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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 03/23/2026.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 are amended.
Claims 10-13 are added.
Amendment to the instant specification
The amendment to the specification dated 03/23/2026 is acknowledged. The amendment addresses and overcomes objections to the drawings made in the previous office action, and does not appear to introduce new matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcame the objections to the claims made in the previous Office action.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the objection to the drawings made in the previous Office action.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) made in the previous Office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are primarily focused on that the applied prior art does not teach a “seed womb.”
In support of said argument, Applicant states in pages 11-13 that:
PNG
media_image1.png
247
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
355
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
244
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
271
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
275
641
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant refers to the instant specification in an apparent attempt to “define” the form and characteristics of the “seed womb” (Note: in page 11 of the arguments, Applicant refers to paragraphs 44-45 of the pre-grant publication (pgpub) for said description, however, those paragraphs do not appear to what Applicant describes, even though other paragraphs of the pgpub appear to do so (e.g. paragraph 30 of the pgpub)).
However, the instant specification merely states that a seed womb is an enclosure or container including one or more seeds and a mixture. Other characteristics may be present, thus they are not limiting. Furthermore, the nature of the “container” and the “seed” can be taken under their broadest reasonable interpretation. Certainly, even a bag , box, tray, pot, etc., and/or any combination thereof are containers that can contain substances such as mixtures and `seeds. Moreover, even though Applicant argues that Sakato cannot teach a seed womb, since it is directed to mushrooms, it is noted that in Sakato, the bag container that is filled with cultivation medium undergoes an inoculation process (see Fig. 68, Sakato), which any person of ordinary skill in the art understands to mean the medium is provided with the seeding material (e.g. spores, mycelium, or liquid culture) that will grow to produce the organic mushroom desired. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the bag container of Sakato does contain seeds and is a “seed womb.” As a side note, It is also noted that while Applicant argues the concept of a seed womb, the independent claim itself Is mainly directed with the processing of the mixture to be used for the intended purpose of being used in a seed womb, and perhaps additionally in abroad sense a consideration of shape of a container of in which seed and mixture may be placed.
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., specific characteristics of a seed womb) 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).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that Sakato teaches a predetermined rectangular shape, which cannot be equated to “determining a shape and size of a seed womb based on a regulating parameter derived from tested attributes of target soil, atmospheric, and seed attributes,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is giving more weight to the claims than they merit. The independent claims do not contain any wording as indicated above. Instead, the claims actually recite with regards to a shape of a container: “generate, using the first input data, based on the generated regulating parameter, an output data pertaining to a regulated composition of the mixture, said output data indicates an extent of alteration required in the initial composition, based on the regulating parameter, to achieve the regulated composition, and a shape and size of the seed womb;” (or a variation thereof).
The limitation in question is directed to determining output data pertaining to a regulated composition of a mixture that indicates an extent of alteration required to the initial composition based on a regulating parameter and a shape and size of a seed womb. In other words, the limitation is determining some output data related to regulation of a mixture that is required and in some way based on a shape and size of a seed womb. Determining a shape of a seed womb is not required by the instant limitation. In Sakato, an amount of composition needed to fill a specific size and shape of bag container is a data that pertains to a composition and is a consideration parameter, thus its pertinence to the limitation in question.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image6.png
414
645
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
164
645
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Haak teaches that a soil may need to be amended after testing in order to meet needs of a plant, therefore the soil prior to amending is an initial mixture composition. Sakato is relied upon to teach a seed womb where a mixture can be confined to a container. Furthermore, it is noted that the process of treating a cultivation medium to arrive to a specified final composition to meet the requirements of a desired plant, is logical process that is also taught for example by the relevant prior art reference by Gaunt for example in Figure 6 (see relevant prior art section further below), or by the newly cited reference by Bidram in paragraphs 47-50 and 16 (cited with respect to a newly added claim further below).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with regards to claim 8, the Examiner notes that the claims do not limit the size or nature of the “seed womb,” and Rudolph teaches a container that includes soil for growing and tracking with the intended use of preventing theft.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2020/0393382 to van den Haak et al., (hereinafter Haak), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2022/0217924 to Sakato et al., (hereinafter Sakato)
Regarding claim 1, Haak teaches an apparatus for optimizing and regulating a composition of a mixture pertaining to a seed womb, comprising:
a processing device that is operatively coupled with a control device, said processing device comprising a one or more processors that is configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory (Processor, memory, software used in analysis, treatment, and control system of plant cultivation material, such as soil, that can serve as cultivation medium for plants to grow, thus acting as a womb of sorts for growth such as for cultivation seeding, see p32, 27, 42, Haak), said processing device being configured to:
receive a plurality of input data including a first input data and a second input data, said first input data being pertaining to an initial composition of the mixture (Input data reflecting initial data of a soil composition, such as sensed signals, see P75, 71, 46, 72, Haak), and said second input data being pertaining to a one or more tested attributes selected from at least one of a target soil attribute, an atmospheric condition attribute and a seed attribute (Data pertaining to testing analysis of soil, weather, temperature, etc., leading to attributes of the analysis such as soil attributes like nutrients, etc., see p27, p77, 75, 63, 66, 74, Haak);
process the second input data by comparing the one or more tested attributes with a one or more pre-stored parameters to obtain a regulating parameter (Analysis test data is correlated (compared) with stored data to obtain adjust-ents (parameter) treatment to the soil, see p75, 27, 10, 4, Haak);
and generate, using the first input data, based on the generated regulating parameter, an output data pertaining to the regulated composition of the mixture, said output data indicates an extent of alteration required in the initial composition, based on the regulating parameter, to achieve the regulated composition (Recommendation and determination data that is indicative of the amount (extent) of adjustment needed to soil composition based on prior received data, see p75-77, 27, Haak);
and the control device that facilitates to automatically regulate the composition of the mixture of the seed womb to obtain a final mixture, which includes the regulated composition, based on the output data received from the processing device (Control of adjustment to mix into soil in order to obtain a final soil composition with necessary amounts of nutrients, fertilization, etc., see p76-77, p75-77, 27, Haak).
Haak does not explicitly teach a containerized seed womb, and achieving a shape and size of a seed womb.
However, Sakato from the same or similar field of cultivation mediums, teaches a containerized seed womb (Cultivation medium in bag container, see Fig. 68, p1, p175-176, p3, Sakato), and achieving a shape and size of a seed womb (Cultivation medium is fit into container of shape and size, see p182-183, Fig. 68, p1, p175-176, p3, Sakato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cultivation media analysis and optimization as described by Haak and incorporating a containerized media and achieved shape and size, as taught by Sakato.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a growth media for plants in a self-contained shape of a desired size and shape that can be easily transported and of appropriate amount of media for a desired application (see p5, p182-183, Fig. 68, p1, p175-176, p3, Sakato).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Haak further teaches wherein a control device comprising a detection unit that receives the initial mixture of the seed womb and detects an initial composition of the mixture to generate the first input data (Controller receives detection from sensing component of initial soil in form of signals and detects composition such as ph, etc., see P75, 71, 46, 72, Haak).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Haak further teaches a weighing scale that facilitating to measure a weight of each ingredients transferred (Weighing by scale of each transferred media, see p47, Haak);
Sakato further teaches wherein a control device comprising: a plurality of containers that accommodate one or more ingredients for regulation and/or optimization of a mixture (A plurality of aged containers for growing media, see p188, Sakato ); one or more robotic arms that enables the transfer of a pre-determined amount of the ingredients from the plurality of containers into a mixing container (Robot arms can transfer pre-determined amounts of medium on containers, see p309, 393, 176, 182-183, Sakato); weight of each ingredients transferred (Media with specified weight, see P182-183, Sakato); and a mixing container that facilitating mixing of ingredients received from a plurality of containers to obtain a final regulated composition (A mixer used to obtain a mixture of defined ration ingredients, see P401, p192-183, Sakato).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cultivation media analysis and optimization as described by the combination that includes Haak and incorporating a plurality of containers, robot arms for transferring, weight of substance, and a mixing container, as taught by Sakato.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a growth media for plants in a self-contained growing media to be able to grow and easily transport individual seeding, in order to automatically move items without manual labor, in order to determine a precise quantity amount of a needed substance, and to separately mix a media that can more easily ne distributed to individualized container (see p5, p182-183, 188, 192-193, 401, 309, 393, Fig. 68, p1, p175-176, p3, Sakato).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Haak further teaches wherein target soil attributes are obtained by a soil testing device, said soil testing device is either an in-built device in the apparatus or an external device coupled with an apparatus (On board soil analysis device, thus built into the system, see p7, Haak ).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Haak further teaches wherein an atmospheric condition data being obtained by disposing at least one sensor at the target location to sense the atmospheric condition and an external database (Temperature sensed and weather data, see 74, 75, Haak).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Haak further teaches wherein a regulating parameter indicate an extent of alternation required in an initial mixture composition to obtain a regulating mixture (A treatment adjustment is determined that reflects a component parameter, such as a nutrient amount, that indicates how much of the nutrient is needed to regulate an initial soil mix into a final soil composition with necessary amounts of nutrients, fertilization, etc., see p76-77, p75-77, 27, Haak).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Haak further teaches wherein an initial composition and a regulated composition are related to pre-defined quantity of ingredients, said ingredient being selected from at least one of a bio-compost, a micronutrient, a macronutrient, coco peat, a pigment, a plant hormone, a photoreceptor, a fertilizer, a moisture retainer, an anti-fungal agent, an anti-bacterial agent, anti-viral agent, a pest repellent, an herbicide and a growth stimulating additive (A composition of a medium in its initial and treated composition are related in defined needed components such as nutrients, fertilizer, etc., see p76-77, p3, p8, p75-77, 27, Haa).
Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Haak further teaches wherein a target soil attribute includes at least one of soil nutrient information, soil quality, nature of additives present in a target soil, moisture content, pH, electro-conductivity, temperature, and granularity (At least nutritional content or ideal pH of a needed soil (i.e. target) are considered, thus target attributes that are needed, see p3,p75, p27, p77, 75, 63, 66, 74, Haak).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haak, in view of Sakato, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2005/0178058 to Rudolph, (hereinafter Rudolph)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Haak further teaches documentation (Occurrences related to system are mined/logged, thus creating documentation, see p27, p79, Haak).
Haak does not explicitly teach an apparatus comprising at least one of a security module that facilitates: the tracking of seed wombs during wild fire, theft, and climate change; and with: said at least one security module being disposed in a seed womb.
However, Rudolph from the same or similar field of cultivation systems, teaches an apparatus comprising at least one of a security module that facilitates: the tracking of seed wombs during wild fire, theft, and climate change (An tracking and alarming security system can be used with a portable growing for facilitating intended uses such as theft or other localized tampering, see p133, Rudolph); and with: said at least one security module being disposed in a seed womb (A tracking and alarming security system such as a gps device can be disposed with a portable growing system, see p133, Rudolph).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cultivation media analysis and optimization as described by the combination that includes Haak and incorporating a security module, as taught by Rudolp.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better ensure that a system of interest can be monitored for potential adverse occurrences that can damage, tamper, or be lost, and to better mitigate the effects of said adverse occurrences (see p133, Rudolph).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haak, in view of Sakato, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2022/0110270 to Bidram et al., (hereinafter Bidram).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Hak does not explicitly teach wherein a control device is configured to automatically fill a seed womb with a regulated composition.
However, Bidram, from the same or similar field of medium based cultivation, teaches wherein a control device is configured to automatically fill a seed womb with a regulated composition. (An automated farming system can include automated filling of containers (e.g. pots) with media, such as soil, and into which seeds can be sowed (thus a “seed womb”) or other organic items can be planted for growing, see p50, p16, p47, p8, Bidram).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cultivation media analysis and optimization as described by the combination that includes Haak and incorporating automatic filling, as taught by Bidram.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better reduce or eliminate the need for interaction of human labor, thus reducing costs (see p8, p50, p16, p47, Bidram).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haak, in view of Sakato, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2011/0135161 to Koutsky et al., (hereinafter Koutsky).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Haak and Sakato teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
While Haak teaches wherein an attribute includes at least one of a type, one or more conditions essential for growth, and susceptibility to at least one of soil, external conditions, and chemical agents (Plant type and nutrition needs for growth are inputs for consideration for soil needed, see p3, Haak), Haak does not explicitly mention a plant as in its seed state.
However, Koutsky , from the same or similar field of medium based cultivation, more explicitly teaches wherein a seed attribute includes at least one of a seed type, one or more conditions essential for germination of seed, and susceptibility to at least one of soil, external conditions, and chemical agents (Seed type attributes and susceptibility to nutrient deficiency conditions are used in planting media test and determining nutrients, see p55, p52-53, Koutsky).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cultivation media analysis and optimization as described by the combination that includes Haak and incorporating consideration of seed types, as taught by Koutsky.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better determine and analyze the specific media requirements of a specific type of organism (see p55, p52-53, Koutsky).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Haak discloses receiving data pertaining to an initial mixture compositions and data pertaining to tested attributes of target soil attribute and atmospheric conditions, comparing the tested attributes data to stored parameters to determine regulation parameters and then control automated regulation to produce a final mixture, and while Sakato teaches a containerized seed womb with a specified shape and size, and while Arnone, III et al., (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0137590) teaches a soil-compost mixture that was suspend in water and reached a ratio of soil-compost-to-water volumetric ratio of about 1:11, none of these references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose an apparatus for optimizing and regulating a composition of a mixture pertaining to a seed womb, including:
(Claim 13) “…wherein the regulated composition includes the bio-compost and the moisture retainer in a ratio of 1:1”, and
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arnone, III et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2023/0137590 teaches a soil-compost mixture that was suspend in water and reached a ratio of soil-compost-to-water volumetric ratio of about 1:11.
Gaunt, US. Patent Publication No. 2017/0283337 teaches a method for creating nutrient rich biologically active soils/horticultural media with predetermined characteristics, and which can include amending soil based on a comparison, and assessing by measuring, used soil for reuse.
Lando et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2015/0373925 teaches that in the horticultural industry, growers can employ container filling machines to fill containers, where containers can be of different forms.
Adams et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2019/0193284 teaches processing of seedlings that can include the use of soil grow plugs that can be analyzed to ensure that they are suitable for use.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights