 1 recites the limitation "the primary intermediate gaps " on page 2 line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 states “a plurality of water barriers separated from each other by one of the primary intermediate gaps at the level of the first plane and said one of the primary intermediate gaps arranged above one lower support surface at a level of a third plane between the first plane and the second plane.” It is unclear if these are referring to the same intermediate gaps or different intermediate gaps, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, the first mention of the primary intermediate gap says the gap is between water barriers and on the first plane. The second mention of the primary intermediate gape says it is above a support surface in the third plane. However, Figures 3B and 4A don’t seem to show a gap in the third plane that is between water barriers and above a support surface. Therefore its unclear where these intermediate gaps are and what exactly their relation to the other parts are.
Claims 2-3 and 8-26 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-12, 14, 17-18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghirlanda (WO 2018/198035) in view of Delgado (US 2014/0353227) and Duemmen (EP 0988783)
Regarding Claim 1, Ghirlanda discloses a floating panel (tray 100) for cultivating plants, the panel comprising:
a plurality of through-holes (holes 3) at a top side of the panel, each adapted for receiving therein a substrate and a plant or a precursor thereof (Figures 8 and 9), each through-hole extending through the panel from a first plane (shown in annotated Figure 8 below) at said top side to a second plane (h3; Figure 8) parallel to and spaced apart from the first plane; and
at least one air chamber (channel 8) at a lower side of the panel and which is arranged to allow therein the formation of air roots of plants or the precursors thereof supported in the substrate of one or more of said through-holes (Figures 5 and 9), each of said air chambers comprising a ceiling (plane 7) into which one or more of said through-holes debouch (Figure 5) and a circumferential side wall delimiting said chamber (side wall 6), wherein the circumferential side wall is arranged substantially below the second plane (Figure 5) and comprises a circumferential bottom edge arranged for extending into the water when the panel floats on the water (lower plane 5);
wherein around each of said through-holes one associated lower support surface (bottom of housing 2) is provided which is arranged below the first plane for at least partially supporting the substrate thereon at a location below the first plane (Figure 6);
wherein the floating panel further comprises:
a plurality of water-collecting surfaces (cultivation cell 1), each associated with and surrounding one of the through-holes and merging into the lower support surfaces around said one of the through-holes (Figures 1, 11, and 12) such that at least one flow path for water (channel 10) is formed from the water- collecting surface to and along the lower support surfaces associated with said one of the through-holes (Figures 1, 11, and 12);
wherein each of the plurality of water-collecting surfaces is at a non-zero angle with respect to the first plane, sloping towards the surrounded one of the through-holes associated with each water-collecting surface (“The grooves 10 of each shelf 9 with holes are arranged radially around the hole 3 of the respective housing 2 and define a slope so as to convey water sprayed on top of the cell and cause it to fall above the hole 3” Page 6 lines 4-6), wherein at the level of the first plane each through-hole is adjacent to a lower edge of at least one of said water-collecting surfaces (Figure 12 and annotated Figure 8 below); and
a plurality of water barriers (protruding elements 12) separated from each other by one of the primary intermediate gaps (see annotated Figure 12 below and 112b above), at the level of the first plane (see annotated Figure 8 below) and said one of the primary intermediate gaps arranged above one lower support surface (gaps are above housing 2) at a level of a third plane between the first plane and the second plane (gaps between protruding elements 12; see annotated Figure 12 below and 112b rejection above), each water barrier arranged for substantially preventing flow of water from one of the water collecting surfaces into its associated through-hole along a flow path other than along the intermediate gaps and the lower support surfaces while allowing flow of water from said water-collecting surface along the intermediate gaps and the lower support surfaces (Figures 11 and 12; “the protruding elements 12 are preferably separated, i.e. spaced, from each other so as to allow direct access to the housing 2 laterally and so as to allow the water from the grooves 10 to reach the hole 3 inside the housing 2.” Page 7 lines 23-26; see 112b rejection above),
wherein the lower support surface comprises a first section and an adjacent second section(shown in annotated Figure 6 below),wherein the first section extends between the first plane and the third plane substantially at an angle between 0 and 15 degrees with respect to a plane normal to the third plane (Figure 6),
PNG
media_image1.png
292
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
505
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
590
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ghirlanda fails to disclose wherein around each of said through-holes four associated lower support surfaces are provided which are arranged below the first plane for at least partially supporting the substrate thereon at a location below the first plane; wherein the plurality of water-collecting surfaces comprise a shared circumferential raised ridge for preventing water from flowing off the water-collecting surfaces in a direction other than towards an associated through-hole, wherein each of the plurality of water-collecting surfaces is flat between the shared circumferential raised ridge at a non-zero angle with respect to the first plane, sloping towards the surrounded one of the through-holes associated with each water-collecting surface, wherein the four lower support surfaces are spaced apart from each other along the circumference of their associated through-hole by a secondary intermediate gap at the level of the third plane, wherein each secondary intermediate gap is open ended at its bottom side; wherein the four lower support surfaces each comprise a first section and an adjacent second section, wherein the first section extends between the first plane and the third plane substantially at an angle between 0° and 15° with respect to a plane normal to the third plane, and wherein the second section extends below the third plane and curves toward a center-axis of the through-hole; wherein a centered opening of the through hole is delimited by respective free ends of the second sections.
However, Delgado teaches a similar floating panel (apparatus 100) wherein around each of said through-holes (receiving structures 110) four associated lower support surfaces are provided (support portions 220 and 230; Figure 2) which are arranged below the first plane for at least partially supporting the substrate thereon at a location below the first plane (Figures 1 and 2; Paragraph [0041]); wherein the four lower support surfaces are spaced apart from each other along the circumference of their associated through-hole by a secondary intermediate gap at the level of the third plane (gaps between the support portions 220 and 230; Figure 2; see annotated Figure 3C below), wherein each secondary intermediate gap is open ended at its bottom side (Figure 2); wherein the four lower support surfaces each comprise a first section (median support portion 220) and an adjacent second section (lower support portion 230), wherein the first section extends between the first plane and the third plane substantially at an angle between 0° and 15° with respect to a plane normal to the third plane (Figure 3C), and wherein a centered opening of the through hole is delimited by respective free ends of the second sections (Figure 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
284
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support surface of Ghirlanda, with the four associated support surfaces, intermediate gaps, and centered opening as taught by Delgado, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the security of the supports and help ensure the support system can sufficiently support the plant throughout the growth of the plant in both weight and size, while still allowing for ample room for the roots to grow.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second section of Delgado, to be curved toward a center axis, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a larger surface area in contact with the plant or substrate, while maintaining sufficient support for the plant, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
If applicant disagrees, that Ghirlanda and Delgado do not specifically state the first section extends between the first plane and the third plane substantially at an angle between 0 and 15 degrees with respect to a plane normal to the third plane, then it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle of Ghirlanda or the angle of Delgado, to be between 0 and 15 degrees, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase security of the plant, and help decrease the chance of the plant slipping out of the supports and into the water, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Additionally, Duemmen teaches a plant tray for collecting water for plants, wherein the plurality of water-collecting surfaces (roof-shaped sections 4-11) comprise a shared circumferential raised ridge (edges 19-26) for preventing water from flowing off the water-collecting surfaces in a direction other than towards an associated hole (holes 48; Figure 3), wherein each of the plurality of water-collecting surfaces is flat between the shared circumferential raised ridge at a non-zero angle with respect to the first plane (Figures 1-3), sloping towards the surrounded one of the through-holes associated with each water-collecting surface (Figures 1-3),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the water collecting surfaces of Ghirlanda, with the raised ridge of Duemmen, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent any excess collected water and nutrients from flowing outside of the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 1. Ghirlanda further discloses wherein the third plane is arranged parallel to and spaced between the first plane and the second plane in such a manner that a distance between the first plane and the third plane is larger than a distance between the second plane and the third plane (shown in annotated Figure 8 below),
wherein each lower support surface (bottom of housing 2) is adapted for being in contact with the substrate and/or with a water permeable packaging around a side of the substrate, over a height extending between at least the first plane and the third plane (Figures 8 and 9),
wherein each of the lower support surfaces transitions into an adjacent edge of the one or more respective adjacent water-collecting surfaces in such a manner that at least one flow path is formed for guiding the flow of water from the associated water-collecting surface to the lower support surface and along the flow path (Figure 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 1. Ghirlanda further discloses wherein the third plane is arranged parallel to and spaced between the first plane and the second plane in such a manner that a distance between the first plane and the third plane is larger than a distance between the second plane and the third plane (shown in annotated Figure 8 below),
wherein each lower support surface (bottom of housing 2) is adapted for being in contact with the substrate and/or with a water permeable packaging around a side of the substrate, over a height extending between at least the first plane and the third plane (Figures 8 and 9),
the panel further comprising a plurality of water-collecting surfaces (cultivation cell 1), each associated with and surrounding one of the through-holes and merging into the four lower support surfaces which are provided around said through-hole (Figure 1) such that at least one flow path (channel 10) for water is formed from the water-collecting surface to and along the four lower support surfaces associated with the through-hole (Figure 1);
wherein each of the lower support surfaces transitions into an adjacent edge of the one or more respective adjacent water-collecting surfaces in such a manner that at least one flow path is formed for guiding the flow of water from the associated water-collecting surface to the lower support surface and along the flow path (Figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 1. Ghirlanda further discloses wherein each of the water-collecting surfaces is associated with a single through hole and each through hole is associated with a single one of said water collecting surfaces (cell 1; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 10. Ghirlanda further discloses wherein, when seen in top view, all of the water collecting surfaces have a substantially same surface area (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 10. Ghirlanda further discloses wherein, when seen in top view, the total surface area of each water-collecting surface is 4 to 10 times the opening area of its associated through-hole (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, as explained above, the examiner outlines that Ghirlanda as modified teaches the claimed invention. If, however, it can be interpreted that Ghirlanda does not specifically teach the floating panel having wherein, when seen in top view, the total surface area of each water-collecting surface is 4 to 10 times the opening area of its associated through-hole, the alternative 103 rejection applies. Since Ghirlanda teaches wherein, when seen in top view, the total surface area of each water-collecting surface is larger than the opening area of its associated through-hole (Figure 1), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water-collecting surface of Ghirlanda to be 4 to 10 times the opening area of the through hole, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure each through-hole receives a proper amount of irrigation, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 14, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 1. Ghirlanda further discloses wherein the through-holes of the plurality of through-holes are arranged in at least two parallel rows along a longitudinal direction of the panel, wherein the through-holes in each row are spaced equidistantly (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 1. Ghirlanda further discloses wherein for each through hole, when seen in cross-sectional view through the second plane, the area of said through-hole (3) is between 90% and 70% of an area of said through-hole (base of 2) when seen in cross-sectional view through the first plane (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 17, as explained above, the examiner outlines that Ghirlanda as modified teaches the claimed invention. If, however, it can be interpreted that Ghirlanda does not specifically teach the floating panel wherein for each through hole, when seen in cross-sectional view through the second plane, the area of said through-hole is between 90% and 70% of an area of said through-hole when seen in cross-sectional view through the first plane, the alternative 103 rejection applies. Since Ghirlanda teaches wherein for each through hole, when seen in cross-sectional view through the second plane, the area of said through-hole is smaller than an area of said through-hole when seen in cross-sectional view through the first plane (Figure 1), It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the area of the through hole in the cross section of the second plane, to be 90% to 70% of the area of the through hole in the cross section of the first plane, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant has sufficient support, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 18, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 1. Ghirlanda further discloses wherein the panel is formed as a single piece (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 26, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 1.
Ghirlanda as modified fails to disclose the floating panel, wherein the shared circumferential raised ridge has a height between 1.5 and 3 mm.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circumferential raised edge of Duemmen, to be a height between 1.5 and 3 mm, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure plants of varying sizes can have proper support, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghirlanda in view of Delgado and Duemmen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Villalon (US 2016/0227720).
Regarding Claim 8, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the floating panel of claim 1.
Ghirlanda fails to disclose the floating panel, wherein the lower support surfaces are provided with gripping edges for gripping against one or more sides of a substrate.
However, Villalon teaches a floating plant support, wherein the lower support surfaces are provided with gripping edges (teeth 38) for gripping against one or more sides of a substrate (Figures 1, 4, and 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lower support surfaces of Ghirlanda, with the gripping edges of Villalon, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant is held in place and doesn’t fall into the water.
Regarding Claim 9, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the floating panel of claim 1.
Ghirlanda fails to disclose the floating panel, wherein the first section of each of the lower support surfaces is provided with a plurality of gripping edges, protruding toward the centre of the through-hole.
However, Villalon teaches a floating plant support, wherein the first section of each of the lower support surfaces is provided with a plurality of gripping edges (teeth 38), protruding toward the centre of the through-hole (Figures 1 and 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lower support surfaces of Ghirlanda, with the gripping edges of Villalon, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant is held in place and doesn’t fall into the water.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghirlanda in view of Delgado and Duemmen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Day (US 2016/0135396).
Regarding Claim 13, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the floating panel of claim 1.
Ghirlanda fails to disclose the floating panel, further provided with one or more air holes which extend from the top side of the panel into one of the one or more air chambers, wherein at a location adjacent to the opening of the air hole at the top side, one or more air hole ridges are provided which extend above the opening.
However, Day teaches a floating panel, further provided with one or more air holes (holes 330) which extend from the top side of the panel into one of the one or more air chambers (Figure 3B), wherein at a location adjacent to the opening of the air hole at the top side, one or more air hole ridges are provided which extend above the opening (raised area 325; Figure 3B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the panel of Ghirlanda, with the airholes of Day, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure proper airflow is reaching the roots, preventing root rot.
Regarding Claim 19, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the floating panel of claim 1.
Ghirlanda fails to disclose the floating panel, wherein the panel comprises or is substantially made from expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene or expanded polystyrene.
However, Day teaches a floating panel, wherein the panel comprises or is substantially made from expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene or expanded polystyrene (“the raft segment of any preceding aspect, wherein said foam polymer is selected from the group consisting of polystyrene (“PS”), expanded polystyrene (“EPS”), copolymers of polystyrene, composites of polystyrene, and bioplastics.” Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panel of Ghirlanda, with the polystyrene of Day, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure proper floatation ability, without being easily damaged, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghirlanda in view of Delgado and Duemmen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Visser (WO 2016/200258).
Regarding Claim 15, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the floating panel of claim 1.
Ghirlanda fails to disclose the floating panel, wherein the top side of the panel further comprises an upward facing surface which extends parallel to and between the first plane and second plane, wherein each of the water-collecting surfaces is raised with respect to said upward facing surface.
However, Visser teaches a floating panel, wherein the top side of the panel further comprises an upward facing surface (cover 86) which extends parallel to and between the first plane and second plane (Figure 5), wherein each of the water-collecting surfaces (raised profile 92) is raised with respect to said upward facing surface (Figure 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the panel of Ghirlanda, with the upward facing surface of Visser, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent excess water from entering the air chambers, causing the floating panel to sink.
Regarding Claim 16, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the floating panel of claim 15.
Ghirlanda fails to disclose the floating panel, wherein on the upward facing surface a circumferential raised edge is provided for collecting water on the upward facing surface.
However, Visser teaches a floating panel, wherein on the upward facing surface a circumferential raised edge (reservoir 199) is provided for collecting water on the upward facing surface (Figure 12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the floating panel of Ghirlanda, with the raised edge of Visser, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to capture excess water to ensure the plants are properly hydrated.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghirlanda in view of Delgado and Duemmen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noordam et al. (US 2017/0164565) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 8/3/21).
Regarding Claim 20, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the floating panel of claim 1. Ghirlanda further discloses an assembly for floating cultivation of plants, the assembly comprising the floating panel (100) according to claim 1 (see rejection above) and a plurality of substrates (“the clod is placed inside the housing 2.” Page 8 line 2), each substrate provided in one of the plurality of through-holes and arranged for receiving a plant or precursor thereof therein (Figure 9).
Ghirlanda fails to disclose wherein a side of each of the substrates is at least partially in direct contact with the four lower support surfaces of a through-hole.
However, Noordam teaches a floating panel wherein a side of each of the substrates (growth medium 21) is at least partially in direct contact with the lower support surfaces (bottom edge of hole 6; Figure 7) of a through-hole.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate of Ghirlanda, to be in contact with the lower support surface as taught by Noordam, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the substrate is properly hydrated by the water below.
Regarding Claim 21, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the assembly of claim 20.
Ghirlanda fails to disclose the assembly, wherein the substrate is a compacted substrate, a substrate held together by a sticking agent or a substrate held together by a water-permeable packaging.
However, Noordam teaches the assembly, wherein the substrate is a compacted substrate, a substrate held together by a sticking agent or a substrate held together by a water-permeable packaging (“the growth medium is self-adhesive… Thereto, compressed soil can be used, for instance, or soil with additives, such as glue additives” Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate of Ghirlanda, with the growth medium adhesive of Noordam, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the substrate does not disintegrate when in contact with the water.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghirlanda in view of Delgado and Duemmen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robell (US 2018/0288946).
Regarding Claim 22, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the floating panel of claim 1. Ghirlanda further discloses a method of cultivating plants using a floating panel according to claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: - providing at least one substrate (“the clod is placed inside the housing 2.” Page 8 line 2) with a plant or precursor thereof in a through-hole of the panel (Figure 9), and- floating the panel in a water-filled basin (“Figures 15 and 16 show a view, similar to that of Figure 13, of the single-piece floating tray placed in a tank containing water,” Page 3 lines 26-27).
Ghirlanda fails to disclose the provided substrate having a smaller surface area when viewed from above than an opening area of the through-hole.
However, Robell teaches the provided substrate having a smaller surface area when viewed from above than an opening area of the through-hole before water is added (“the use of an absorbent and expansive material within the substrate to temporarily expand and occupy the substantial volume within the container during germination.” Paragraph [0074]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate of Ghirlanda, with a substrate that is initially smaller than the through opening before expansion as taught by Robell, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant has proper room to grow.
Regarding Claim 23, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the method of claim 22. Ghirlanda further discloses the method, comprising the further step of - providing water to the top side of the panel (“Initially, each bulb or seedling is irrigated from above” Page 6 lines 8).
Ghirlanda fails to disclose causing the substrate to expand in circumference to match an opening area of the through-hole at the first and/or second plane when water is provided.
However, Robell teaches causing the substrate to expand in circumference to match an opening area of the through-hole at the first and/or second plane (“the use of an absorbent and expansive material within the substrate to temporarily expand and occupy the substantial volume within the container during germination.” Paragraph [0074]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate of Ghirlanda, with the expanding substrate of Robell, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant has proper support and airflow, without falling through the lower supports.
Regarding Claim 24, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the method of claim 22. Ghirlanda further discloses the method, wherein water is provided to the top side of the panel until water is flowing into the basin via the air chamber (“Initially, each bulb or seedling is irrigated from above” Page 6 lines 8; “The grooves 10 of each shelf 9 with holes are arranged radially around the hole 3 of the respective housing 2 and define a slope so as to convey water sprayed on top of the cell and cause it to fall above the hole 3” Page 6 lines 4-6).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghirlanda in view of Delgado, Duemmen, and Robell as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Visser (WO 2015/002529).
Regarding Claim 25, Ghirlanda as modified teaches the method of claim 22. Ghirlanda further discloses the method, the method further comprises the steps of: - letting the plants grow (Figure 9).
Ghirlanda fails to disclose the steps of - removing the panel from the basin; - cutting a top portion of each plant and leaving remaining portion of the plant and corresponding substrate in the panel; - removing the substrates with the remaining plants portions from the through-holes of the panel; and - cleaning the panel by using a pressure washer.
However, Visser ‘529 teaches - removing the panel from the basin (“lifting mechanism at outfeed end 5 and the lowering mechanism at infeed end 4 is displaceable along respectively outfeed end 5 and infeed end 4 of basin 2 in order to place floating carriers 6 in or remove them from basin” Page 7 lines 4-6); - cutting a top portion of each plant and leaving remaining portion of the plant and corresponding substrate in the panel (harvesting station 18); and - cleaning the panel by using a pressure washer (cleaning station 17; nozzles 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Ghirlanda, with the steps of harvesting the plants and cleaning the panel as taught by Visser ‘529, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the spread of disease or insects, between different rounds of plant growth.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removed the plant and substrate from the panel before cleaning the panel with a pressure washer, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent damage to the plants and to prevent excess waste of materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the combination of Ghirlanda in view of Delgado would not result in “the four lower support surfaces are spaced apart from each other by secondary intermediate gaps that are open ended at their bottom sides and in which a centered opening of the through-hole is delimited by respective free ends of the second sections.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Delgado teaches gaps between the lower support surfaces that are open on the bottom, as well as the ends of the support surfaces delimiting the central through hole as claimed, as shown in Delgado’s Figure 2 and described in the rejection as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 on 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights