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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/26 has been entered.
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 1-10, 12-14, and 16-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “a clip configured to secure the gutter insert to the gutter. ” It is unclear which gutter insert is being referred to or if there are multiple clips thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gutter" in page 1 last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the plurality of plant plugs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, and similarly claim 6, states “The gutter system of claim 2, further comprising: a trough.” It is unclear if the trough of claim 5 is the same as the gutter in claim 1, thus rendering the claim indefinite. The specification appears to use the terms gutter and trough interchangeably for example the “gutter trough 106” in Paragraph [0018] and “gutter 106” in Paragraph [0023].
The term “similar” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the limitation “a bottom wall portion which has a similar or same angle to that of the angled interior surface wall” is rendered indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "the plurality of plant plugs" and “the second surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the plurality of plant plugs" and “the second surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 3-4, 7-9, 12-14 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wavin (NL 8401638).
Regarding Claim 1, Wavin ‘638 discloses a gutter system (Figure 6), comprising:
a first side wall (sidewall 3);
a second side wall (sidewall 4);
a first gutter insert (cover part 27a);
a second gutter insert (cover part 27),
a clip configured to secure the gutter insert to the gutter (coupling members 24 and 25; Figure 6), wherein the first gutter insert is connected to the first side wall (Figure 6), and the second gutter insert is connected to the second side wall by the respective clips of the first gutter insert and the second gutter insert (Figure 6).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wavin (NL 8503000).
Regarding Claim 1, Wavin ‘000 discloses a gutter insert (holder 1; Figure 8) comprising:
a first side wall (sidewall 2);
a second side wall (other sidewall 2; Figure 1); and
a clip (flanges 5’ in Figure 9 or 26 in Figure 11a) configured to secure the gutter insert to a gutter (Figure 8).
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 2-3, 6-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wavin (NL 8401638) in view of Kantola et al. (WO 2016/151186)
Regarding Claim 2, Wavin ‘638 discloses the gutter system of claim 1. Wavin further discloses the gutter system is configured to hold a first set of the plurality of plant plugs between the first gutter insert and the second gutter insert (“recesses 18 through which plant cuttings through the root portion 20 can be brought into contact with the aqueous culture medium present in the gutter.” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation).
Wavin ’638 fails to disclose the gutter system, wherein a slope of a second surface of the first gutter insert and the second gutter insert is the same as a slope of the plurality of plant plugs.
However, Kantola teaches a similar gutter system, wherein a slope of a second surface of the first plant supporting part and the second plant supporting part (slope of grooves 12 and 14) is the same as a slope of the plurality of plant plugs (substrates 74 and 76; Figure 3); and wherein the gutter system holds the first set of one or more plant or crop substrates between the first gutter insert and the second gutter insert (Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the gutter insert of Wavin ‘638, with the substrate the same slope as the plant support as taught by Kantola, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the entire substrate remains in place without being washed away, while also ensuring the plant receives the proper amount of nutrients for healthy growth.
Regarding Claim 3, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 2. Wavin ‘638 further discloses the gutter system, wherein the plants are held between the first gutter insert and the second gutter insert (“recesses 18 through which plant cuttings through the root portion 20 can be brought into contact with the aqueous culture medium present in the gutter.” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation).
Wavin ‘638 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plants are held between the first gutter insert and the second gutter insert via friction.
However, Kantola teaches a similar gutter system, wherein the plants are held between the first gutter insert and the second gutter insert via friction (Figure 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gutter insert of Wavin ‘638, to hold the substrate in place through friction as taught by Kantola, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the entire substrate remains in place without being washed away, while allowing for easy removal or placement of the plant plug.
Regarding Claim 6, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 2. Wavin ‘638 further discloses the gutter system, further comprising: a trough (growth trough 1 with bottom wall 2; Figure 6).
Wavin ‘638 fails to disclose wherein there is an air gap between a bottom of the first set of the plurality of plant plugs and the trough.
However, Kantola teaches a similar gutter system, wherein there is an air gap between a bottom of the first set of the plurality of plant plugs and the trough.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gutter insert of Wavin ‘638, to provide an air gap beneath the plant plug as taught by Kantola, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant does not become oversaturated and develop root rot.
Regarding Claim 7, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 6. Wavin ‘638 further discloses the gutter system, further comprising: water and/or plant nutrients configured to run through the trough (“Aqueous nutrient medium from storage container 29 is pumped 9 and feed 7 are fed into the growing trough 1” Page 3 Paragraph 2 of translation).
Regarding Claim 8, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 7.
Wavin ‘638 fails to disclose the gutter system, wherein a depth of the water and/or plant nutrients running through the trough is at least enough to cover the bottom of the first set of the plurality of plant plugs.
However, Kantola teaches a similar gutter system, wherein a depth of the water and/or plant nutrients running through the trough is at least enough to cover the bottom of the first set of the plurality of plant plugs (“The roots of the plant have access via the hole or slit 28, 30 to the lower part of the groove 12, 14, and irrigation water has access through the hole or slit 28, 30 to the upper part of the slit 12, 14 and to the growing substrate 74, 76.” Page 9 lines 25-28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the gutter of Wavin ‘638, with the bottom of the substrate in the water as taught by Kantola, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant is receiving the proper amount of nutrients for healthy growth.
Regarding Claim 9, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 1.
Wavin ‘638 fails to disclose the gutter system, further comprising a first leg and a second leg extending downward from the trough.
However, Kantola teaches a similar gutter system, further comprising a first leg and a second leg extending downward from the trough (leg structures 42 and 44; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the gutter of Wavin ‘638, with the legs of Kantola, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to modify the height of the gutter to allow the user easier access to the plants.
Regarding Claim 12, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 2. Wavin ‘638 further discloses the gutter system, further comprising a protrusion (coupling members 25); and a notch (coupling elements 24); wherein the notch is configured to receive the protrusion such that each gutter insert is secured to a respective side wall (Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 2.
Wavin ‘638 fails to explicitly disclose the gutter system, further comprising a third and fourth gutter insert; wherein the third and fourth gutter insert have a slope the same as a second set of one or more plant or crop substrates; wherein the third gutter insert is connected to the first wall and the fourth gutter insert is connected to the second wall.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the gutter system of Wavin, with third and fourth inserts, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the efficiency of the system by expanding the size of the system, while maintain accessibility to the system for the user, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wavin (NL 8401638) in view of Kantola et al. (WO 2016/151186) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Noordam et al. (US 2022/0087121) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 5/6/24).
Regarding Claim 4, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 2.
Wavin ‘638 fails to disclose the gutter system, wherein the second surface further comprises at least a plurality of teeth configured to grip the first set of the plurality of plant plugs.
However, Noordam teaches a similar hydroponic growth system, wherein the second surface further comprises at least a plurality of teeth configured to grip the first set of the plurality of plant plugs (gripping edges 144 Figures 3A and 3B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the inner wall of Wavin ‘638, with the teeth of Noordam, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant remains in place and does not fall into the water.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wavin (NL 8401638) in view of Kantola et al. (WO 2016/151186) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Deforche (WO 2021/224757).
Regarding Claim 5, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 2. Wavin ‘638 further discloses the gutter system, further comprising: a trough (growth trough 1 with bottom wall 2; Figure 6).
Wavin ‘638 fails to disclose the gutter system, wherein a bottom of the first set of the plurality of plant plugs rests on the trough.
However, Deforche teaches a similar gutter system wherein a bottom of the first set of the plurality of plant plugs (substrate 164) rests on the trough (gutter 161; Figure 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trough of Wavin ‘638, with a substrate resting on the trough as taught by Deforche, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant receives sufficient amounts of nutrients for healthy growth.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wavin (NL 8401638) in view of Kantola et al. (WO 2016/151186) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Overgaag (US 2018/0332785).
Regarding Claim 5, Wavin ‘638 discloses the gutter system of claim 1.
Wavin ‘638 fails to disclose the gutter system, further comprising an angled interior surface wall that extends inward and down from the first wall and the second side wall, and wherein each of the first gutter insert and second gutter insert further comprises a bottom wall portion which has a similar or same angle to that of the angled interior surface wall.
However, Overgaag teaches a similar gutter system The gutter system of claim 1, further comprising an angled interior surface wall (outer bottom wall 1402; Figure 14A) that extends inward and down from the first wall and the second side wall (Figures 14A and B), and wherein each side of the plant support further comprises a bottom wall portion which has a similar or same angle to that of the angled interior surface wall (inner bottom wall 1402; Figure 14A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the gutter and insert of Wavin ‘638 with the angled interior surface and gutter insert bottoms of Overgaag with reasonable expectation of success, in order to add additional support for the substrate, to help prevent the substrate from falling into the water below.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wavin (NL 8401638) in view of Kantola et al. (WO 2016/151186) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Ma et al. (CN 213427590) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 5/6/24).
Regarding Claim 14, Wavin ‘638 as modified teaches the gutter system of claim 13.
Wavin ‘638 fails to disclose the gutter system, wherein the slope of the first set of the plurality of plant plugs is different than the slope of the second set of the plurality of plant plugs.
However, Ma teaches a similar gutter system, wherein the size of the plurality of plant plugs is different than the size of the second set of the plurality of plant plugs (“The utility model claims a self-contained slope descending type NFT planting groove, relating to the technical field of vegetable planting, comprising a plurality of different interface size of the planting groove,” Abstract)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slopes of the inserts of Wavin ‘638, to be different sizes as taught by Ma, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help accommodate a wider variety of plant sizes and shapes, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wavin (NL 8503000) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Kantola et al. (WO 2016/151186).
Regarding Claim 16, Wavin ‘000 as modified teaches the gutter insert of claim 15.
Wavin ‘000 fails to disclose the gutter insert, wherein a slope of the second surface matches a slope of the plurality of plant plugs.
However, Kantola teaches a similar gutter system, wherein the slope of the second surface (slope of grooves 12 and 14) is the same as the slope of a plant or crop substrate (substrates 74 and 76; Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the gutter insert of Wavin ‘000, with the substrate the same slope as the insert as taught by Kantola, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the substrate remains in place without being washed away, while also ensuring the plant receives sufficient amounts of nutrients for healthy growth.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wavin (NL 8503000) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Noordam et al. (US 2022/0087121)
Regarding Claim 17, Wavin ‘000 as modified teaches the gutter insert of claim 15.
Wavin ‘000 fails to disclose the gutter insert, wherein the second surface further comprises at least a plurality of teeth configured to grip the plant or crop substrate.
However, Noordam teaches a similar gutter system, wherein the second surface further comprises at least a plurality of teeth configured to grip the plant or crop substrate (gripping edges 144 Figures 3A and 3B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the inner wall of Wavin, with the teeth of Noordam, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the substrate remains in place and does not fall into the water.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 12-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amended claims significantly altered the scope of the claims and therefore required a new prior art rejection. Previously used references Wavin (NL 8401638), Kantola et al. (WO 2016/151186), Noordam et al. (US 2022/0087121), Deforche (WO 2021/224757), Overgaag (US 2018/0332785), Ma et al. (CN 213427590), and Wavin (NL 8503000) teach amended claims 1-10 and 12-17 as discussed in the currently presented rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights