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 with traverse of group I, claims 1-45, in the reply filed on 8/7/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: “For a restriction requirement to be proper under U.S. Patent law, there must be a serious search burden on the Office. See M.P.E.P.§ 803. "If the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine them on the merits, even though they include claims to independent or distinct inventions."Id. In this case, the Office has not demonstrated that searching Groups I and II together would impose a serious burden.”
This is not found persuasive because as stated in 808.02 [R-3] **> Establishing Burden<
Where, as disclosed in the application, the several inventions claimed are related, and such related inventions are not patentably distinct as claimed, restriction under 35 U.S.C. 121 is never proper (MPEP § 806.05). If applicant **>voluntarily files claims to such related inventions in different applications<, double patenting may be held. Where the related inventions as claimed are shown to be >independent or< distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - *> § 806.06<, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must >explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must< show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each **>invention< has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each *>invention< can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when **>the examiner can show< a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the **>inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries<, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
From the requirement above for establishing burden, the examiner clearly demonstrated burdensome and that the inventions are independent or distinct inventions. First, it is clear that invention I can be used to practice in a process of growing plants in racks or in stacked containers that does not involve in the step of floating as in cultivation on floating rafts or deep-water culture. Noting that floating rafts and deep-water culture are different methods of hydroponic cultivation than that of stacked container cultivation (see classification scheme). Second, the examiner has demonstrated burdensome by stating that “Different CPC scheme searches as stated in the above for the different features of each invention above. For example, in searching invention I, one would not need to search for seeds in growth media, trays that float on top of a tub or at least water, transferring apparatus to perform the step of transferring, aerating by turbulent flow, as required for a search in invention Il.”
Thus, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-45 will be examined since they are elected, and claims 46-54 will be withdrawn since they are non-elected.
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, at least one air manifold that is attached to an air diffuser (claim 1); an integrated air manifold pipe (claim 2); at least one blower (claim 3); holes (claim 11); and a filter (claim 42) 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.
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 1-45 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.
For claim 1, the limitation of “the bottom of the tub” lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 5, the limitation of “the attachment mechanisms” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 20, the limitation is unclear because “which” is referring to the system or to the seed tray or other parts?
For claim 36 & 37, the claimed limitations appear to be a repeat of each other, which is unclear. In addition, an air diffuser was already claimed in claim 27, thus, it is unclear if “an air diffuser” in these claims are the same or an additional diffuser?
All other claims depending on one or more of the above rejected claims are also rejected the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3,6,8,9,12,40,41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lysaa (US 20190230876 A1).
For claim 1, Lysaa discloses a system for hydroponically growing plants, whereby the plants are grown in isolated batches, the system comprising: a seed tray (110) configured to contain and germinate plants (functional recitation to which the seed tray of Lysaa can and does perform the intended function), a tub (112) configured to hold an aqueous solution in an amount sufficient for the germinating plant to reach maturity without adding additional aqueous solution (functional recitation to which the tub of Lysaa can and does perform the intended function), wherein the tub is attached to a table (102) having at least one air manifold (202 or 3202) connected thereto, wherein the at least one air manifold is attached to an air diffuser (para. 0083, can be ref. 194,166) located in the bottom of the tub (see fig. 10).
For claim 2, Lysaa discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the table contains an integrated air manifold pipe (198 or 3198) that is attached to the at least one air manifold.
For claim 3, Lysaa discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising at least one blower (para. 0090) that is attached to the integrated air manifold pipe.
For claim 6, Lysaa discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the table is made of a frame comprising at least two elongated members that run the length of the table, and multiple cross members that run the width of the table and that are substantially perpendicular to the elongated members (see figs. 1A,21A for frame 102).
For claim 8, Lysaa discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the at least two elongated members that run the length of the table comprise guide wheels (128; since there are a plurality of wheels 128 running cross-wise and length-wise, any two or more can be guide wheels, for the wheels are there to guide and drive) configured to grip the elongated members from the side to keep the table moving straight in the direction of the elongated members.
For claim 9, Lysaa discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the multiple cross members comprise drive wheels (128; since there are a plurality of wheels 128 running cross-wise and length-wise, any two or more can be drive wheels, for the wheels are there to guide and drive) configured to configured to allow the table to move in the direction of the cross members and perpendicular to the elongated members.
For claim 12, Lysaa discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the table is configured to feed grown plants through a harvesting machine without removing the tub from the table or the plant from the tub (functional recitation to which the table of Lysaa can perform the intended function).
For claim 40, Lysaa discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a plurality of said individual tubs are connected in a frame that holds 5 to 20 tubs in row (see figs. 1A, 21A).
For claim 41, Lysaa discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the seed tray and tub are configured to be sterilized after every growing cycle (functional recitation to which the tray and tub can and do the intended function per para. 0142).
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 4,5,7,10,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lysaa (as above).
For claim 4, Lysaa teaches the system of claim 3, but is silent about wherein the at least one blower supplies air to up to 25 tables at once. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one blower of Lysaa supplies air to up to 25 tables at once, depending on how much plants and tables that the user wishes to have for mass production or not, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 5, Lysaa teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the attachment mechanisms into and out of the integrated air manifold pipe comprises a connection (ref. 194 connects to the bottom of the tub per para. 0082-0084) but not a threaded connection. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the connection mechanisms of Lysaa with a threaded connection, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of connection would allow the air manifold pipe to connect with the tub). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
For claim 7, Lysaa teaches the system of claim 6, but is silent about wherein the frame is made of aluminum or alloy thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the frame of Lysaa be made of aluminum or alloy thereof, depending on the user’s preference of material for lightweight or not, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
For claim 10, Lysaa teaches the system of claim 9, but is silent about wherein each table has two guide wheels and four drive wheels that allow the table to be mechanically moved between growing, harvesting, cleaning and replanting locations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each table of Lysaa with two guide wheels and four drive wheels, depending on how smooth of conveyance the user wishes to have for the table, meaning, more wheels more smooth transition, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 11, Lysaa teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the tub and the cross members are removably attached or connected as shown in figs. 5,10. However, Lysaa is silent about wherein the multiple cross members to support each tub, and comprise holes drilled to match holes in the bottom of the tub, wherein the matching holes allow the tub to be bolted to the table with a watertight connection. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multiple cross members to support each tub, and comprise holes drilled to match holes in the bottom of the tub, wherein the matching holes allow the tub to be bolted to the table with a watertight connection instead of the multiple cross members to support each tub being removable as taught by Lysaa, depending on the user’s preference to have the parts be permanently attached or removably attached, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Claims 13-26,38,39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lysaa (as above) in view of Hawley et al. (WO 2023004200 A1).
For claim 13, Lysaa teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent about wherein the seed tray is further configured to sit and float on an aqueous solution that is contained in a tub, wherein the seed tray has a top surface and a bottom surface with a plurality of openings completely through the top surface and the bottom surface, wherein the plurality of openings are configured to hold soil and germinate seeds in said soil, the plurality of opening comprising at least three regions: a top region having a top opening sufficient for sprouting plants to grow through the top surface and sidewalls having a tapered shape to a more narrow transition region; the transition region having sidewalls that further taper to a more narrow end region; and an end region having straight sidewalls with a bottom opening for plant roots to grow through the bottom surface and contact the aqueous solution that is contained in a tub.
Hawley et al. teach a system for growing plants comprising a seed tray (100, 100A,200) is further configured to sit and float on an aqueous solution that is contained in a tub (500), wherein the seed tray has a top surface and a bottom surface with a plurality of openings (115,154,119) completely through the top surface and the bottom surface (see figs. 1G,1H,2D), wherein the plurality of openings are configured to hold soil and germinate seeds in said soil, the plurality of opening comprising at least three regions: a top region (for example, fig. 1G, where ref. 115 is pointing at) having a top opening sufficient for sprouting plants to grow through the top surface and sidewalls (for example, fig. 1H where ref. 112 is pointing at) having a tapered shape to a more narrow transition region; the transition region having sidewalls that further taper to a more narrow end region (for example, fig. 1H shows the transition in the hm area); and an end region (for example, fig. 1H where ref. 119 is pointing at) having straight sidewalls with a bottom opening for plant roots to grow through the bottom surface and contact the aqueous solution that is contained in a tub. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a floating seed tray with the features as taught by Hawley et al. in place of the seed tray in Lysaa, depending on the user’s preference to employ various hydroponic techniques such as floating raft or nutrient technique (NFT) or ebb-and-flow, etc.
For claim 14, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches (emphasis on Hawley et al. since they are relied on for the floating seed tray with openings) the system of claim 13, wherein the plurality of openings has various shape on the top surface and a round shape on the bottom surface. However, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. did not specically state the plurality of openings have an oval shape on the top surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of openings of Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. be oval shaped, depending on the user’s preference, especially the shape of the plant being grown, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
For claim 15, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 14, but is silent about wherein the oval shape on the top surface has as its longest axis a diameter of 18-20 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of openings of Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. be oval shaped, the oval shape on the top surface has as its longest axis a diameter of 18-20 mm, depending on the user’s preference, especially the shape of the plant being grown, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
For claim 16, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 15, but is silent about wherein the round shape on the bottom surface has a diameter of 8-10 mm (para. 0041, 0068 of Hawley et al.).
For claim 17, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 13, but is silent about wherein the sidewalls of the top region have a taper angle of 2-4 degrees relative to a vertical plane drawn through the center of the openings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sidewalls of the top region of Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. with a taper angle of 2-4 degrees relative to a vertical plane drawn through the center of the openings, depending on the user’s preference and the size of the plant being grown, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 18, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the top region has a concaved shape bottom (at junction 412 of Hawley which para. 0068 states that the junction can be circular which would have concave shape) leading into the transition region.
For claim 19, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 13, but is silent about wherein the sidewalls of the transition region have a taper angle of 26-28 degrees relative to a vertical plane drawn through the center of the openings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sidewalls of the transition region of Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. with a taper angle of 26-28 degrees relative to a vertical plane drawn through the center of the openings, depending on the user’s preference and the size of the plant being grown, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 20, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 13, which is made of expanded polystyrene (EPS) (para. 0004 of Hawley).
For claim 21, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the top surface includes a border around the edge that is free of openings, wherein the border has a size at least as wide as the longest axis of the oval shaped openings (borders are shown in various figures such as figs. 1A,1B, where ref. 120 is pointing at in Hawley).
For claim 22, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the border comprises a plurality of tabs that are configured to allow seed trays to be stacked on each other without the bottom surface of a top seed tray touching the top surface of a bottom seed tray stacked on top of it (see fig. 1L of Hawley).
For claim 23, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 13, which is a rectangular shape that is 450-550 mm wide, 700-800 mm long and 50-60 mm thick (para. 0036 of Hawley).
For claim 24, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 13, but is silent about wherein each seed tray includes from 400-450 openings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each seed tray of Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. includes from 400-450 opening, depending on the number of plants the user wishes to grow for mass production, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 25, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 13, but is silent about wherein each opening has a volume ranging from 8-10 ml. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each opening of Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. with a volume ranging from 8-10 ml, depending on the size of the plants the user wishes to grow, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 26, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 13, but is silent about wherein each seed tray can grow from 500-1200 plants. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each seed tray of Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. can grow from 500-1200 plants, depending on the number of plants the user wishes to grow for mass production, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 38, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the seed tray and tub are configured to allow the seed tray to float on the water in the tub while the water level drops as the plants develop an early root system and after plant utilization and evaporation the tray is allowed to drop with the water level until it seats on the lip of the tub (functional recitation to which the combination of Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. can perform the intended function).
For claim 39, Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. teaches the system of claim 38, wherein the seed tray and tub are configured such that as the water level continues to drop, the roots follow the water level down so that a portion of the roots remained exposed to air and a portion of the roots in contact with the mixture of water and nutrient solution (functional recitation to which the combination of Lysaa as modified by Hawley et al. can perform the intended function).
Claims 27-37, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lysaa (as above) in view of Kim (KR 20210085536 A).
For claim 27, Lysaa teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the tub comprises: a top portion having a rectangular shape (fig. 6) and including a lip (fig. 6 where ref. 112a is pointing at, or any area where the seed tray and tub touch) around the internal circumference that is configured to receive a seed tray; a bottom closed portion (140 or any area below the top-most portion) having a rectangular shape smaller in size than the top portion, the bottom closed portion comprising at least one attachment mechanism (area where the wheel 128 connects to the tray at ref. 134) for removably attaching the tub to a frame; and sidewalls that taper from the top portion to the bottom closed portion, wherein the tapered sidewalls are configured to allow the roots hanging from the seed tray to grow toward the center of the tub (sidewall of the tub shown in figs. 6,8-9, that are tapered).
However, Lysaa is silent about an air diffuser configured to create a turbulent flow of the aqueous mixture located in the tub.
Kim teaches a system for growing plants comprising an air diffuser (1300) configured to create a turbulent flow of the aqueous mixture located in the tub. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an air diffuser as taught by Kim in the tub of Lysaa in order to provide filtration and to create small droplets of air or oxygen for the plants.
For claim 28, Lysaa as modified by Kim teaches the system of claim 27, but is silent about wherein the lip around the internal circumference of the top portion is configured to receive a seed tray has a thickness of 50-60 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lip around the internal circumference of the top portion of Lysaa as modified by Kim be configured to receive a seed tray has a thickness of 50-60 mm, depending on the size of the plants the user wishes to grow, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 29, Lysaa as modified by Kim teaches the system of claim 27, wherein the lip around the internal circumference of the top portion is includes a ledge (112a of Lysaa as combined with Kim’s seed tray, which would rest on the ledge) for resting the seed tray when the amount of aqueous mixture in the tub is not enough to float the seed tray.
For claim 30, Lysaa as modified by Kim teaches the system of claim 27, wherein on at least one corner of the top portion includes a structure for keeping seed trays from floating off the tub when the tub is filled with said aqueous mixture (any corner of the tub in Lysaa would prevent the seed tray as combined with Kim from floating off, especially Kim teaches the connection between the seed tray and the tub per fig. 4 and per para. 0099,0100 of Kim).
For claim 31, Lysaa as modified by Kim teaches the system of claim 30, wherein the structure further includes an opening for removing excess aqueous mixture from the tub (fig. 10 of Lysaa, in the area of refs. 113 or 222).
For claim 32, Lysaa as modified by Kim teaches the system of claim 27, but is silent about wherein the air diffuser creates an amount of aeration larger than 3 L/min per 20 gal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the air diffuser of Lysaa as modified by Kim creates an amount of aeration larger than 3 L/min per 20 gal, depending on how much aeration the plants required, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 33, Lysaa as modified by Kim teaches the system of claim 32, but is silent about wherein the air diffuser creates an amount of aeration of 25 L/min through an 8 inch air diffuser in a 20 gal reservoir. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the air diffuser of Lysaa as modified by Kim creates an amount of aeration of 25 L/min through an 8 inch air diffuser in a 20 gal reservoir, depending on how much aeration the plants required, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 34, Lysaa as modified by Kim teaches the system of claim 27, wherein a majority of the roots hanging from the seed tray that grow toward the center of the tub are contacted with said amount of aeration (functional recitation to which the behavior of the roots will perform such function).
For claim 35, Lysaa as modified by Kim teaches the system of claim 27, but is silent about wherein the tub has a surface area of 15 square feet or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tub of Lysaa as modified by Kim with a surface area of 15 square feet or less, depending on how big the plants is and amount of nutrient solution needed to be contained for mass production, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claims 36 & 37, Lysaa as modified by Kim teaches the system of claim 27, the air diffuser (per claim 27 above explanation) configured positioned in the middle of the four attachment mechanisms (functional recitation to which the air diffuser of Kim can perform the intended function by placing it anywhere as desire). However, Lysaa as modified by Kim is silent about wherein the bottom closed portion comprises four attachment mechanisms for removably attaching the tub to a frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bottom closed portion of Lysaa as modified by Kim comprises four attachment mechanisms for removably attaching the tub to a frame, depending on how secure the user wishes the parts to be connected, since it is 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.
Claims 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lysaa (as above) in view of Griffin (US 20190082620 A1).
For claim 42, Lysaa teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent about a filter to clean any remaining aqueous mixture of water and a nutrient solution that remains in the tub after plants are harvested (para. 0039,0056).
Griffin teaches a system for growing plants comprising a filter (para. 0039,0056 of Griffin) to clean any remaining aqueous mixture of water and a nutrient solution that remains in the tub after plants are harvested. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filter to clean any remaining aqueous mixture of water and a nutrient solution that remains in the tub after plants are harvested as taught by Griffin in the system of Lysaa in order to recycle or reuse the solution therein.
For claim 43, Lysaa as modified by Griffin teaches the system of claim 42, wherein the filter comprises a size exclusion filter to eliminate spores (para. 0039,0056 of Griffin).
For claim 44, Lysaa as modified by Griffin teaches the system of claim 43, but is silent about wherein the size exclusion filter filters spores of 5 microns or greater.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the size exclusion filter filters spores of 5 microns or greater, depending on how big the particles or debris the user wishes to filter out the solution, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 45, Lysaa as modified by Griffin teaches the system of claim 44, but is silent about at least one additional method of cleaning the aqueous mixture of water and a nutrient solution after filtration, selected from chemical sterilization, ozone treatment, and UV radiation. In addition to the above, Griffin teaches in para. 0096 ozone treatment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include ozone treatment as further taught by Griffin in the system of Lysaa as modified by Griffin in order to further sanitize the solution for recycling or reusing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure the system of growing plants:
US 20190320604 A1 teaches plant grow tray system
US 20200163295 A1 teaches Hydroponic Plant Cultivation System
US 20210267133 A1 teaches combined plant grow rack and ventilation system and method
US 20150282444 A1 teaches hydroponic flood table
US 20200022323 A1 teaches hydroponic growth system
US 20230173125 A1 teaches agricultural proactive air/surface decontamination system and devices
US 10492387 B1 teaches Aeroponic recycling system
US 3945148 A teaches Method and apparatus for growing bean sprouts
US 10806099 B2 teaches System and method for providing carbon dioxide and circulating air for a vertical gardening system
US 8549788 B2 teaches Hydroponic growing system
US 11197432 B1 teaches Ducting assembly for de-stratification and consolidating excess water and nutrients
US 12419232 B2 teaches Tray assembly for plant cultivation
WO 2024239100 A1 teaches center mast growing stand for indoor horticulture
CN 214155527 U teaches Planting plate and planting frame
WO 2017041757 A1 teaches soilless plant culture system
GB 2604606 A teaches Hydroponic apparatus
CA 3078662 A1 teaches aeroponics apparatus
WO 2021059015 A2 teaches systems, methods, and devices for autonomous farming
CN 107980583 A teaches A plant ecological water culture planting device
WO 2021260536 A1 teaches blended hydroponics
GB 2606153 A teaches Pot
KR 20160108055 A teaches Hydroponics cultivation apparatus
WO 2023126779 A1 teaches automatic warehouse for indoor cultivations and relative cultivation method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643