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
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “resting on the circumferentially extending lip and upwardly from the circumferentially extending lp to the open top” should read “resting on the circumferentially extending lip and extending upwardly from the circumferentially extending [[lp]] lip to the open top” for clarity purposes.
In claim 9, “the spout” should read “a spout” as a spout has not yet been introduced in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3, and similarly claims 4 and 9, recites “wherein the lower tray comprises a spout configured for fluid communication with the funnel.” However, newly, amended claim 1 now recites “an accordion shaped funnel resting on the circumferentially extending lip and upwardly from the circumferentially extending lip to the open top.” Claim 3 appears to be referencing the embodiment shown in Figures 12-13, while claim 1 is referencing the embodiment in Figure 5. There is not sufficient description in the specification and figures to support the accordion shaped funnel resting on the lip of upper tray, and also simultaneously using a spout in the lower tray that is in fluid communication with the funnel. While the specification does clarify in paragraph [0032] that embodiments can be used in connection with one another, it appears that these two specific embodiments would not functionally work together, as the spout in Figures 12-13 would not work in the same way with the funnel of Figure 5.
Claim 6 states “wherein the lower tray comprises a lower tray lip extending radially outwardly around a perimeter thereof, the lower tray lip configured to rest on the lower inner lip.” Claim 6 appears to be referencing the embodiment shown in Figures 12-13, while claim 1 is referencing the embodiment in Figures 2 and 5. While Figures 2 and 5 do show a lower tray (112), there is no lower tray lip. Additionally, the lower inner lip on the base in Figure 2 is specifically used to engage with the lid portion, and therefore could not also engage with the lower tray. Therefore, there is not sufficient support in the figures for this arrangement.
Claim 15 states “wherein the upper tray comprises an upper tray lip extending radially outwardly around a perimeter thereof, the upper tray lip configured to rest on the upper lip.” Claim 15 appears to be referencing the embodiment shown in Figures 12-13, while claim 1 is referencing the embodiment in Figures 2 and 5. Figures 2 and 5 show the upper tray having a lip resting on the lid, with the funnel resting on the lip. While Figure 12 shows the upper tray lip resting on the upper base lip, there is insufficient support in the figures or the specification for the upper tray lip resting on the upper base lip, while the funnel is resting on the upper tray lip. Therefore, there is not sufficient support in the figures or specification for this arrangement.
Claim 18 states “wherein the funnel engages the sidewall around a perimeter thereof.” Claim 18 appears to be referencing the embodiment shown in Figures 12-13, while claim 1 is referencing the embodiment in Figures 2 and 5. The specification further states “Funnel 382 engages sidewall 388 around a perimeter thereof at top end 384 of lid portion 380.” However, in Figures 2 and 5, which show the accordion Figure as claimed, do not show the funnel engaging with the sidewalls. The funnel rests on the lip of the upper tray and does not appear to engage along the sidewalls or at the top end of the lid portion. Therefore, there is not sufficient support in the figures or specification for this arrangement.
Claim 20 states “a funnel extending from above a top end of the lid portion and resting on the circumferentially extending lip” and further states “a lower bowl attached to the funnel proximate to the base member.” The first limitation appears to be referencing the embodiment shown in Figures 12-13, while the second limitation is referencing the embodiment in Figures 2 and 5. There is not sufficient support for the funnel both resting on the lip of the upper tray, while also connecting to the lower bowl in the base member. Additionally, it does not appear that these two limitations would functionally work when used together in this way.
Claim 7 is rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 15 and 20 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 15 states “wherein the upper tray comprises an upper tray lip extending radially outwardly around a perimeter thereof, the upper tray lip configured to rest on the upper lip.” However, claim 1, from which claim 15 depends, states “the upper tray having a circumferentially extending lip;” It is unclear if these are referring to the same lips or if these are different lips, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 20 states “a funnel extending from above a top end of the lid portion and resting on the circumferentially extending lip” and further states “a lower bowl attached to the funnel proximate to the base member.” It is unclear how the funnel can both be resting on the outer lip of the upper tray while also attaching to the lower bowl that is below the upper tray, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, how would the funnel touch the lower bowl, when the upper tray is between the funnel and the lower bowl?
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 2020/0236864) (cited by Examiner in 892 dated 9/6/24) in view of Peterson et al. (US9521811).
Regarding Claim 19, Henry discloses a hydroponic growing system (Figure 2; Abstract) comprising:
a base member (base 207);
an upper tray removably inserted into the base member (system 209; Figure 3), the upper tray having a circumferentially extending lip (shown in annotated Figure 3 below); and
a lid portion removably attachable to the base member (“the tower 203 is secured above a base 207” Paragraph [0025]; “As shown, the system is modular via a plurality of attachment mechanisms 307.” Paragraph [0035]),
the lid portion comprising:
an open top (Figure 2);
a funnel (chamber 301);
a sidewall having a plurality of openings formed therein (sidewall of tower 203 with openings 204; Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Henry fails to disclose the funnel extending from above the open top to the base member, the funnel resting on the circumferentially extending lip.
However, Peterson teaches a similar hydroponic cultivation device, comprising a funnel extending from above the open top to the base member (funnel member 90 with funnel extension member 115; Figures 3, 10, and 11), the funnel resting on the upper tray (Figures 10 and 11).
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 funnel and circumferentially extending lip of Henry, with the funnel extending to the base and resting on the upper tray as taught by Peterson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the roots of the plant receive the proper amount of water and nutrients for healthy growth, while the funnel remains stably in position during use..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10-14, and 16-17 are allowed.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, 15, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicant's claimed invention. The closest prior art of record fails to specifically teach an accordion shaped funnel resting on the circumferentially extending lip and upwardly from the circumferentially extending lip to the open top. The closest prior art is Henry (US 2020/0236864) in view of Peterson et al. (US9521811).
Henry teaches a hydroponic growing system (Figure 2; Abstract) comprising: a base member (base 207); an upper tray removably inserted into the base member (system 209; Figure 3); the upper tray having a circumferentially extending lip (shown in annotated Figure 3 below); and a lid portion removably attachable to the base member (“the tower 203 is secured above a base 207” Paragraph [0025]; “As shown, the system is modular via a plurality of attachment mechanisms 307.” Paragraph [0035]), the lid portion comprising: an open top (Figure 2); a funnel (chamber 301); and a sidewall having a plurality of openings formed therein (sidewall of tower 203 with openings 204; Figure 2).
Peterson further teaches a funnel resting on the lip and upwardly from the circumferentially extending lip to the open top (funnel member 90 with funnel extension member 115; Figures 3, 10, and 11), the funnel having a first diameter proximate to a top end of the funnel and a second diameter, larger than the first diameter, at the base member (Figures 3, 10, and 11).
However, it would not have been obvious to have modified the funnel of Henry or Peterson with any of the prior art of record to have an accordion shaped funnel resting on the circumferentially extending lip of the upper tray.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/2/26 with respect to claim 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly added reference Henry (US 2020/0236864) in view of previously used references teaches the claim as amended as discussed in the currently present rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights