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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the light source disposed between the structure and the plants; however, elected figures 2A-2C do not show such arrangement. The elected arrangement shows the light source directly attached to the structure and the plants (including their “root system”) attached to/within the structure and not the light source between the structure and the plants. Claims 11 and 20 recite similar issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Westlind US 20220287246.
Regarding claim 1, Westlind discloses a multi-plant holder comprising:
a structure (200 figure 5) defining a plurality of holders (202/204) adapted to retain a plurality of plants (as shown in figure 5); and
a light source disposed adjacent to the structure (102);
wherein the light source is adapted to provide a positive phototropic force on the plurality of plants towards the structure (by way of the arrangement shown in figure 5) and is disposed between the structure and the plurality of plants and is adapted to emit photosynthetic light away from the structure to illuminate the plants from behind, thereby providing the positive phototropic force towards the structure (as shown in figure 5, as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 2, Westlind discloses the multi-plant holder of claim 1 wherein the light source is adapted to emit energy away from the structure (by way of the arrangement shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Westlind discloses the multi-plant holder of claim 1 wherein the each of the plurality of holders is aligned vertically in the structure (as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Westlind discloses the multi-plant holder of claim 1 wherein the structure is a tower (as shown in figure 5, as best understood by the Examiner) supporting plurality of holders in a vertical alignment (structure 200 comprises “tower” elements holding the plurality of holders 202/204 in a vertical alignment in figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Westlind discloses the multi-plant holder of claim 1 wherein the light source is adapted to provide the positive phototropic force towards a top portion of the structure (as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Westlind discloses the multi-plant holder of claim 1 where in the structure is in fluid communication with an irrigation system adapted to supply a nutrient to the plurality of holders (by way of the apertures 118 shown in figure 4 and described in paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 11, Westlind discloses a method of cultivating a plant, the method comprising: disposing a plurality of plants into a plurality of holders defined in a structure; and disposing a light source adjacent to the structure, wherein the light source is adapted to provide a positive phototropic force on the plurality of plants towards the structure and is disposed between the structure and the plurality of plants and is adapted to emit photosynthetic light away from the structure to illuminate the plants from behind, thereby providing the positive phototropic force towards the structure (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 12, Westlind discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the light source is adapted to emit energy away from the structure (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 13, Westlind discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the each of the plurality of holders is aligned vertically in the structure (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 14, Westlind discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the structure is a tower supporting plurality of holders in a vertical alignment (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 17, Westlind discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the light source is adapted to provide the positive phototropic force towards a top portion of the structure (see previous rejections).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westlind in view of Moffitt US 11089744.
Regarding claim 5, Westlind teaches the multi-plant holder of claim 4 but does not specify wherein the tower defines an irrigation system through an interior area of the tower establishing fluid communication with the plurality of holders.
Moffitt; however, does teach such an irrigation system (figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such an irrigation system, in order to efficiently care for the plants.
Regarding claim 15, the references teach the method of claim 14 wherein the tower defines an irrigation system through an interior area of the tower establishing fluid communication with the plurality of holders (see claim 5 rejection).
Claim(s) 6, 8-9, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westlind.
Regarding claim 6, Westlind teaches the multi-plant holder of claim 1 but does not specify wherein the structure comprises a plurality of towers, each of the plurality of towers defining a vertical arrangement of holders.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a plurality of the towers, in order to meet growing rate design requirements; since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 8, Westlind teaches the multi-plant holder of claim 1 but does not specify wherein the plurality of holders are defined on a first side and a second side of the structure, within the embodiment of figure 5.
Westlind; however, does show such a structure in figure 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a combination of embodiments, in order to meet growing rate design requirements; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, Westlind teaches the multi-plant holder of claim 8 wherein the light source is provided to the first side and the second side of the structure (see claim 8 rejection); but does not specify the light source necessarily coupled to the sides of the structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such an arrangement, in order to meet user design preferences for a more stable arrangement; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (such as connectors for connecting elements together) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, Westlind teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the structure comprises a plurality of towers, each of the plurality of towers defining a vertical arrangement of holders (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 18, Westlind teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the plurality of holders are defined on a first side and a second side of the structure (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 19, Westlind teaches the method of claim 18 wherein the light source is coupled to the first side and the second side of the structure (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 20, Westlind teaches a multi-plant holder comprising: a structure having a first side and second side, each side defining a plurality of vertically spaced holders, each of the vertically spaced holders defining a recess adapted to receive a plant; an irrigation system in fluid communication with the structure and the plurality of vertically spaced holders; and a first light source adjacent to the first side and a second light source adjacent to the second side; wherein the first light source and the second light source are adapted to provide a positive phototropic force towards the structure and is disposed between the structure and the plurality of plants and is adapted to emit photosynthetic light away from the structure to illuminate the plants from behind, thereby providing the positive phototropic force towards the structure (see previous rejections).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the Westlind reference are not persuasive at least for not addressing any of the detailed reasons provided in the rejections above, such as the particular arrangement of elements shown in Westlind’s figure 5, etc.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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 at (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 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644