DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 6, 8, 15, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent FR 2253451 to Neff in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,083,146 to Brankovic.
Regarding Claims 1, 24, 25 and 26, Neff teaches plant support structure for accommodating plants, the plant support (Neff Fig. 1 #1) structure including: a framework including a front layer (Neff front side Fig. 1 #3) of interconnected primary elements and a back layer (Neff Fig. 1 #3 back side) of interconnected primary elements in a vertically extending arrangement, the front layer structurally interconnected to the back layer (Neff both layers of #3 connected via #4), the front layer is horizontally spaced apart from the back layer to define a space between the front layer and the back layer, and the framework forming a plurality of geometric blocks (Neff Fig. 2 squares #3) and a plurality of vertically extending channels (Neff Fig. 1 #8, English abstract teaches “several”);
wherein the plurality of vertically extending channels are configured to receive therein a porous material (Neff Fig. 1 #7, English abstract “sand”) for carrying water from a top end of the framework down the plurality of vertically extending channels (Neff Fig. 1 #8) for irrigating plants (Neff Fig. 3 #10) in the plurality of vertically extending channels,
each geometric block of the plurality of geometric blocks includes a central void (Neff Fig. 2 #9), around which one or more of the plurality of vertically extending channels traverse at a periphery of the geometric block, and
wherein each channel of the plurality of vertically extending channels: is formed in the space between the front layer of interconnected primary elements and the back layer of interconnected primary elements (Neff Fig. 1 #8 is between two layers of #3); is open on two sides with each side opening into one or more of the central voids (Neff Fig. 1 #8 does not have a wall structure that closes it off and satisfies being open to the voids on both sides); wherein one or more of the central voids define an opening extending horizontally through the framework (Neff Fig. 3 #9, extends “through” layer #3, applicant doesn’t claim through both layers; however, Neff back layer #3 also has holes in it since it is the same as front layer #3 and would satisfy through both layers).
Neff teaches the channels continuously descends from the top end to a bottom end of the plant support structure (Neff Fig. 1 #8); but is silent on and forms a non-linear path along its length. However, Brankovic teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide channels through a plant support structure along a non-linear path (Brankovic Fig.1 #12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Neff with the non-linear channel path of Brankovic before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reach around the roots as taught by Brankovic. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. (applicant claims the channel is non-linear and that the channel traverses at a periphery of the geometric block and the structure of Neff satisfies the broad nature of the claim of the channel at the periphery since applicant doesn’t explicitly claim the channel follows the same path/shape as the interconnected elements; Brankovic is a teaching that it is known for wicking channels to be non-linear through a plant support structure).
Regarding Claim 6, Neff as modified teaches wherein the channels do not include sections that extend substantially horizontally (Neff Fig. 1 #8).
Regarding Claim 8, Neff as modified teaches the porous material is configured to accommodate and integrate roots of the plants (Neff Fig. 1 #7 sand).
Regarding Claim 27, Neff as modified teaches wherein the porous material comprises multiple pieces (Neff Fig. 1 #7 sand is multiple pieces of grains).
Regarding 28, Neff as modified teaches the porous material is a wicking material, porous bag, or lattice comprising a medium configured to support plant growth (Neff Fig. 1 #7 sand is a wicking material, English abstract).
Regarding Claim 29, Neff as modified teaches the central voids define a plurality of openings each extending horizontally through the framework (Neff Fig. 3 #9, extends “through” layer #3, applicant doesn’t claim through both layers; however, Neff back layer #3 also has holes in it since it is the same as front layer #3 and would satisfy through both layers).
Regarding Claim 15 and 31, Neff teaches a plant support structure (Neff Fig. 1 #1) for accommodating plants, the plant support structure including: a framework including at least two structurally interconnected layers (Neff front and back Fig. 1 #3) of a plurality of geometric blocks (Neff Fig. 2 blocks created by #3), the at least two structurally interconnected layers being horizontally spaced apart to form a space between the geometric blocks; a porous material (Neff Fig. 1 #7 sand, English abstract) secured within the space between the geometric blocks whereby the geometric blocks and porous material form vertically extending channels (Neff several Fig. 1 #8, English abstract) for carrying water down the framework for irrigating plants (Neff Fig. 2 #10) in the channels, wherein each geometric block of the plurality of geometric blocks includes a central void (Neff Fig. 2 #9), around which one or more of the vertically extending channels traverse at a periphery of the geometric block, and wherein each channel: is formed between the at least two structurally interconnected layers; is open on two sides with each side opening into one or more of the central voids (Neff Fig. 1 #8 does not have a wall structure that closes it off and satisfies being open to the voids on both sides); continuously descends from a top to a bottom of the plant support structure (Neff Fig. 1 #8); and wherein one or more of the central voids define an opening extending horizontally through the at least two structurally interconnected layers of the plurality of geometric blocks (Neff Fig. 3 #9, extends “through” layer #3, Neff back layer #3 also has holes in it since it is the same as front layer #3 and would satisfy through both layers, applicant doesn’t claim the holes are lined-up).
Neff teaches the channels continuously descends from the top end to a bottom end of the plant support structure (Neff Fig. 1 #8); but is silent on and forms a non-linear path along its length. However, Brankovic teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide channels through a plant support structure along a non-linear path (Brankovic Fig.1 #12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Neff with the non-linear channel path of Brankovic before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reach around the roots as taught by Brankovic. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. (applicant claims the channel is non-linear and that the channel traverses at a periphery of the geometric block and the structure of Neff satisfies the broad nature of the claim of the channel at the periphery since applicant doesn’t explicitly claim the channel follows the same path/shape as the interconnected elements; Brankovic is a teaching that it is known for wicking channels to be non-linear through a plant support structure).
Regarding Claim 18, Neff as modified teaches wherein the porous material is a wicking material (Neff Fig. 1 #7 sand, English abstract).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent FR 2253451 to Neff in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,083,146 to Brankovic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,295,296 to Kinghorn.
Regarding Claim 2, Neff as modified is silent on teaching at least one of the primary elements has a micro-awning for proving shading to plants within the channels and/or to a building associated with the plant support structure. However, Kinghorn teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a micro-awning (Kinghorn Fig. 1 and 2 #12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Neff with the teachings of Kinghorn before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide artificial lighting as taught by Kinghorn. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent FR 2253451 to Neff in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,083,146 to Brankovic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0121048 to Searle.
Regarding Claim 3, Neff as modified is silent on wherein the interconnected primary elements in the framework form an interlaced hexagonal geometry. However, Searle teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that circular and hexagonal geometries are known alternate equivalents and do not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record (Searle Fig. 1 #22; Fig. 12 hexagon geometry holes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Neff with the teachings of Searle before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to create an aesthetic design and accommodate different size and species of plants. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known hole geometry with another to obtain predictable results. Obvious engineering design choice [In re Seid,161 F.2d 229, 231, 73 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPA 1947)].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent FR 2253451 to Neff in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,083,146 to Brankovic as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of German Patent DE 3316791 to Dose.
Regarding Claim 9, Neff as modified is silent on wherein the geometric blocks are hexagonal shaped oriented with a vertex as an upper most part of each block. However, Dose teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that the geometric blocks are hexagonal shaped oriented with a vertex as an upper most part of each block (Dose Fig. 1d). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Neff with the teachings of Dose before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to create an aesthetic design and accommodate different size and species of plants. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known hole geometry with another to obtain predictable results. Obvious engineering design choice [In re Seid,161 F.2d 229, 231, 73 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPA 1947)].
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent FR 2253451 to Neff in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,083,146 to Brankovic and German Patent DE 3316791 to Dose as applied to claims 15 and 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,627,983 to Deutsch-Aboulmahassine.
Regarding Claim 21, Neff as modified is silent on affixed to a structure so that the at least two structurally interconnected layers are spaced apart from the structure. However, Deutsch teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to affixed to a structure so that the at least two structurally interconnected layers are spaced apart from the structure (Deutsch Fig. 8 #58 spaces #52b/#52a away from the structure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Neff with the teachings of Deutsch before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent damage to a building wall surface as taught by Deutsch. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 22, Neff as modified teaches further including one more platforms between an innermost layer of the at least two structurally interconnected layers and the building, the platforms configured to accommodate thereon a person. Deutsch teaches one more platforms between an innermost layer of the at least two layers and the building (Deutsch Fig. 8 #58), the platforms configured to accommodate thereon a person (the structure of Deutsch is capable of the claimed function, applicant doesn't claim a size for the platform nor does applicant claim how much of the person is accommodated, one foot, a hand, the whole body, etc). The structural platform of Deutsch satisfies the broad nature of the limitation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent FR 2253451 to Neff in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,083,146 to Brankovic and U.S. Patent No. 5,265,376 to Less.
Regarding Claims 9 and 30, Neff teaches plant support structure for accommodating plants, the plant support (Neff Fig. 1 #1) structure including: a framework including a front layer (Neff front side Fig. 1 #3) of interconnected primary elements and a back layer (Neff Fig. 1 #3 back side) of interconnected primary elements in a vertically extending arrangement, the front layer structurally interconnected to the back layer (Neff both layers of #3 connected via #4), the front layer is horizontally spaced apart from the back layer to define a space between the front layer and the back layer, and the framework forming a plurality of geometric blocks (Neff Fig. 2 squares #3) and a plurality of vertically extending channels (Neff Fig. 1 #8, English abstract teaches “several”);
wherein the plurality of vertically extending channels are configured to receive therein a porous material (Neff Fig. 1 #7, English abstract “sand”) for carrying water from a top end of the framework down the plurality of vertically extending channels (Neff Fig. 1 #8) for irrigating plants (Neff Fig. 3 #10) in the plurality of vertically extending channels,
each geometric block of the plurality of geometric blocks includes a central void (Neff Fig. 2 #9), around which one or more of the plurality of vertically extending channels traverse at a periphery of the geometric block, and
wherein each channel of the plurality of vertically extending channels: is formed in the space between the front layer of interconnected primary elements and the back layer of interconnected primary elements (Neff Fig. 1 #8 is between two layers of #3); is open on two sides with each side opening into one or more of the central voids (Neff Fig. 1 #8 does not have a wall structure that closes it off and satisfies being open to the voids on both sides); wherein one or more of the central voids define an opening extending horizontally through the framework (Neff Fig. 3 #9, extends “through” layer #3, applicant doesn’t claim through both layers; however, Neff back layer #3 also has holes in it since it is the same as front layer #3 and would satisfy through both layers).
Neff teaches the channels continuously descends from the top end to a bottom end of the plant support structure (Neff Fig. 1 #8); but is silent on and forms a non-linear path along its length. However, Brankovic teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide channels through a plant support structure along a non-linear path (Brankovic Fig.1 #12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Neff with the non-linear channel path of Brankovic before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reach around the roots as taught by Brankovic. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. (applicant claims the channel is non-linear and that the channel traverses at a periphery of the geometric block and the structure of Neff satisfies the broad nature of the claim of the channel at the periphery since applicant doesn’t explicitly claim the channel follows the same path/shape as the interconnected elements; Brankovic is a teaching that it is known for wicking channels to be non-linear through a plant support structure).
Neff as modified is silent on an irrigation system for providing water into a top part of the plurality of vertically extending channels of the plant support structure. However, Less teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an irrigation system for providing water into a top part of the plurality of vertically extending channels of the plant support structure (Less Fig. 5 #17 and #16, claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Neff with the teachings of Less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for precise control of the water as taught by Less. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Alternatively, applicant doesn’t claim the structural features of the irrigation system and natural rainfall would satisfy the broad nature of the claim limitation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent FR 2253451 to Neff in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,083,146 to Brankovic and U.S. Patent No. 5,265,376 to Less as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No.4,295,296 to Kinghorn.
Regarding Claim 10, Neff as modified teaches a water treatment pond at the bottom of the plant support structure (Less Fig. 5 #19), but is silent on the system further comprises wherein the water treatment pond is configured to receive and purify water resulting from irrigation overflow through the channels of the plant support structure. However, Kinghorn teaches the water treatment pond is configured to receive and purify water resulting from irrigation overflow through the channels of the plant support structure (Kinghorn Fig. 5 #35, the pond of Kinghorn is capable of the claimed function since applicant doesn't claim the structure of treatments used to treat the water, Kinghorn satisfies the broad nature of the claim). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Neff with the teachings of Kinghorn before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to maintain a desired humidity level for the plants as taught by Kinghorn. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent FR 2253451 to Neff in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,083,146 to Brankovic, U.S. Patent No. 5,265,376 to Less, and U.S. Patent No.4,295,296 to Kinghorn as applied to claims 9 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,524,433 to Spiro.
Regarding Claim 11, Neff as modified is silent on the system further comprises a water storage tank for storing either the water resulting from irrigation overflow through the channels of the plant support structure or the purified water received from the water treatment pond. However, Spiro teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a water storage tank for storing either the water resulting from irrigation overflow through the channels of the plant support structure or the purified water received from the water treatment pond (Spiro Fig. 1A #7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Neff with the teachings of Spiro before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to collect overflow as taught by Spiro. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, Neff as modified teaches a cistern located at a height close or above the height of the plant support structure (Spiro Fig. 1 A#9), wherein the cistern receives water from the water storage tank (Spiro Fig. 1A #7) and provides the water to the irrigation system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Neff with the teachings of Spiro before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to oxygenate the water as taught by Spiro. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13, Neff as modified teaches a power source and a pump for pumping water from the water storage tank to the cistern (Spiro Col.6 lines 38-43 And Fig. 1A #6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Neff with the teachings of Spiro before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently transport the water as taught by Spiro. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-13, 15, 18-22, 24-31 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
09 March 2026