DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 21. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Dependent claim 22 does not further limit claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United Kingdom Patent GB 2267552 to Jackson.
Regarding Claims 1, 16, and 20, Jackson teaches a valve assembly for allowing filling and draining of a container with a liquid, comprising: a filling catchment (Jackson Fig. 10 #126) containing at least one opening for receiving liquid (Jackson Fig. 10 #126 open top) and at least one drainage orifice (Jackson Fig. 10 #127), the filling catchment being located within the container (Jackson Fig. 10 #120); a draining outlet adapted to convey liquid out of the container (Jackson Fig. 10 bottom outlet #121), the draining outlet being located in a bottom surface of the container; a plugging member (Jackson Fig. 10 #124) attached to the filling catchment, wherein the filling catchment and plugging member are configured to move together between a first position where the plugging member allows liquid to flow into the draining outlet and a second position where the plugging member is brought into contact with the draining outlet thereby preventing liquid from flowing through the draining outlet; and a biasing member (Jackson Fig. 10 #130) which acts to retain the filling catchment and the plugging member in the first position unless a force is applied to the filling catchment equal to or greater than a force exerted by a weight of liquid within the filling catchment or a force exerted by liquid entering the filling catchment from a height.
Regarding Claim 2, Jackson teaches the plugging member is positioned at least partially over the draining outlet (Jackson Fig. 10 #124).
Regarding Claim 3, Jackson teaches the movement from the first to the second position takes place in a substantially vertical direction (Jackson Fig. 10 #130 moves it up and down).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Jackson teaches the movement from the first to the second position takes place in an arc-like direction; wherein at least one of the filling catchment and the plugging member are connected to a pivotable arm (Jackson Fig. 1 #4 is the pivot arm that is hinged above aperture #12 creating the arch movement).
Regarding Claim 6, Jackson teaches the at least one drainage orifice allows the flow of liquid out of the container (Jackson Fig. 10 #123).
Regarding Claim 7, Jackson is capable of the claimed function where the flow of liquid out of the container through the drainage orifice is slower than the flow of liquid out of the container through the drainage outlet when the plugging member is in the first position. (Applicant doesn't claim a size differential between the two openings, nor does applicant claim a structural feature of the apertures that would cause the flow to have a certain speed, the presence of plug in the flow path out of the orifice would slow the flow whereas the open passage of the outlet would be faster flow, the structure of Jackson satisfies the limitation of the broad claim; Jackson Fig. 10 #127 and #121).
Regarding Claim 8, Jackson teaches wherein the plugging member includes a channel connected to the drainage orifice for conveying liquid out of the container (Jackson Fig. 10 #122 connected via assembled product to #124).
Regarding Claim 9, Jackson teaches wherein the plugging member comprises a plug sized to fit the draining outlet (Jackson Fig. 10 #124 and #121).
Regarding Claim 11, Jackson teaches the plug is at least partially frusto-conical in shape (Jackson Fig. 10 #124).
Regarding Claim 12, Jackson teaches wherein the plugging member (Jackson Fig. 10 #124) further comprises a rod (Jackson Fig. 10 rod #125) that is at least partially disposed within a tube that does not move when the plugging member moves from the first to the second position or vice versa (Jackson Fig. 10 collar #129 and spring #130 move the plug; shaded unnumbered tube around #124 positioned between #130 and #124 does not move).
Regarding Claim 13, Jackson teaches the tube (Jackson Fig. 10 unnumbered shaded tube positioned between #130 and #124 has apertures in it) is connected to a drainage enclosure which at least partially encapsulates the plugging member and at least a first end of the drainage outlet (Jackson Fig. 10 #121), and wherein the drainage enclosure allows fluid flow from an interior of the container to the drainage outlet.
Regarding Claim 14, Jackson teaches the biasing member comprises a spring (Jackson Fig. 10 #130).
Regarding Claim 15, Jackson teaches wherein the filling catchment is at least partially frusto-conical or conical in shape (Jackson Fig. 10 #126).
Regarding Claim 17, Jackson teaches wherein the assembly further comprises an overflow outlet (Jackson Fig. 10 #128) which defines a maximum height of the liquid in the container.
Regarding Claim 18, Jackson teaches the overflow outlet (Jackson Fig. 10 #128) is adapted to be adjustable such that the maximum height that the container can be filled to can be changed by a user (the structure of Jackson is capable of the claimed function, it is capable of being adjusted since applicant does not provide the specific structure that permits the adjustment additional holes in Jackson could be made or plugged to adjust the height, the structure of Jackson is capable of the function).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United Kingdom Patent GB 2267552 to Jackson.
Regarding Claim 10, Jackson is silent on explicitly teaching the plug is at least
partially hemi-spherical in shape. However, the examiner takes official notice that it is old and notoriously well-known to provide at least partially hemi-spherical plug shapes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for an efficient use of space and ergonomic/aesthetic design choice. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known shape for another to obtain predictable results. The modification is merely changing an aesthetic/ornamental design [In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231, 72 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPA 1947)] and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United Kingdom Patent GB 2267552 to Jackson in view U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0237814 to Moran.
Regarding Claim 19, Jackson is silent on teaching wherein the filling catchment includes a mesh or grate at least partially over the at least one drainage outlet. However, Moran teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to place a mesh or grate at least partially over a drainage outlet (Moran Fig. 5b #225 and #221). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson with the teachings of Moran before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent leaves or debris from entering. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 21-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United Kingdom Patent GB 2267552 to Jackson as applied to claim 1 above and in view Korean Patent KR 200327261.
Regarding Claims 21, 22 and 23, Jackson teaches the features found in claims 1, but is silent on a plurality of containers and a holding tank containing a liquid; a conduit for allowing the flow of the liquid from the holding tank to the at least one opening of the valve assembly of at least one of the containers; wherein no physical connection exists between the conduit and the at least one opening to which it allows the flow of liquid to. However, the examiner takes official notice that a plurality of containers is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize operation of a large-scale production that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (Applicant merely claims multiple containers, but doesn’t require them to be stacked, the broad nature of the claim lends to being positioned horizontally along a length). The modification is merely the duplication of a known element for a multiple affect and does not produce a patentable distinction of the prior art of record [In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960)]. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
In addition, Korean Patent 200327261 teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a holding tank (KR Fig. 5 #22) containing a liquid; a conduit (KR Fig. 5 #29) for allowing the flow of the liquid from the holding tank to the at least one opening of the valve assembly of at least one of the containers; wherein no physical connection exists between the conduit and the at least one opening to which it allows the flow of liquid to (KR #29 feeds into #21 and is passed through an aperture but does not have a connection to #21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jackson with the teachings of KR 200327261 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an auxiliary tank as taught by KR 200327261. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 24, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34 and 35, Jackson as modified by KR 200327261 teaches the known apparatus and method of a vertical tower of containers that receive pumped fluid to the top of the tower and the fluid travels downward through each of the stacked containers, in other words KR teaches each the plurality of containers are vertically arranged to allow at least one of: conveying liquid from the drainage outlet of the associated valve assembly towards the opening of the valve assembly of another container; and/or receiving liquid into the opening of the associated valve assembly from the drainage outlet of the valve assembly of another container (KR Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange a plurality of Jackson Fig. 10 in a fluidly connected vertical orientation as taught by KR, that is taking the device of Jackson Fig. 10 and orienting a plurality in a vertical configuration and fluidly circulating the water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jackson with the teachings of KR 200327261 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for large scale production and efficient recycling of circulated water and nutrients. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 25, Jackson as modified teaches at least one of the containers includes an overflow outlet (KR Fig. 5 #27) which is configured so that liquid that passes through the overflow outlet is conveyed towards the opening of the valve assembly of another container.
Regarding Claim 28, Jackson as modified teaches the holding tank is located below the plurality of containers (KR Fig. 5 #22).
Regarding Claim 29, Jackson as modified teaches a pump (KR Fig. 5 #31) for conveying liquid from the holding tank to the conduit.
Regarding Claim 30, Jackson as modified teaches the containers are trays (Jackson Fig. 10 #120) for growing plants and the liquid is water or nutrient enriched water.
Regarding Claim 32, Jackson as modified teaches a container includes an overflow outlet adapted to be adjustable so that the maximum level the container can be filled to can be changed, and the method further includes adjusting the overflow outlet to define a predetermined level that the container can be filled to (KR Fig. 5 #27 has been adjusted to a predetermined level). In addition, Jackson teaches the overflow outlet (Jackson Fig. 10 #128) is adapted to be adjustable such that the maximum height that the container can be filled to can be changed by a user (the structure of Jackson is capable of the claimed function, it is capable of being adjusted since applicant does not provide the specific structure that permits the adjustment additional holes in Jackson could be made or plugged to adjust the height, the structure of Jackson is capable of the function)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
13 January 2026