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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objection to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m) because the figures are difficult to observe. It seems that Fig. 1 has been submitted with color, which may be causing issues. The Office suggests providing replacement figures in black and white. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 line 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim recites “specific plants are hung from top panel”. Appropriate correction is required. Office recommends revising to read -hung from the top panel-
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 1-2, 4-6 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 "wherein the specific plants" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While Applicant has referenced “a support for specific plants” in line 4, the structural “specific plants” themselves had not been properly introduced previously within the claim. The Office recommends revising the language in line 6 to recite either – wherein a plurality of specific plants are hung from the top panel – or -wherein one or more specific plants are hung from the top panel – The remaining limitations references to the specific plants would not need to be adjusted when line 6 is revised.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermans (WO 2022096788 A1) in view of Kaur (IN 201711017992 A).
Regarding claim 1: Hermans discloses an air purification system based aeroponic (abstract) technique, said system comprising of: a. an enclosure that comprises an upper chamber and a lower chamber (above wall 16, below wall 16), wherein a top panel (4) of the upper chamber provides a support for specific plants (50) having microbes on rhizosphere/roots (plants are known to have microbes) capable of removing pollutants from surrounding (aeroponic system is said to be usable with any kind of plant, therefore this limitation would be met) wherein the specific plants are hung from top panel (Fig. 1), wherein rhizosphere/roots of the specific plants are exposed to air in the upper chamber below the top panel (4) and leaves of the specific plants are positioned above the top panel of the upper chamber of the enclosure (Fig. 3); c. a water tank (21) with a pump (pump 80) for regular watering of the specific plants, wherein the water tank is located in the lower chamber (Fig. 2); d. a plate (wall 16) that separates the upper chamber from the lower chamber (Fig. 16), e. a pipe (5) and nozzles (nozzles 70,71, Fig. 6; pipe is inherent as there would need to be a structure that draws water from the reservoir to the nozzle) located in the upper chamber for spraying of the exposed rhizosphere/roots with water with nutrients (Fig. 6);
Hermans fails to teach a plurality of axial fans at an inlet and an outlet in the upper chamber, wherein the plurality of axial fans generate a flow force for passing are through the exposed rhizosphere/roots of the specific plants that facilities flow of polluted air in and clean air out of the upper chamber; a perforated plate, wherein the perforated plate is configured to mediate collection of water in the water tank; and f. a sensor for detecting pollutants.
However, Kaur teaches a plurality of axial fans (9) at an inlet and an outlet (claim 1), wherein the plurality of axial fans generate a flow force for passing are through the exposed rhizosphere/roots of the specific plants that facilities flow of polluted air in and clean air out (Claim 1); a perforated plate, wherein the perforated plate is configured to mediate collection of water in the water tank (Claim 1); and f. a sensor (8) for detecting pollutants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aeroponic system as disclosed by Hermans with the fans, perforated plate, and sensor as taught by Kaur with a reasonable expectation of success because these structural components would assist with air purification, by allowing polluted air to be fed through the plants so that a resulting clean air exits the aeroponic system, the perforated plate would allow for minimal water loss, and the sensor could assist with the turn on/off of the fans to assist with cleaning the air, all of which would result in a more efficient aeroponic system that produces fresh air which would be beneficial to a user who owns the apparatus.
Hermans as modified by Kaur discloses the claimed invention except for axial fans in the upper chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide fans in the upper chamber, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Arranging fans in the upper chamber of the aeroponic system would achieve the predictable result of having the pollutant air contact the roots of the plant right away, which would assist with the purification of air within the room.
Regarding claim 2: Hermans as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kaur further teaches wherein the specific plants are selected from the group consisting of Peperomia capperata, Peperomia capperata variegata, Peperomia sandersii, Maranta leuconeuro, Maranta cinza, Alocasia amazonica, Alocasia macorrhiza variegata, Calathea zebrina, Calathea roseopicta, Crassula ovata, Crassula argenta, Pilea microphylla, Pilea spruceana, Philodendron xanadu, Dracaena mahatama, Sanseivera cylindrica, Savia splendens, Alpinia zerumbet variegata, Brassica oleracea, Pandanus tectonus, Coleus blumei, Excoecaria cochinchinensis, Tradescantia zebrina, Kalanchoe tomentosa, Beaucarnea recurvate (Claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aeroponic apparatus as disclosed by modified Hermans with the plants as taught by Kaur with a reasonable expectation of success because these plants are well known in the art to provide purification of air, which would optimize the decrease of pollutants within a room’s environment.
Regarding claim 4: Hermans as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the specific plants automatically remove the pollutants from air around the air purification system (Kaur page 17, 5th advantage).
Regarding claim 5: Hermans as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kaur further teaches wherein the perforated plate collects the water into the water tank with the help of pipe (as seen in Fig. 1, pump would dispense water which goes through plate and arrives at water tank).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the water arrangement as disclosed by Hermans with the piping as taught by Kaur with a reasonable expectation of success because providing this watering arrangement would assist with the recirculation of water, decreasing the water lost as a result of growing these plants, and further optimizing the aeroponic apparatus by decreasing cost.
Regarding claim 6: Hermans as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kaur further teaches wherein the purification system is provided with an energy source selected from the group consisting of a solar panel, wind energy and a conventional energy source (Claim 7, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aeroponic apparatus as disclosed by modified Hermans with the energy source as taught by Kaur with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an energy source would allow the fans to be activated, which would assist with the purification of air within a polluted room.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Kaur are moot, as the rejection has relied upon Kaur as a secondary reference which is used to modify an already established aeroponic system.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the additional remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
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 EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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 at 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights