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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/26 has been entered.
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 third plane" in the last line of page 1. 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 intermediate gaps, 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 four lower support surfaces while allowing flow of water from said water-collecting surface along the intermediate gaps and the four lower support surfaces.” However, claim 1 also states “wherein the four lower support surfaces are spaced apart from each other along the circumference of their associated through-hole by an intermediate gap.” It is unclear how the four lower support surfaces alternate with the intermediate gap, and the water barriers alternate with the intermediate gap, but the water flow occurs through the intermediate gap onto the lower support surfaces. For example, in Applicant’s Figure 4A, the intermediate gaps (145) are shown between the lower support surfaces (143), but are being blocked by the water barrier (150). How would the water flow into the intermediate gap if its being blocked by the water barrier? It is unclear what exactly the water flow path is, and where the intermediate gaps are located in relation to the water barriers and lower support surfaces, thus rendering the claim indefinite. The Examiner recommends amending the limitation to clarify whether there are two separate gaps being disclosed- one between the lower support surfaces and a separate gap between the water barrier surfaces, or where exactly the single gap is.
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 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 the through- hole (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 each through-hole is adjacent to a lower edge of at least one of said water-collecting surfaces (Figure 12), and
a plurality of water barriers (protruding elements 12) separated from each other by one of the intermediate gaps ( gaps between protruding elements 12; Figure 12; see 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
505
715
media_image2.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 four lower support surfaces are spaced apart from each other along the circumference of their associated through-hole by an intermediate gap, wherein each intermediate gap is open ended at its bottom side; wherein between the ends of the second sections a centered opening of the through hole towards the lower side of the panel is arranged; 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.
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 an intermediate gap (gaps between the support portions 220 and 230; Figure 2), wherein each 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 with respect to a plane normal to the third plane (shown in annotated Figure 3C below), wherein between the ends of the second sections a centered opening of the through hole towards the lower side of the panel is arranged (opening 235; Figure 3B).
PNG
media_image3.png
284
477
media_image3.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.
While 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, 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 a 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
414
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Ghirlanda as modified teaches a floating panel according to claim 1. Ghirlanda further discloses wherein a 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
414
848
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 1.5-3 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 1.5-3 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 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that Delgado fails to disclose the newly amended limitation of claim 1. The Office respectfully disagrees. Ghirlanda, when in combination with Delgado, teaches the amended limitations pertaining to the support surfaces. The rejection as discussed above, has been slightly modified from the previous rejection using Ghirlanda and Delgado, to further clarify that Delgado teaches the four support surfaces, as well as the intermediate gaps, the first and second sections of the support surfaces, and the centered hole.
In response to applicant’s argument on pages 12-13 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to modify the support surfaces of Ghirlanda, to have the four support surfaces as arranged in Delgado, is 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.
Conclusion
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