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
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 4187639).
Regarding claim 1, Ono 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 (frame A, 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 (col. 2, ll. 14-16 and col. 3, ll. 8-10), wherein the formative structure comprises a base element (lower portion 5 and bottom plate 6, col. 2, ll. 38-41) providing the cavity (fig. 3), but fails to teach wherein the base element comprises a cuboid inner contour, 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 claimed invention was effectively filed 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). And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to make the different portions of the base element of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. 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, Ono discloses wherein the cavity is designed for containing only one single beet plant (col. 2, ll. 67-col. 3, ll. 3, frame A is positioned around one plant).
Regarding claim 3, Ono 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. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the claimed invention was effectively filed to make the different portions of the base element of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, in order to appeal to various users. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 4, Ono discloses wherein the base element (lower portion 5 and bottom plate 6) is rigid or semi rigid (col. 2, ll. 14-20).
Regarding claim 5, Ono discloses wherein the base element (lower portion 5 and bottom plate 6) comprises one or more liquid-permeable areas or wherein the base element is made of a liquid-permeable and porous and/or perforated material (col. 2, ll. 38-43).
Regarding claim 8, Ono discloses wherein the base element comprises a separation area for separating the base element (lower portion 5 and bottom plate 6) into at least two parts (col. 2, ll. 38-41) or an ejection device for removal of the beet out of the cavity, the ejection device being, an openable flap.
Regarding claim 9, Ono discloses wherein the base element an illumination aperture through which a head and leaves of the beet plant can grow out of the cavity (opening 4, col. 2, ll. 53-54, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Ono discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a fluid inlet for supplying water and/or a nutrient solution into the cavity (opening 4, fig. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Mori (US 4612726).
Regarding claim 10, Ono 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 Ono’s system with a light source as taught by Mori to generate an artificial environment to insure 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 Ono in view of Chandrakanthan (US 2021/0315174).
Regarding claim 13, Ono 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 Ono’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 Ono in view of Mulford (US 2930162).
Regarding claim 26, Ono 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 Ono’s planter with water as taught by Mulford to supple nutrient to the plant.
Regarding claim 27, Ono 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 Ono’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 Ono in view of WO 2021/055257.
Regarding claim 31, Ono 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 Ono’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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the present claims are directed to an apparatus for cultivation of a beet plant and that Ono fails to disclose cultivation of a beet plant, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In response to applicant’s argument that Ono fails to disclose the claimed dimensional range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a molding frame with a specific range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the present application, page 3, lines 31-35, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., cuboid cavity dimension to achieve uniform geometry for improved downstream processing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that Mulford fails to disclose a seedling holder that holds a seedling close to a top of the cavity, a seedling positioned on Mulford’s studs 14 are considered to be positioned close to the top of the cavity compared to a seedling positioned on the base.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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