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.
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 1-3, 5, 8, 9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizaki (US 2020/0022314).
Regarding claim 1, Aizali discloses an apparatus for cultivation of a beet plant from a beet seedling, the apparatus comprising a formative structure with a cavity for receiving and containing the beet seedling during growth of the beet seedling in to the beet plant (mold 120, fig. 1), wherein the formative structure is designed such that an outer shape of a beet root of the beet plant is at least partially affected by walls of the cavity during the growth of the beet seedling into the beet plant (para. 0028 and 0031), wherein the formative structure comprises a base element (first half of mold 120, para. 0029, fig. 1) providing the cavity (sidewalls 126 form a hollow cavity within mold 120, para. 0032, fig. 4), wherein the base element comprises a cuboid inner contour (first half of mold 120 has a cuboid inner contour, fig. 4) but is silent on wherein a width or maximum extension of the cuboid inner contour perpendicular to a vertical axis of the apparatus is 250 to 350 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a width or maximum extension perpendicular to a vertical axis of apparatus being 250 to 350 millimeters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Regarding “for cultivation of a beet plant”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 2, Aizali discloses wherein the cavity is designed for containing only one single beet plant (para. 0019, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Aizali discloses wherein the inner contour is shaped with rounded edges so that the outer shape of the beet root results in an al least partially cuboid shaped outer form with rounded edges (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Aizali discloses the invention substantially as claimed but is silent on wherein the base element (first half of mold 120) is rigid or semi rigid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a rigid or semi rigid base element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 5, Aizali discloses wherein the base element (first half and second half of mold 120) comprises one or more liquid-permeable areas or wherein the base element is made of a liquid-permeable and porous and/or perforated material (para. open top122, para. 0030).
Regarding claim 8, Aizali discloses wherein the base element comprises a separation area for separating the base element into at least two parts (coupling mechanisms, para. 0034) or an ejection device for removal of the beet out of the cavity, the ejection device being, an openable flap.
Regarding claim 9, Aizali discloses wherein the base element comprises an illumination aperture through which a head and leaves of the beet plant can grow out of the cavity (open top surface 122, para. 029, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Aizali discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a fluid inlet for supplying water and/or a nutrient solution into the cavity (open top surface 122, para. 029, fig. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizali in view of Mori (US 4612726).
Regarding claim 10, Aizali teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprises a light source or a light-emitting diode irradiating at least the illumination aperture. However, Mori teaches a light source (light source 50, col. 6, ll. 41-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Aizali’s system with a light source as taught by Mori to generate an artificial environment to ensure a plant receives a correct amount of light for proper growth.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizali in view of Chandrakanthan (US 2021/0315174).
Regarding claim 13, Aizali teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprises at least one sensor configured to detect mechanical contact and/or pressure between the beet plant and at least one surface wall of the cavity. However, Chandrakanthan teaches sensor detecting mechanical contact and/or pressure between the beet plant and at least one surface wall of the cavity (para. 0098). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Aizali’s system with sensors as taught by Chandrakanthan to allow a user to obtain information on a plants growth rate.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizali in view of Mulford (US 2930162).
Regarding claim 26, Aizali teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the cavity is filled with a liquid, gaseous, and/or vaporous nutrition solution for soilless aeroponics or hydroponic cultivation of the beet plant. However, Mulford teaches cavity filled with a liquid, gaseous, and/or vaporous nutrition solution for soilless aeroponics or hydroponic cultivation of a plant (addition of water, col. 3, ll.55-56 and 61-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Aizali’s planter with water as taught by Mulford to supply nutrients to the plant.
Regarding claim 27, Aizali teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprises a seedling holder that holds the beet seedling close to a top of the cavity so that the beet seedling grows top-down inside of the cavity in a direction towards a bottom of the cavity. However, Mulford teaches a seeding holder (positioning means/studs 14, col. 2, ll. 53-62). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Aizali’s planter with a positioning means as taught by Mulford to allow a user to position a seedling above the bottom surface to prevent water logging that can affect the health and growth of the plant.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizali in view of WO 2021/055257.
Regarding claim 31, Aizali teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprises a cutting device for cutting off a head or leaves of the beet plant before removal of the beet plant from the cavity. However, WO2021/055257 teaches a cutter (harvester machine includes cutters, para. 00113). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Aizali’s system with a cutter as taught by WO2021/055257 so that the seedlings or plants can be easily removed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 11, 12, 29 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening 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 EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 9am -5pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 5712726909. 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.
/EBONY E EVANS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights