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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, a single claim which claims both a system and the method steps of using the system is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because it is unclear what is being claimed. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Examiner is interpreting claim 1 as claiming a plant cultivation system and not a method, i.e., “the use of the system”.
In claim 2, a single claim which claims both a system and the method steps of processing the system is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because it is unclear what is being claimed. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Examiner is interpreting claim 1 as claiming a plant cultivation system and not a method, i.e., “being determined by a method comprising”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2016/0205880) in view of Ovadya et al. (US 2014/0259905).
For claim 1, Yoshioka et al. teach a plant cultivation system comprising a hydrophilic film (1) and a nutrient fluid retaining means (2, 7), at least a part of the roots of a plant adheres to one surface of the hydrophilic film, a nutrient fluid (3) is disposed to be in contact with the other surface of the hydrophilic film opposite to the film surface to which the plant roots adhere (see Figure 1). Furthermore, it is noted that the method of using (i.e., “the use of the system”) the product (i.e., “a plant cultivation system) is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of using.
However, if the method of using as claimed does provide an important outcome in the final result of the product itself then Ovadya et al. is cited to teach that it is old and well known in the art to provide a method for cultivating plants comprises the steps of switching between a vegetative and a reproductive growth periods by changing a light period (see [0004],[0006],[0008]-[0010],[0028]-[0030],[0043],[0045],[0050],[0051],[0054].[0057],[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yoshioka et al. so as to include the performing of the vegetative growth period and the reproductive growth period, in a similar manner as taught in Yoshioka et al., so as to manipulate flowering and seed yield of plants grown.
For claim 2, as described above, Yoshioka et al. as modified by Ovadya et al. teach most of the claimed invention except to mention wherein said hydrophilic film exhibits an electrical conductivity (EC) difference of 4.5 dS/m or less as determined between water and a saline solution. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yoshioka et al. as modified by Ovadya et al. so as to include said hydrophilic film exhibits an electrical conductivity (EC) difference of 4.5 dS/m or less as determined between water and a saline solution, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
For claim 3, as described above, Yoshioka et al. as modified by Ovadya et al. teach most of the claimed invention except to mention wherein said hydrophilic film has an equilibrium degree of swelling in the range of from 130 % to less than 300 % as measured in water and has a dry thickness of from 20 um to less than 150 um. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yoshioka et al. as modified by Ovadya et al. so as to include said hydrophilic film has an equilibrium degree of swelling in the range of from 130 % to less than 300 % as measured in water and has a dry thickness of from 20 um to less than 150 um, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 4, Yoshioka et al. as modified by Ovadya et al. (emphasis on Yoshioka et al.) further teach wherein said nutrient fluid retaining means (2,7) is a hydroponic tank accommodating a nutrient fluid which is disposed to be in contact with the lower surface of the hydrophilic film.
For claim 5, Yoshioka et al. as modified by Ovadya et al. (emphasis on Yoshioka et al.) further teach wherein said nutrient fluid retaining means (2,7) is a material having a water impermeable surface on or above which said hydrophilic film is disposed, and wherein said plant cultivation system further comprises a nutrient fluid feeding means (8) for continuously or intermittently feeding a nutrient fluid to a position between said hydrophilic film and said nutrient fluid retaining means.
For claim 6, Yoshioka et al. as modified by Ovadya et al. (emphasis on Ovadya et al.) further teach at least one member selected from the group consisting of a light shielding means (reflectors in [0078]) and an illumination means (see [0006]).
For claim 7, Yoshioka et al. as modified by Ovadya et al. (emphasis on Ovadya et al.) further teach which is used for cultivation of a short-day plant or a long-day plant (see Abstract).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 2016/0205880) in view of Ovadya et al. (US 2014/0259905).
For claim 8, Yoshioka et al. teach a method for cultivating a short-day plant, which comprises:
(1) providing a plant cultivation system comprising:
a hydrophilic film (1) for cultivating a plant (4) thereon, and
a nutrient fluid retaining means (2,7) disposed to be in contact with one surface of the hydrophilic film opposite to the other surface of the hydrophilic film on which a plant is to be placed,
(2) placing a short-day plant (4) on the hydrophilic film of said plant cultivation system,
(3) causing a nutrient fluid (2) to be in contact with the plant through said hydrophilic film, and
thereby cultivating the plant on the hydrophilic film (see Figure 1).
However, Yoshioka et al. lack:
(4) performing, in an initial, vegetative growth period, a long-time light irradiation cultivation for 13 hours or more and a continuous dark time cultivation for less than 11 hours, and
(5) subsequently performing, in a reproductive growth period, a short-time light irradiation cultivation for less than 13 hours and a continuous dark time cultivation for 11 hours or more.
Ovadya et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art to provide a method for cultivating plants comprises the steps of performing vegetative and reproductive growth periods wherein the vegetative growth period includes a light cultivation for 13 hours or more and a dark time cultivation for less than 11 hours and wherein reproductive growth period includes a light cultivation for less than 13 hours and a dark time cultivation for 11 hours or more (see [0004],[0006],[0008]-[0010],[0028]-[0030],[0043],[0045],[0050],[0051],[0054].[0057],[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yoshioka et al. so as to include the performing of the vegetative growth period and the reproductive growth period, in a similar manner as taught in Yoshioka et al., so as to manipulate flowering and seed yield of plants grown.
Conclusion
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
The prior arts Ankner (US 2022/0201953) and Okuno et al. (US 2020/0290906) teach a plant cultivation system including a hydrophilic film.
The prior art Dam (US 2021/0259168) teaches a plant cultivation system for growing cannabis plants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644