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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one access flap in clam 45, at least one light in claim 48, and at least one sensor in claim 49 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the weft weave, the warp weave" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the specific surface area Brunauer Emmett Teller (BET)" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear what specific surface area the claim is referring to. Is it referring to the whole covering, just the attachment means, just the body of the covering, or another part of the invention? For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 43 to be referring to any part of the invention.
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.
Claims 29, 31, and 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20100170818) in view of Barrow (GB 2495737) and 송용석 (KR 20090006301), hereinafter Yong-seok.
Regarding claim 29, Lin teaches of (fig. 6) a protective covering (body 4) for at least a portion of a grapevine during berry development and growth for mitigating smoke taint (abstract, the protective bag can be placed around a portion of a grapevine during berry development and growth. The bag can protect against smoke taint by covering up the grapevine and acting as a barrier to prevent smoke taint):
comprising a porous material (mesh material seen in fig. 6 is a porous material) that is capable of being arranged by a user to cover at least a portion of the grapevine (can be used to cover at least a portion of the grapevine in a similar manner of how it is covering the plant in fig. 3); and an attachment means (ropes 5, 6) for securing the material to, or about, at least the portion of the grapevine (similar to how it is secured to the plant in fig. 3, the attachment means 5, 6 can be used to secure to at least the portion of the grapevine).
Lin does not appear to teach of comprising a microporous activated carbon material.
Barrow teaches of comprising a microporous material (p. 2, sack made of microporous degranulated recyclable plastic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Barrow of comprising a microporous material in order to use a material that allows ventilation while preventing big particles from passing through the bag.
Yong-seok teaches of comprising a porous activated carbon material (p. 4, absorbent cloth 40 may be subjected to chemical treatment and/or activated carbon treatment. Absorbent cloth 40 can be a flexible porous structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Barrow of comprising an activated carbon material in order to use a material that is useful for preventing pests and protecting fruit as motivated by Yong-seok in page 4.
Regarding claim 31, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, and wherein the microporous activated carbon material (as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok) is provided as a bag for receiving a bunch of grapes on the at least a portion of a grapevine (fig. 3, similarly how it receives the plant in fig. 3, the bag is able to be used as a bag for receiving a bunch of grapes on at least a portion of a grapevine), the bag has an opening through which the bunch of grapes is received, (apertures 42, 43 are openings through which the bunch of grapes is received) and an attachment means (5, 6) for closing the bag and securing the bag to the grapevine (fig. 3, the ropes are tightened to close and secure the bag to the grapevine).
Regarding claim 44, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, and including at least one viewing window (fig. 3, can see through the bag to see the plant, which means it is a viewing window).
Regarding claim 45, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, and including at least one access flap (fig. 9, movable openings 41 at the ends are access flaps).
Regarding claim 46, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, and including at least one elongate slot for access (fig. 6, apertures 42, 43 are elongate slots for access).
Regarding claim 47, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, and including at least one pocket (fig. 8, interior of the covering is a pocket to hold plants).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210229899), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 30, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, and the microporous activated carbon material (as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok) is with attachment means (fig. 6, ropes 5, 6) provided at locations around at least an outer edge of the sheet (seen in fig. 6).
Lin does not appear to teach of wherein the microporous activated carbon material is provided as an elongated sheet on a roll.
Kim teaches of wherein the material is provided as an elongated sheet on a roll (fig. 2, p. 5, the bag is made by unwinding a roll of material and cutting it into an elongated sheet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Kim of wherein the microporous activated carbon material is provided as an elongated sheet on a roll in order for the user to customize how big the bag should be for the plants they want to protect.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Hyun et al. (KR 20000013561), hereinafter Hyun.
Regarding claim 32, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of wherein the microporous activated carbon material comprises a viscose material.
Hyun teaches of wherein the material comprises a viscose material (abstract, the tree protecting band can be comprised of viscous rayon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Hyun of wherein the microporous activated carbon material comprises a viscose material in order to use an environmentally friendly and hydrophilic fiber material as motivated by Hyun on page 2.
Regarding claim 33, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of wherein the microporous activated carbon material comprises a cotton material.
Hyun teaches of wherein the microporous activated carbon material comprises a cotton material (abstract, the tree protecting band can be comprised of cotton).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Hyun of wherein the microporous activated carbon material comprises a cotton material in order to use an environmentally friendly and hydrophilic fiber material as motivated by Hyun on page. 2.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Jiang (US 20040128906).
Regarding claim 34, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of wherein the microporous activated carbon material is black in colour.
Jiang teaches of wherein the material is black in colour (¶0001, the protective bag structure is weaved by deep black PE plastic yarns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Jiang of wherein microporous activated carbon material is black in colour in order to use a color that is an effective UV stabilizer and the color black conceals wear and tear.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Denis (US 20010051240).
Regarding claim 35, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of wherein the microporous activated carbon material is a cloth fabric.
Denis teaches of wherein the material is a cloth fabric (¶0022, the plant cloth cover is made up of an open-mesh fabric).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Denis of wherein the microporous activated carbon material is a cloth fabric in order to use a material that is reusable as motivated by Denis in para. 22.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of 조규홍 (KR 20150001241), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 36, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of wherein the microporous activated carbon material is a felt fabric.
Cho teaches of wherein the material is a felt fabric (p. 2, nonwoven fabric 101 is formed into a felt shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Cho of wherein the microporous activated carbon material is a felt fabric in order to use a material that is durable and easy to cut and work with.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of 김성목 (KR 20000010326), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 37, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of wherein the microporous activated carbon material includes one or more heat-resistant materials.
Kim teaches of wherein the material includes one or more heat-resistant materials (p. 2, the fruit protection bag is made up of heat resistant material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Kim of wherein the microporous activated carbon material includes one or more heat-resistant materials in order to use a material that has strong structural integrity and can perform under high temperatures.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Vanier (US 6061954).
Regarding claim 38, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of wherein the microporous activated carbon material comprises two or more layers.
Vanier teaches of wherein the material comprises two or more layers (abstract, plant cover has three layers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Vanier of wherein the microporous activated carbon material comprises two or more layers in order to use the layers for additional protection and purposes as motivated by Vanier for using at least one of the layers to be a UV absorber as stated in the Abstract.
Regarding claim 39, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, and wherein at least one of the layers is the microporous activated carbon material (as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok).
Lin does not appear to teach of formed from two or more layers of material.
Vanier teaches of formed from two or more layers of material (col. 1 lines 38-44, plant cover has three layers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Vanier formed from two or more layers of material in order to use the layers for additional protection and purposes as motivated by Vanier for using at least one of the layers to be a UV absorber as stated in the Abstract.
Claims 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Loercks (WO 9619599).
Regarding claim 40, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of wherein the microporous activate carbon material includes a reinforcing thread.
Loercks is in the field of fabrics and teaches of wherein the material includes a reinforcing thread (p. 8, nonwovens can be reinforced by additional threads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Loercks to incorporate the teachings of wherein the microporous activate carbon material includes a reinforcing thread in order to add durability and structural integrity to the covering.
Regarding 41, Lin as modified teaches of claim 40, but does not appear to teach of wherein the reinforcing thread is provided in the weft weave, the warp weave or both weaves.
Loercks teaches of wherein the reinforcing thread is provided in the weft weave, the warp weave or both weaves (p. 5, the film starting material can be cut into threads as a roll in one work step, this in-line stretched according to the above process parameters and rearranged together. The resulting warp beams, consisting of a large number of tear-resistant individual threads, can then be processed into fabrics, nets, textiles or ropes in a further operation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Loercks of wherein the reinforcing thread is provided in the weft weave, the warp weave or both weaves in order to add durability and structural integrity to the covering.
Regarding claim 42, Lin as modified teaches of claim 40, and wherein the reinforcing thread is introduced to the material prior to activation of the carbon (as modified by Yong-seok, activated carbon is treated to the covering after the base material has been manufactured. The reinforcing thread would be introduced to the material prior to the activation of the carbon).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Roestenberg et al. (WO 2014012963), hereinafter Roestenberg.
Regarding claim 43, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of wherein the specific surface area Brunauer Emmett Teller (BET) is at least 800+/- 50m2/g.
Roestenberg teaches of wherein the specific surface area Brunauer Emmett Teller (BET) is 150-600 m2/g (claim 12, the porous carrier is made of activated carbon having a specific surface area in the range of from 150 m2/g to 600 m2/g g).
It should be noted that the specific surface area as claimed does not show criticality as disclosed in the specifications or the drawings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Roestenberg of wherein the specific surface area Brunauer Emmett Teller (BET) is at least 800+/- 50m2/g in order to pick a suitable specific surface area for the covering to protect all or most of the plant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the specific surface area in order to pick a suitable specific surface area for the covering to protect all or most of the plant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as modified by Barrow and Yong-seok as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Wakamura et al. (US 20120288218), hereinafter Wakamura.
Regarding claim 48, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of including at least one light.
Wakamura teaches of including at least one light (¶0178, light irradiation unit has a light-emitting diode (LED) and an ultraviolet light lamp to irradiate the protective bags containing the agricultural products with light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Wakamura of including at least one light in order to help plant growth.
Regarding claim 49, Lin as modified teaches of claim 29, but does not appear to teach of including at least one sensor.
Wakamura teaches of including at least one sensor (¶0183, ethylene-gas-concentration detecting unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Wakamura of including at least one sensor in order to monitor the plant and its environment.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm 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 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights