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 33 and 34 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.
In claims 33 and 34, the phrase “the contents” is confusing since it is unclear as to what is “the contents” intends to encompass (i.e., the grow media or the plant seed or the seed positioning member or the additive layer or other contents?).
In claim 34, the phrase “the additive layer positioned between two grow media layers” is confusing since it is unclear as to what is “the two grow media layers” intends to imply (i.e., there is only “a grow media” as claimed and not two grow media layers).
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 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 of this title, 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 1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Feo et al. (US 2017/0238486; hereinafter De Feo) in view of Bissonnette et al. (US 2005/0241231; hereinafter Bissonnette) and Goodman et al. (US 2019/0029166; hereinafter Goodman).
Regarding Claim 1 and 34, De Feo discloses a seed pod assembly (Para. [0022] regarding the net pot is a molded, cup-shaped article...pod), comprising: a pod defining an interior region and configured to support contents therein (Fig. 1 regarding interior region of upper portion 102, lower portion 104); a grow media positioned at least partially within the interior region (Para. [0028] regarding FIG. 3 is a solid model showing the pot filled with growth media); a plant seed positioned at least partially within the interior region (Para. [0024] regarding pre-filled with soil or soil plus seed); and a lid coupled to the pod to contain the plant seed within the interior region (Fig. 1 regarding lid 112; Para. [0024] regarding pre-filled with soil or soil plus seed(s) and covered with a lid 112); wherein, the pod is sized to be positioned in an opening of a plant growing apparatus to allow water and nutrients to reach the plant seed or be released from within the pod (Para. [0027] regarding A shoulder portion 108 indicates the interface to the hydroponic growth chamber, with the permeable lower portion being exposed to water and nutrients).
De Feo discloses the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose: 1) a seed positioning member positioned around the plant seed and configured to hold the plant seed in a specific location in the interior region and 2) an additive layer in the interior region, the additive layer positioned between two grow media layers.
Regarding 1) Bissonnette is in the art of aeroponics (Title) and teaches a seed positioning member (5) wherein a seed is placed thereon and not positioned around the seed (see (Fig. 1 and [0055]).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify De Feo with the teaching of Bissonnette to have the seed positioning member positioned around the plant seed for the purpose of positioning the plant more precisely to prevent growth from extending outside the bounds of the pod too soon, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Furthermore, it is noted that paragraph [0109] of Applicant’s Pub. No. US 2023/00841525 indicates that the seed positioning member “may be placed under, around, over, or in any combination of layers about the seed”.
Regarding 2) Goodman, however, teaches the use of multiple layers of growing substrates/media wherein additives such as fertilizers can be added therein ([0036]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify De Feo with the teaching of Goodman for the purpose of providing enhancing materials to promote plant growth.
Regarding Claim 2, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman (emphasis on De Feo) disclose wherein the pod has support segments separated by at least one opening, wherein the opening allows water, plant roots, and nutrients to enter and exit the interior region (Para. [0027] regarding A shoulder portion 108 indicates the interface to the hydroponic growth chamber, with the permeable lower portion being exposed to water and nutrients; as in Fig. 1 vents 110, ribs 111; Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 3, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman (emphasis on De Feo) disclose a filter (6) positioned along at least a portion of walls of the interior region to provide a filter barrier between the interior region and a surrounding environment (Para. [0023] regarding the article includes a separate removable/replaceable filter that functions as a plant 'coffee-pod' of sorts).
Regarding Claim 4, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman (emphasis on De Feo) disclose wherein the grow media and plant seed are positioned at least partially within the filter in the interior region (Para. [0024] regarding pre-filled with soil or soil plus seed(s) and covered with a lid 112; Para. [0023] regarding the article includes a separate removable/replaceable filter that functions as a plant 'coffee-pod' of sorts).
Regarding Claim 5, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman (emphasis on Goodman) disclose additives in the interior region, wherein the additives are one or more of fertilizer, pH buffers, microbes, pesticides, adjuvants, animal repellant, soil enhancer, soil enricher, bone meal, plant growth hormones, cinnamon, sand, moisture absorbent, ribose, microbial inoculants, thermal retaining mass, detergent, cleaning solution, vinegar, hydrogen peroxide, soap, and fungicides (Para. [0037] regarding additives such as fertilizers and/or microbes).
Regarding Claim 7, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman disclose the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose wherein the seed positioning member is formed of a different material than the grow media.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman to specify wherein the seed positioning member is formed of a different material than the grow media, since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to use an affordable, mass produced, breathable material.
Regarding Claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose wherein the seed positioning member is formed of foam.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman to specify wherein the seed positioning member is formed of foam, since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to use an affordable, mass produced, breathable material.
Regarding Claim 11, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman (emphasis on De Feo) disclose wherein a portion of the filter is positioned at least partially between the lid and the pod and the lid is coupled to the pod to at least partially retain the filter therein (Para. [0023] regarding the article includes a separate removable/replaceable filter that functions as a plant 'coffee-pod' of sorts).
Regarding Claim 12, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman (emphasis on De Feo) disclose a retention tab coupled to or formed from the pod and configured to at least partially overlap a wall defining the opening when positioned therein (Para. [0027] regarding A shoulder portion 108 indicates the interface to the hydroponic growth chamber, with the permeable lower portion being exposed to water and nutrients; Fig. 1 regarding shoulder portion 108, extending structure and notched vertical surface thereof).
Regarding Claim 13, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman disclose the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose wherein the retention tab has an inward taper configured to frictionally engage the wall of the opening when positioned therein.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman to specify wherein the retention tab has an inward taper configured to frictionally engage the wall of the opening when positioned therein, since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to match the corresponding mating shape for a secure fit, since De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman (emphasis on De Feo) previously discloses a mating fit (Para. [0027] regarding A shoulder portion 108 indicates the interface to the hydroponic growth chamber, with the permeable lower portion being exposed to water and nutrients; Fig. 1 regarding shoulder portion 108).
Regarding Claim 14, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman (emphasis on De Feo) disclose a radial tab extending radially away from a pod axis (Para. [0027] regarding A shoulder portion 108 indicates the interface to the hydroponic growth chamber, with the permeable lower portion being exposed to water and nutrients; Fig. 1 regarding shoulder portion 108, radially extending structure thereof i.e. horizontal shoulder portion), the retention tab being positioned at least partially adjacent to the radial tab (Fig. 1 regarding shoulder portion 108).
Regarding Claim 15, De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman (emphasis on De Feo) disclose wherein the retention tab extends from a surface of the radial tab (Fig. 1 regarding previously disclosed extending structure and notched vertical surface extends from radially extending horizontal surface of shoulder portion 108).
Regarding Claim 33 and 34, with respect to the specific method (such as “positioned in the interior region are compressed into the pod”), the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of De Feo as modified by Bissonnette and Goodman so as to include the use of a well-known technique (such as “positioned in the interior region are compressed into the pod”) in order to securely contained the contents therein.
Claims 9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grossman (US 2017/0223910; hereinafter Grossman).
Regarding claim, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a wrap around the seed pod assembly, the wrap configured to entirely surround the seed pod assembly and protect the contents of the seed pod assembly from the surrounding environment until the wrap is removed before the seed pod assembly is placed in the opening of the plant growing apparatus.
Grossman, however, is in the art of plant growing (Title) and teaches further comprising a wrap around the seed pod assembly, the wrap
configured to entirely surround the seed pod assembly and protect the contents of the seed pod assembly from the surrounding environment until the wrap is removed before the seed pod assembly is placed in the opening of the plant growing apparatus (Para. [0085] regarding Ends of the cavity 220 may be sealed...wraps).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the references as applied to claim 1 above with the teaching of Grossman for the purpose of protecting the assembly from damage.
Regarding Claim 16, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose further comprising an identifier configured to identify the type of plant seed in the seed pod when the seed pod is positioned in the opening of a plant growing apparatus.
Grossman, however, is in the art of plant growing (Title) and teaches comprising an identifier configured to identify the type of plant seed in the seed pod when the seed pod is positioned in the opening of a plant growing apparatus (Para. [0090] regarding an RFID tag associated with the corresponding grow portion...The GPID may include information such as plant type or other information which may identify the plant).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the references as applied to claim 1 above with the teaching of Grossman for the purpose of providing an identifier to give the cultivators information about the specific plant they are growing.
Regarding Claim 17, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose further wherein the identifier is on the lid.
Grossman, however, is in the art of plant growing (Title) and teaches further wherein the identifier is on the lid (Para. [0090] regarding an RFID tag associated with the corresponding grow portion...The GPID may include information such as plant type or other information which may identify the plant).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the references as applied to claim 1 above with the teaching of Grossman for the purpose of providing an identifier to give the cultivators information about the specific plant they are growing.
Regarding Claim 18, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose further wherein the identifier is an RFID tag.
Grossman, however, is in the art of plant growing (Title) and teaches further wherein the identifier is an RFID tag (Para. [0090] regarding an RFID tag associated with the corresponding grow portion...The GPID may include information such as plant type or other information which may identify the plant).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the references as applied to claim 1 above with the teaching of Grossman for the purpose of providing an identifier to give the cultivators information about the specific plant they are growing.
Regarding Claim 19, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose further wherein the RFID tag is positioned on a radial tab extending radially away from a pod axis.
Grossman, however, is in the art of plant growing (Title) and teaches further wherein the RFID tag is positioned on a radial tab extending radially away from a pod axis (Para. [0090] regarding an RFID tag associated with the corresponding grow portion...The GPID may include information such as plant type or other information which may identify the plant).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the references as applied to claim 1 above with the teaching of Grossman for the purpose of providing an identifier to give the cultivators information about the specific plant they are growing.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 99/41970 (hereinafter Mikkola).
Regarding Claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose wherein the additive layer is in contact with the plant seed.
Mikkola, however, is in the art of plant growing (Title) and teaches wherein the additive layer is in contact with the plant seed (Fig. 5 regarding plant P on layer 1a; Pg. 8, Lns. 9-20 regarding layer 1a...also nutrients and fertilizers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the references as applied to claim 1 above with the teaching of Mikkola for the purpose of further enhancing the growth of the seed with adjacent material to start growth without wasting it by dispersing it in non-adjacent areas.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dumars et al. (US 5741339; hereinafter Dumars).
Regarding Claim 20, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses the seed pod assembly but does not explicitly disclose further wherein one or more of the pod and the lid have a color configured to be associated with a corresponding opening of the plant growing apparatus.
Dumars, however, is in the art of planters (Title) and teaches wherein one or more of one member and another have a color configured to be associated with a corresponding opening of the plant growing apparatus (Col. 4, Lns. 30-40 regarding Support Portion of the Module 10 can be made to match the common art blocks 11 of the recipient wall leaving the non-planter side of the wall visually unaltered and giving the aforementioned Planter Portion diverse options in color).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the references as applied to claim 1 above with the teaching of Dumars for the purpose of matching the colors to indicate assembly and for visual appeal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 5/5/25, with respect to claims 29, 30, and 32 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, claims 29, 30, and 32 are now allowed.
In addition, Applicant argues that Bissonnette does not teach a seed positioning member positioned around the plant seed and configured to hold the plant seed in a specific location in the interior region. Applicant’s argument has been acknowledged; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify De Feo with the teaching of Bissonnette to have the seed positioning member positioned around the plant seed for the purpose of positioning the plant more precisely to prevent growth from extending outside the bounds of the pod too soon, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Furthermore, it is noted that paragraph [0109] of Applicant’s Pub. No. US 2023/00841525 indicates that the seed positioning member “may be placed under, around, over, or in any combination of layers about the seed”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-30, and 32 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights