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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/17/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Applicant only provided abstracts of the cited references and not the foreign patent document as required.
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 7-10,16-18 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, to which claims 7-10,16-18 depend thereon, employs the close-ended transitional phrase of “consisting of”, which means that nothing more can be added or claimed because it is “closed”. However, it appears that claims 7-10,16-18 are claiming or adding additional elements to the close-ended claim 1. Thus, the scopes of these claims are inconsistent because it is unclear if the invention as claimed limits to only the elements as designated in claim 1 with the use of “consisting of” or does the invention has other additional elements also, which using the “consisting of” would not be given much weight. In addition, it is noted that applicant’s specification and drawings seem to have more elements that what are being claimed in claim 1 with “consisting of” terminology. Thus, using “consisting of” to close limitations but the actual invention does not limit to these elements would be unclear and not given much weight to the “consisting of” terminology. See MPEP 211.03 Transitional phrases, II. Consisting of.
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.
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.
Claims 1,4,5,7-12,16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble et al. (US 20220232786 A1) in view of Cunningham (WO 2020142851 A1).
For claim 1, Noble et al. teach an automated feeding system for plants, comprising:
at least one fill line (54b);
an air line (para. 0022);
a first plant housing (22; figs. 8-9) and a second plant housing (22; figs. 8-9) positioned parallel to the first plant housing (figs. 8-9), each of the first plant housing and the second plant housing coupled to at least one fill line, and each of the first plant housing and the second plant housing configured to be filled with feed solution (as explained in various para. of the spec, for example, para. 0020), wherein the at least one fill line is symmetrical about a longitudinal axis between the first plant housing and the second plant housing (figs.8-9, self-explanatory for lines 42b,54b being symmetrical about a longitudinal axis between the first plant housing and the second plant housing);
a reservoir (16,16b) configured to hold feed solution;
a first pump (18,18b) coupled to the at least one fill line (54b), wherein the first pump is configured to pump the feed solution from the reservoir to the first plant housing and the second plant housing (function recitation to which the pump in Noble does perform the intended function), wherein the at least one fill line fills the first plant housing and the second plant housing at an even rate (only one pump line goes into fill line 54,54b, thus, the rate of flow would be the same for both first and second plant housings);
a second pump (para. 0022, not shown but mentioned) coupled to the air line (implied because there has to be a line for air coming out of the air pump);
an air stone (para. 0022);
a plurality of first housing caps (22b,32b) located on the first plant housing and a plurality of second housing caps (22b,32b) located on the second plant housing, each of the plurality of first housing caps and the plurality of second housing caps configured to create a seal between a base of one plant of the plurality of plants and the respective plant housing (functional recitation to which the caps of Noble can and does perform the intended function of sealing); and
a controller (para. 0032) communicatively coupled to the first pump and the second pump (the controller is coupled to all parts of the system including the pumps), wherein the controller is configured to start the first pump and the second pump after receiving sensor data correspondent to the indulgence of the plants (functional recitation to which the controller in Noble can and does perform the intended function as explained in para. 0032, wherein the controller controls various parameters that are required by the plants, be it air or fluid, upon receiving data from the sensors).
However, Noble et al. are silent about the second pump coupled to a plurality of air lines; a plurality of first air stones located within the first plant housing and a plurality of second air stones located within the second plant housing, each of the plurality of first air stones and the plurality of second air stones coupled to at least one of the pluralities of air lines; and wherein each of the plurality of first air stones are located between two first housing caps of the plurality of first housing caps and each of the plurality of second air stones are located between two housing caps of the plurality of second housing caps.
Cunningham et al. teach an automated feeding system in fig. 5 comprising: a pump (244) coupled to a plurality of air lines (245a,245b); a first air stone (292) distributed within the first plant housing (upper housing 226) and a second air stone (292) distributed within the second plant housing (lower housing 226), each of the first air stone and the second air stone coupled to at least one of the plurality of air lines (upper stone 292 coupled to air line 245a and lower stone 292 coupled to air line 245b). In addition, Cunningham et al. teach in figs. 8-9 that more than one air stone 595,692 can be used in the housing, and the stones are evenly distributed in the housing (as shown similar to applicant’s stones 292, which there are two in the housing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a plurality of air lines as taught by Cunningham et al. connected to each of the first plant housing and the second plant housing of Noble et al., and a plurality of air stones located within the first plant housing and the second plant housing, the plurality of air stones coupled to the air line as taught by Cunningham et al. in order to provide air to each of the housing individually.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ more than one air stone as taught by Cunningham et al.’s figs. 8-9 so as to have a plurality of first air stones and a plurality of second air stones in the system of Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. , since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (depending on how much air bubbles the user wishes to have for the plants based on the plant type grown therein). St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
The combination of Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. is silent about wherein each of the plurality of first air stones are located between two first housing caps of the plurality of first housing caps and each of the plurality of second air stones are located between two housing caps of the plurality of second housing caps.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of first air stones (as taught in Cunningham) are located between two first housing caps of the plurality of first housing caps of Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. and each of the plurality of second air stones (as taught in Cunningham) are located between two housing caps of the plurality of second housing caps of Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al., depending on the user’s preference to locate the stones in the housing based on how much air or aeration the plants need, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
The combination of Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. is also silent about the scope of the claim within the usage of “consisting of”. While Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al., emphasis on Noble, teaches other elements such as the drip lines 40b, valves 64b, sensors/regulators 62b, racks 66b, which would not meet the “consisting of” transitional phrase as amended by applicant, these items can be omitted in a sense that they would not hinder the basic operability of Noble’s invention. In addition, in actuality, applicant’s invention has sensors (para. 0017 of the specification), and other items that are part of the invention that cannot be omitted but they are omitted because of “consisting of”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the extra elements in Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al., since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 126 USPQ 184. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In another word, the drip lines 40b can be omitted because feed solution can be added by fill line 54b, valves 64b can be omitted because the computer or controller in Noble can be configured to shut off feed solution instead of having the manually adjusted valves, racks 66b can be omitted because the racks are for elevating the system and has no effect on the operation aspect and the system can be placed on the ground surface without using the racks. As for the sensors, since applicant has sensors in his invention and the sensors are necessary to operate the system but applicant is not claiming these sensors within the scope of “consisting of”, hence, the examiner is interpreting the same for Noble because he has sensors to send information to the controller in order to operate the system.
For claim 4, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 1, and further teach wherein the second pump is configured to pump air into the air line, and the air line is configured to add air to the first plant housing via the plurality of first air stones and the second plant housing via the plurality of second air stones (such is the function of the air pump and air stones as taught in both Noble and Cunningham).
For claim 5, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 4, and further teach wherein the added air increases a volumetric pressure within the first plant housing and the second plant housing (such is what air does to a close system of Noble).
For claim 7, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 1, and further teach a drain line (26,26b of Noble; also, para. 0028,0035,0040 of Noble) coupled to the first plant housing, the second plant housing, and the reservoir.
For claim 8, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 7, and further teach wherein the drain line is configured to recirculate excess feed solution from the first plant housing and the second plant housing to the reservoir when the first pump is active (functional recitation to which the drain line of Noble can and does perform the function of configured to circulate excess feed solution).
For claim 9, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 7, and further teach wherein the drain line is configured to drain feed solution from the first plant housing and the second plant housing completely when the first pump is inactive (functional recitation to which the drain line of Noble can and does perform the function of configured to drain feed solution from the plant housing completely; see also para. 0028,0035,0040 of Noble).
For claim 10, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 7, and further teach wherein the second pump is configured to pump air into the air line, and the air line is configured to feed the plurality of first air stones and the plurality of the second air stones to diffuse air into the feed solution while it is recirculating (functional recitation to which the drain line of Noble and as modified with Cunningham can and does perform the function of configured to pump air and configured to feed).
For claim 11, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 1, and further teach wherein the controller is configured to cause the first pump and second pump to start and stop (functional recitation to which the drain line of Noble can and does perform the function of configured to cause the pumps to start and stop; see also para. 0032 of Noble).
For claim 12, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 1, and further teach wherein the controller is configured to start the first pump and the second pump after a first predetermined period of time has elapsed and stop the first pump and the second pump after a second predetermined period of time has elapsed (functional recitation to which the drain line of Noble can and does perform the function of configured to start the pumps at various times and conditions; see also para. 0032 of Noble).
For claim 16, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 1, and further teach a third plant housing (see fig. 9 of Noble).
For claim 17, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 1, and further teach wherein the controller communicatively coupled to the first pump and the second pump via a wired connection (para. 0032 of Noble).
For claim 18, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 1, but are silent about wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to the first pump and the second pump via a wireless connection (para. 00142,00156,00256). In addition to the above, Cunningham et al. further teach wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to the first pump and the second pump via a wireless connection (para. 00142,00156,00256). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller of Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. be communicatively coupled to the first pump and the second pump via a wireless connection as further taught by Cunningham in order to allow controlling and monitoring from a remote location.
For claim 19, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 1, and further teach wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to one or more sensors located within the first plant housing and the second plant housing (para. 0032 of Noble).
For claim 20, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 19, and further teach wherein the one or more sensors indicate a condition of plants located within the first plant housing and the second plant housing (para. 0022,0032 of Noble).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ross (US 20200305368 A1).
For claim 2, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. teach the automated feeding system of claim 1, but are silent about wherein the first pump is located in the reservoir.
Ross teaches a similar automated feeding system as Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. wherein the pump (55) is located in the reservoir (6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first pump of Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. be located in the reservoir as taught by Ross, in order to save space by having the pump be in the reservoir instead of occupying another area of the system.
For claim 3, Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. and Ross teach the automated feeding system of claim 2, and further teach wherein the first pump is configured to pump feed solution contained in the reservoir into the at least one fill line, and the at least one fill line is configured to transport the feed solution to the first plant housing and the second plant housing (functional recitation to which the first pump of Noble does perform the function of configured to pump feed solution contained in the reservoir).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued the following:
(1) Claim 1 recites an element absent from the system of the proposed combination
First, claim 1 recites a limitation-namely, a "seal"-that is absent from the system resulting from the Office's proposed combination of Noble and Cunningham… It does not create a seal between the base of the plant and its housing, as required by the claims. Moreover, any assertion that Noble discloses a seal at the base of the plant is inconsistent with Noble's overall system design. Noble's watering system depends on the absence of such a seal, because water is applied from above the plant and must flow freely down through the roots into a lower collection system.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the plant will be placed in the basket 36b in Noble and the base of the plant will be sealed inside caps 32b,22b and the respective plant housing 22 as shown in fig. 4 of Noble. In addition, the examiner is not clear as to why the watering system from above the plant in Noble has anything to do with sealing the base of the plant relative to the housing? The base of the plant will be inside the housing by ways of ref. 32b so it does not matter whether the drip irrigator 40b is there or not. The roots, which can be considered as a base of the plant, will be inside 32b,22b,22 to absorb feed solution inside of housing 22. Thus, it is clear that Noble’s ref. 32b meets the claimed limitation of configured to create a seal between the base of the plant and the housing.
(2) The proposed combination recites elements omitted from the scope of claim 1
Additionally, Noble's system-and thus the system proposed by the Office-recites several elements, including a "sprayer system" and a "drip system" which are not recited in claim 1. Thus, the claimed system is further distinct from the proposed system with respect to these additional elements. Applicant notes that claim 1 has been amended herein to recite the transitional phrase "consisting of," rather than "comprising," which excludes any element, step, or ingredient not
specified in the claim…Here, omitting the sprayer system or drip system from the system of Noble would not be desired, as the system of Noble relies on the spray system and drip system to provide water to the plants grown using said system (see para. [0002] of Noble):
The examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant claimed at least one fill line to which ref. 54b of Noble is considered a fill line similar to applicant. Thus, applicant is incorrect that claim 1 does not call for a sprayer system in Noble because the sprayer system of Noble is the same as the fill line in applicant’s invention.
In addition, as stated in the above, the combination of Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al. is also silent about the scope of the claim within the usage of “consisting of”. While Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al., emphasis on Noble, teaches other elements such as the drip lines 40b, valves 64b, sensors/regulators 62b, racks 66b, which would not meet the “consisting of” transitional phrase as amended by applicant, these items can be omitted in a sense that they would not hinder the basic operability of Noble’s invention. In addition, in actuality, applicant’s invention has sensors (para. 0017 of the specification), and other items that are part of the invention that cannot be omitted but they are omitted because of “consisting of”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the extra elements in Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al., since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 126 USPQ 184. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In another word, the drip lines 40b can be omitted because feed solution can be added by fill line 54b, valves 64b can be omitted because the computer or controller in Noble can be configured to shut off feed solution instead of having the manually adjusted valves, racks 66b can be omitted because the racks are for elevating the system and has no effect on the operation aspect and the system can be placed on the ground surface without using the racks. As for the sensors, since applicant has sensors in his invention and the sensors are necessary to operate the system but applicant is not claiming these sensors within the scope of “consisting of”, hence, the examiner is interpreting the same for Noble because he has sensors to send information to the controller in order to operate the system.
Furthermore, a drip irrigator is not required and can be omitted in the system of Noble because the sprayer system 54b is also there so the user can make the choice of not using the drip irrigator 40b. Thus, the examiner does not agree with applicant that the drip system in Noble is required, and hence, does not meet the “consisting of” terminology. Feed solution from sprayer system or fill line 54b will still provide the system with nutrients for the plant, thus, there is really no need for the drip irrigator 40b, unless the user wishes to water the plant slowly as in drips.
First Criterion of KSR Test: Suggestion or Motivation to Modify the Reference
Applicant submits that, apprised of the disclosure of Noble and Cunningham, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably have found motivation to modify the system of Noble to comprise a seal between the base of the plant and the plant housing or to omit the spray system or drip system from the system of Noble for the reasons previously articulated herein.
As stated in the above, the seal exists between the base of the plant and the plant housing in Noble by way of ref. 32b as shown in fig. 4. The base of the plant will be inside the cap and the housing, especially the roots. See also above examiner’s comments.
In addition, as stated above, the fill line is ref. 54b, which is similar to applicant’s fill line. Thus, Noble does teach 54b and there is no need to omit this required element within the scope of “consisting of”. As for the drip irrigator 40b, as stated, this element can be omitted and will not hinder the operability of the system in Noble because most of the feed solution is from ref. 54b, and the drip irrigator is merely for slow watering if the user wishes to do so. It is not necessary to have it because it is not the main source of nutrient solution coming in the system.
Second Criterion of KSR Test: Reasonable Expectation of Success
Applicant submits that the prior art of record is silent regarding the desirability of sealing the rhizosphere or controlling atmospheric/dissolved oxygen ratios and pressure cycles necessary to produce the unexpectedly improved root morphology demonstrated in the Declaration. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, apprised of the prior art of record, would not reasonably have expected that modifying Noble to include these features would achieve such results.
The claimed limitation did not state the sealing is for “controlling atmospheric/dissolved oxygen ratios and pressure cycles necessary to produce the unexpectedly improved root morphology demonstrated in the Declaration”. All that is claimed is “each of the plurality of first housing caps and the plurality of second housing caps configured to create a seal between a base of one plant of the plurality of plants and the respective plant housing”. Is that not a function of a cap and anytime one caps off object, does it not control oxygen and pressure because the object is being capped off anyhow? It is clear from fig. 4 of Noble that ref. 32b is a cap that seals the opening 34b, and when a plant is placed inside the basket 36b and inside the housing and the cap, the cap seals the base of the plant and the housing. Thus, Noble’s system is the same expected result as applicant.
Response to Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Noble, Cunningham, and Ross
As discussed elsewhere herein in greater detail (see Response to Rejection under 35 USC§ 103: Noble and Cunningham), the proposed combination of Noble and Cunningham is distinct from the claimed system and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably have found motivation to modify Noble so as to include the recited seal or omitted the obligatory watering systems, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected such modifications would be deleterious to the system, if not render the system wholly inoperable.
The examiner has addressed the arguments in regard to the seal and the watering system in the above, thus, please see above.
As for Cunningham, it is clear from the rejection that Cunningham was relied on for having a plurality of air lines to connect the housings, and a plurality of air stones in the housings, which are nothing new in the art and would not hinder or change the operability of Noble’s invention if Cunningham is relied on because it would merely create a duplication of parts to create a larger plant growing system for Noble. All the required elements in Noble would still be there within the scope of applicant’s “consisting of” terminology, but just more than one system connected together as modified with Cunningham. Thus, why would the system of Noble be inoperable just because there is more than one system as modified with Cunningham?
Ross does not cure the deficiencies of Noble and Cunningham. In fact, the Office merely relies on Ross for its alleged teachings regarding the placement of a pump in a reservoir in order to save space (see page 10 of the Action).
Like Cunningham, Ross was relied on for a known and simple concept that would not hinder or change the operability of Noble’s system. As stated, Ross was relied on for location of the pump in the reservoir instead of being on the outside of the reservoir as in Noble. Submerging a pump inside a reservoir versus placing the pump on the outside of the reservoir does not hinder the operability of the system because the pump, regardless of the location, would still pump fluid as required. Placing the pump inside the reservoir does save space because there would not be a need to have an area on the ground outside the reservoir for the pump.
The examiner’s response to DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER FARRAGUT WATSON UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.132.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 11/18/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-5,7-12,16-20 based upon Noble et al. (US 20220232786 A1) in view of Cunningham (WO 2020142851 A1) or Noble et al. as modified by Cunningham et al., and further in view of Ross (US 20200305368 A1) as set forth in the last and current Office actions because: facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue, and showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims. In addition, the declaration appears to be an opinion declaration.
For example, numeral 9 discussed about “overhead drip/mist systems with two climate zones and two reservoirs, which produced suboptimal and unstable plants, including weak roots and hermaphroditic traits”, which is not even part of the rejection at issue nor commensurate in scope with the claims. In addition, there is not enough factual evidence to determine if Noble and Cunningham, especially Noble, produce “suboptimal and unstable plants, including weak roots and hermaphroditic traits” because weak roots and hermaphroditic traits are influence by other more important factors such as nutrient concentration, sun light amount, types of plants, etc. and not just merely from a cap that is configured to seal a base of the plant and the housing. Also, the system as shown in the picture in numeral 9 does not resemble the system of Noble. Clearly, Noble system has a cap 32b that seals the opening 34b of the housing 22 and the plant’s base is inserted inside so that the cap 32b seals the base of the plant and the housing. Without cap 32b, there will be open areas and there would be no seal; however, that is not the case in Noble. Fig. 4 of Noble does not resemble the pictures in numeral 9. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is broad because all that is being claimed is the caps configured to create a seal between a base of one plant of the plurality of plants and the respective plant housing, and nothing more. Cap 32b in Noble is configured to create a seal between a base of one plant of the plurality of plants and the respective plant housing, because the cap is placed inside the opening of the housing to seal the opening and the plant is placed therein. The roots of the plant can be the base of the plant and the roots will be sealed therein because the opening is sealed with the cap 32b.
For Numeral 10, applicant discussed a bottom-feeding ebb-and-flow system but none of this is even claimed. Again, the pictures shown in numeral 10 is not the same system as shown in Noble and there is no cap 32b to seal off the opening of the housing and the base of the plant. Also, as stated in the above, other factors may influence root growths and not just a cap sealing the housing and the base of the plant. Bottom-feeding ebb-and-flow system is notoriously well-known in the hydroponics art and have produce very good result; thus, it is unclear of applicant’s demonstration how not having a cap configured to seal the base of the plant and the housing produces unstable roots as stated. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is broad because all that is being claimed is the caps configured to create a seal between a base of one plant of the plurality of plants and the respective plant housing, and nothing more. Cap 32b in Noble is configured to create a seal between a base of one plant of the plurality of plants and the respective plant housing, because the cap is placed inside the opening of the housing to seal the opening and the plant is placed therein. The roots of the plant can be the base of the plant and the roots will be sealed therein because the opening is sealed with the cap 32b.
For numeral 11, applicant shows his invention and it resembles Noble’s invention in fig. 4. As stated, Noble also include cap 32b to produce a seal, just like applicant’s invention. In comparing the two, they resemble each other because the black cap of applicant is the same as the cap 32b of Noble, and the black cap of applicant is placed inside the opening of the housing, which cap 32b of Noble is placed inside opening 34b of the housing. Applicant argued that the claimed system including seals, but this is not the case. The claim called for the caps configured to create a seal between a base of one plant of the plurality of plants and the respective plant housing, and not seals. Using the cap to seal an opening of the housing is configured to seal, and not an actual structural different seal as appeared to be argued. Regardless, Noble teaches a cap 32b that is configured to create a seal between a base of one plant of the plurality of plants and the respective plant housing. In regard to the spray and drip system, as stated in the above rejection, Noble teaches a fill line 54b, similar to applicant. The drip irrigator 40b can be omitted and it would not hinder the operability of the system in Noble because he already has fill line 54b to provide feed solution. Drip irrigator is used to slowly drip solution so that the plant will not be over saturated but it does not hinder root development as stated by applicant.
In conclusion, the examiner does not believe that the declaration provides factual evidences against the prior art of record. The declaration appears to be merely an opinion of how applicant perceive Noble and Cunningham, and does not commensurate the scope of the claim. Also, the declaration tries to argue that Noble does not have a seal but a seal is not claimed. A cap that is configured to create a seal is being claimed, which, technically, that is the functionality of a cap, to seal. furthermore, it is clear that Noble teaches cap 32b configured to create a seal because it closes the opening 34b of the housing so that when the plant is inserted therein, the plant will be sealed at the base and the respective housing. Otherwise, without this cap 32b, the plant will be unstable in the opening and nothing to fill in the gap between the opening and the basket containing the plant, or that the basket containing the plant will not be vertically held.
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 SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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.
/Son T Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643