DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 19-21 have been amended, Claims 7, 10, and 22-28 have been canceled, and Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-18, and 29 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and the Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 07/29/2025.
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.
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 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 13-18, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 20210084848 A1) in view of Evans (US 5054233 A) and Newby (US 4527353 A).
Regarding Claim 1, McKenna teaches a hydroponic apparatus (100) for growing plants (106) comprising:
A reservoir (108) for a liquid (¶30 states that reservoir 108 is a water reservoir.);
A growth vessel (124) for a plant (Fig. 1 shows that plant 106 is placed in growth vessel 124.); and
A tank (112; Fig. 1 shows that air bell 112 is a receptacle for holding liquids. Therefore, air bell 112 is a tank.) disposed in the reservoir (108) and in fluidic communication with the reservoir (108) and the growth vessel [124] (Fig. 1 shows that tank 112 is disposed inside reservoir 108 and that tank 112 is in fluidic communication with both reservoir 108 and the growth vessel 124, via pump 114.),
Wherein:
The tank (112) is configured to be coupled with an air supply (Figs. 1-2 show that the tank 112 is capable of being coupled with air supply 116.) and comprises: a passive inlet for allowing the liquid in the reservoir to enter the tank only when a pressure in the tank is equal to or less than a pressure in the reservoir (shown in Fig. 1; Tank 112 forms two inlet openings that allow the liquid in the reservoir 108 to enter the tank 112 by diffusion when the pressure in the tank 112 is less than the pressure in the reservoir 108.); and
When the tank (112) is pressurized, the liquid within the tank is transferred to the growth vessel (Stated in ¶38; As pressure builds within the tank 112, water 122 within the tank 112 is transferred to growth vessel 124.).
However, the system of McKenna fails to explicitly state that the tank comprises an outlet valve for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere, and that when the tank is depressurized, the liquid within the growth vessel is transferred to the tank.
Evans teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a hydroponic apparatus providing a controlled environment for plant growth.), the system of Evans teaches a hydroponic apparatus (10) comprising a tank (25) wherein the tank (25) comprises an outlet valve (32) for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere (Stated Column 3 Lines 60-65; Outlet valve 32 depressurizes tank 25 and therefore allows air in the tank 25 to vent to the atmosphere.) and wherein when the tank (25) is depressurized, the liquid within the growth vessel is transferred to the tank (Stated in Column 4 Lines 1-10; When tank 25 is depressurized, water and nutrients from the growth vessel 13 is transferred to the tank 25.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McKenna to have the tank comprise an outlet valve for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere, and to have, when the tank is depressurized, the liquid within the growth vessel be transferred to the tank as taught by Evans with reasonable expectation of success to better control the air pressure of the tank.
The system of McKenna as modified by Evans teaches (references to McKenna) that after the liquid within the growth vessel is transferred to the tank, the passive inlet automatically allows the liquid from the reservoir to refill the tank (Due to the modification of Evans, the liquid within the growth vessel 124 is transferred to the tank 112 when the tank 112 is depressurized. This means that liquid from the reservoir 108 will automatically enter to tank 112 via diffusion through the passive inlets formed by tank 112 [See Fig. 1].).
The system of McKenna as modified by Evans fails to explicitly state that the tank comprises a passive inlet valve coupled to a wall of the tank.
Newby teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an irrigation and fertilization control/distribution system for used in hydroponic farming.), the system of Newby teaches a tank (50) comprises a passive inlet valve (66) coupled to a wall of the tank (See Fig. 3 and Column 4 Lines 30-35; Tank 50 comprises a check valve [which functions as a passive inlet valve] coupled to a bottom wall of tank 50.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McKenna as modified by Evans to have the tank comprise a passive inlet valve coupled to a wall of the tank as taught by Newby with reasonable expectation of success to better maintain the level of liquid within the tank.
The system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby further teaches that the passive valve automatically opens to allow the liquid from the reservoir to refill the tank after the liquid within the growth vessel is transferred to the tank (Due to the modification of Newby, a check valve 66 would be provided to tank 112. Check valves open automatically in response to a pressure differential. Therefore, when tank 112 is depressurized, the growth vessel 124 is transferred to the tank 112 and the passive inlet valve 66 would automatically open in response to the pressure differential and allow liquid from the reservoir 108 to enter the tank 112.).
Regarding Claim 2, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
McKenna further teaches that the hydroponic apparatus (100) further comprises the air supply (116).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
McKenna further teaches that the air supply (116) comprises at least one of an air compressor and an air pump (¶33 states that air supply 116 may be an electric pump or an air compressor.).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Evans further teaches that the liquid is a nutrient rich aqueous solution (Stated in Column 3 Lines 50-60; Nutrient tank 25 comprises a mixture of water and nutrients. Therefore, the liquid in nutrient tank 25 is a nutrient rich aqueous solution.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby to have the liquid be a nutrient rich aqueous solution as taught by Evans with reasonable expectation of success to hydrate the plant while providing a quick-absorbing, nutrient-rich solution.
Regarding Claim 6, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby further teaches (references to Evans) that the outlet valve (32) is a pressure control valve (Stated Column 3 Lines 60-65; Outlet valve 32 depressurizes tank 25 and therefore serves to control the pressure in tank 25.).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
McKenna further teaches that the hydroponic apparatus (100) further comprises a first pipe (118) that extends into the tank (Fig. 1 shows that first pipe 118 extends into tank 112.), wherein the first pipe (118) is connectable to the air supply (Fig. 1 shows that first pipe 118 is connectable to air supply 116.).
Regarding Claim 11, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 8.
McKenna further teaches that the first pipe (118) comprises a check valve (¶33 states that first pipe 118 may include a check valve.).
Regarding Claim 13, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
McKenna further teaches that a fluid conduit extends between the growth vessel and the tank (Figs. 1-2 show that inlet 202 and outlet 210 form a fluid conduit that extends between growth vessel 124 and tank 112.).
Regarding Claim 14, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 13.
McKenna further teaches that the fluid conduit comprises a first port (202) disposed in the tank (112) (Figs. 1-2 show that inlet 202 is disposed in tank 112.).
Regarding Claim 15, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
McKenna further teaches that the first port (202) is disposed proximate to a lowermost wall of the tank (see Figs. 1-2; The first port 202 is disposed proximate to the lowermost part of tank 112.).
Regarding Claim 16, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
McKenna further teaches that the first port (202) is located proximate a deepest region of the tank (see Figs. 1-2; The first port 202 is located in the deepest region of tank 112.).
Regarding Claim 17, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 13.
McKenna further teaches that the fluid conduit comprises a second port (210) disposed in the growth vessel (Figs. 1-2 show that second port 210 is disposed in growth vessel 124.).
Regarding Claim 21, McKenna teaches a hydroponic apparatus (100) for growing plants (106) comprising:
A reservoir (108) for a liquid (¶30 states that reservoir 108 is a water reservoir.);
A growth vessel (124) for a plant (Fig. 1 shows that plant 106 is placed in growth vessel 124.); and
A tank (112; Fig. 1 shows that air bell 112 is a receptacle for holding liquids. Therefore, air bell 112 is a tank.) disposed in the reservoir (108);
A passive inlet for allowing the liquid in the reservoir to enter the tank only when a pressure in the tank is equal to or less than a pressure in the reservoir (shown in Fig. 1; Tank 112 forms two inlet openings that allow the liquid in the reservoir 108 to enter the tank 112 by diffusion when the pressure in the tank 112 is less than the pressure in the reservoir 108.); and
A support (110) for supporting the growth vessel above the air bell (Fig. 1 shows that support 110 is capable of supporting growth vessel 124 above the air bell 112.).
However, the system of McKenna fails to explicitly state that the tank comprises an outlet valve for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere, and that the hydroponic apparatus comprises a fluid conduit for allowing the liquid in the tank to enter the growth vessel when the tank is pressurized and allowing the liquid in the growth vessel to enter the tank when the tank is depressurized.
Evans teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a hydroponic apparatus providing a controlled environment for plant growth.), the system of Evans teaches a hydroponic apparatus (10) comprising a tank (25) wherein the tank (25) comprises an outlet valve (32) for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere (Stated Column 3 Lines 60-65; Outlet valve 32 depressurizes tank 25 and therefore allows air in the tank 25 to vent to the atmosphere.) and a fluid conduit (23) for allowing the liquid in the tank to enter the growth vessel when the tank is pressurized and allowing the liquid in the growth vessel to enter the tank when the tank is depressurized (Stated in Column 3 Lines 55-67 and Column 4 Lines 1-10; Fluid conduit 23 allows water and nutrients in tank 25 to enter the growth vessel 13 when the tank 25 is pressurized and also allows water and nutrients in the growth vessel 13 to enter tank 25 when the tank 25 is depressurized.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McKenna to have the tank comprise an outlet valve for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere, and to have the hydroponic apparatus comprise a fluid conduit for allowing the liquid in the tank to enter the growth vessel when the tank is pressurized and allowing the liquid in the growth vessel to enter the tank when the tank is depressurized as taught by Evans with reasonable expectation of success to better control the air pressure of the tank.
The system of McKenna as modified by Evans fails to explicitly state that the tank comprises a passive inlet valve configured to be mounted in a wall of the tank.
Newby teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an irrigation and fertilization control/distribution system for used in hydroponic farming.), the system of Newby teaches a tank (50) comprises a passive inlet valve (66) configured to be mounted in a wall of the tank (See Fig. 3 and Column 4 Lines 30-35; Tank 50 comprises a check valve [which functions as a passive inlet valve] mounted in a bottom wall of tank 50.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McKenna as modified by Evans to have the tank comprise a passive inlet valve configured to be mounted in a wall of the tank as taught by Newby with reasonable expectation of success to better maintain the level of liquid within the tank.
The system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby further teaches that the passive inlet valve is configured to automatically open when the tank is depressurized to refill the tank from the reservoir (Due to the modification of Newby, a check valve 66 would be provided to tank 112. Check valves open automatically in response to a pressure differential. Therefore, when tank 112 is depressurized, the growth vessel 124 is transferred to the tank 112 and the passive inlet valve 66 would automatically open in response to the pressure differential and allow liquid from the reservoir 108 to enter the tank 112.).
The system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby does not explicitly teach that the hydroponic apparatus is sold in a kit with a reservoir chamber for a liquid; a growth vessel for a plant; a tank adapted to be disposed within the reservoir; a passive inlet valve configured to be mounted in a wall of the tank for allowing liquid in the reservoir to enter the tank; an outlet valve for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere; a fluid conduit for allowing the liquid in the tank to enter the growth vessel when the tank is pressurized and allowing the liquid in the growth vessel to enter the tank when the tank is depressurized; and a support for supporting the growth vessel above the tank. However, it is known and obvious that since these items must be used together, they can be sold together in a kit.
Regarding Claim 29, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
Evans further teaches that the hydroponic apparatus (10) further comprises a controller (34) for activating and deactivating the air supply [31] (Stated in Column 3 Lines 55-67 and Column 4 Lines 1-10; Timer device 34 serves to activate and deactivate air supply 31.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby to include a controller for activating and deactivating the air supply as taught by Evans with reasonable expectation of success to better control the flow of liquid through the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 18, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 29.
The system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby further teaches (references to Evans) that the controller (34) is a time activated switch (Stated in Column 3 Lines 55-67).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 20210084848 A1) as modified by Evans (US 5054233 A) and Newby (US 4527353 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima (ES 2745034 T3).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the outlet valve is pressure sensitive and adjustable. Nakajima teaches an outlet valve (143a) that is pressure sensitive and adjustable (Pg. 21 states that outlet valve 143a is a check valve, which are pressure sensitive, that is adjustable via boss 149b.). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the outlet valve from the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby with an outlet valve that is pressure sensitive and adjustable as taught by Nakajima to provide a design with greater flexibility, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 20210084848 A1) as modified by Evans (US 5054233 A) and Newby (US 4527353 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ikumoto et al. (WO 9717835 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 8.
However, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby fails to explicitly state that the first pipe terminates with at least one of a diffuser and an air stone.
Ikumoto teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Pg. 1 states that the invention relates to a hydroponics apparatus.), the system of Ikumoto teaches a hydroponics apparatus (shown in Fig. 1) wherein a first pipe (5) terminates with at least one of a diffuser and an air stone (air diffuser 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby to have the first pipe terminate with at least one of a diffuser and an air stone as taught by Ikumoto with reasonable expectation of success to better distribute air bubbles and promote healthier plant growth.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 20210084848 A1) as modified by Evans (US 5054233 A) and Newby (US 4527353 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burcombe et al. (US 4334386 A).
Regarding Claim 12, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby fails to explicitly state that the growth vessel comprises a sump in which a drain is located.
Burcombe teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Pg. 1 states that the invention relates to a soilless garden system.), the system of Burcombe teaches a growth vessel (10) comprises a sump (Column 2 Lines 35-40 states that growth vessel 10 is a sump tank.) in which a drain (18) is located (Fig. 1 shows that drain 18 is located in sump tank 10.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of McKenna as modified by Evans and Newby to have the growth vessel comprise a sump in which a drain is located as taught by Burcombe with reasonable expectation of success to better regulate liquid flow.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenna (US 20210084848 A1) in view of Evans (US 5054233 A), Beaulicu (US 6082247 A), and Newby (US 4527353 A).
Regarding Claim 19, McKenna teaches a method of use of a hydroponic apparatus (100) for growing plants (106) comprising:
A reservoir (108) for a liquid (¶30 states that reservoir 108 is a water reservoir.);
A growth vessel (124) for a plant being cultivated (Fig. 1 shows that plant 106 is placed in growth vessel 124.); and
A tank (112; Fig. 1 shows that air bell 112 is a receptacle for holding liquids. Therefore, air bell 112 is a tank.) disposed in the reservoir (108) and in fluidic communication with the reservoir (108) and the growth vessel [124] (Fig. 1 shows that tank 112 is disposed inside reservoir 108 and that tank 112 is in fluidic communication with both reservoir 108 and the growth vessel 124, via pump 114.), wherein the tank (112) comprises a passive inlet for allowing the liquid in the reservoir to enter the tank only when a pressure in the tank is equal to or less than a pressure in the reservoir (shown in Fig. 1; Tank 112 forms two inlet openings that allow the liquid in the reservoir 108 to enter the tank 112 by diffusion when the pressure in the tank 112 is less than the pressure in the reservoir 108.); and
An air supply (116);
The method comprising:
Charging the growth vessel with liquid from the tank by:
Activating the air supply (¶32-33 states that air supply 116 is activated through squeezing or pumping.);
Supplying air to the tank (¶32-33 states that air supply 116 is activated through squeezing or pumping to supply air into tank 112.);
Pressurizing the tank (¶37 states that air 120 comes to pressure with the water 122 of the tank 112.);
When the tank (112) is pressurized, forcing the liquid from the tank to enter the growth vessel (¶37-38 state that as pressure builds within the tank 112, water 122 within the tank 112 is forced to enter growth vessel 124.).
However, the method of McKenna fails to explicitly state that the tank comprises an outlet valve for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere, and that the method further comprises the steps of discharging the growth vessel by, deactivating the air supply; when the tank is depressurized, draining the liquid in the growth vessel back into the tank; venting the tank to atmosphere.
Evans teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a hydroponic apparatus providing a controlled environment for plant growth.), the system of Evans teaches system executing a method comprising a hydroponic apparatus (10) comprising a tank (25) wherein the tank (25) comprises an outlet valve (32) for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere (Stated Column 3 Lines 60-65; Outlet valve 32 depressurizes tank 25 and therefore allows air in the tank 25 to vent to the atmosphere.) and that the method comprises the step of discharging the growth vessel (13) by
Deactivating the air supply [31] (Stated in Column 4 Lines 1-10; Air supply 31 is turned off to allow tank 25 to be depressurized.);
When the tank (25) is depressurized, draining the liquid in the growth vessel back into the tank (Stated in Column 4 Lines 1-10; When tank 25 is depressurized, water and nutrients from the growth vessel 13 is drained back into the tank 25.); and
Venting the tank to atmosphere (Stated Column 3 Lines 60-65; Outlet valve 32 depressurizes tank 25 and therefore allows air in the tank 25 to vent to the atmosphere.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of McKenna to have the tank comprise an outlet valve for allowing air in the tank to vent to atmosphere, and to have the method further comprise the steps of discharging the growth vessel by, deactivating the air supply; when the tank is depressurized, draining the liquid in the growth vessel back into the tank; and venting the tank to atmosphere as taught by Evans with reasonable expectation of success to better control the air pressure of the tank.
The method of McKenna as modified by Evans further teaches (references to McKenna) the step of equalizing the pressure in the tank with the pressure in the reservoir (Due to the modification of Evans, the liquid within the growth vessel 124 is transferred to the tank 112 when the tank 112 is depressurized. This means that liquid from the reservoir 108 will automatically enter to tank 112 via diffusion through the passive inlets formed by tank 112 [See Fig. 1] and therefore the pressure in the tank 112 and in the reservoir 108 would be equalized by said diffusion.).
The method of McKenna as modified by Evans fails to explicitly state the step of automatically refilling the tank by allowing the passive inlet to open when the pressure in the tank equals the pressure in the reservoir thereby drawing the liquid from the reservoir into the tank.
Beaulicu teaches a system executing a method for consecutively dispensing an equal volume of a liquid from a storage tank (see Abstract), the method of Beaulicu teaches the step of automatically refilling a tank (14) by allowing a passive inlet (38) to open when the pressure in the tank equals the pressure in a reservoir (36) thereby drawing the liquid from the reservoir into the tank (See Column 2 Lines 55-67 and Column 3 Lines 1-5; Once the tank 14 returns to a resting state [equal to that of reservoir 36], the passive inlet 38 automatically opens and draws the liquid from the reservoir 36 into the tank 14.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of McKenna as modified by Evans to include the step of automatically refilling the tank by allowing the passive inlet to open when the pressure in the tank equals the pressure in the reservoir thereby drawing the liquid from the reservoir into the tank as taught by Beaulicu with reasonable expectation of success to allow more consistently dispense equal volumes of liquid.
The method of McKenna as modified by Evans and Beaulicu fails to explicitly state that the tank comprises a passive inlet valve coupled to a wall of the tank.
Newby teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an irrigation and fertilization control/distribution system for used in hydroponic farming.), the system of Newby teaches a tank (50) comprises a passive inlet valve (66) coupled to a wall of the tank (See Fig. 3 and Column 4 Lines 30-35; Tank 50 comprises a check valve [which functions as a passive inlet valve] coupled to a bottom wall of tank 50.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of McKenna as modified by Evans and Beaulicu to have the tank comprise a passive inlet valve coupled to a wall of the tank as taught by Newby with reasonable expectation of success to better maintain the level of liquid within the tank.
Regarding Claim 20, the method of McKenna as modified by Evans, Beaulicu, and Newby, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 19.
Newby further teaches that the method further comprises the step of filling the tank (50) by:
Opening the inlet valve (See Fig. 3; For water to enter from reservoir 46 to tank 50 as shown in Fig. 3, check valve 66 would have to be opened.);
Charging the tank with liquid from the reservoir (See Fig. 3; Water enters from reservoir 46 to tank 50.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of McKenna as modified by Evans, Beaulicu, and Newby to include the step of filling the tank by: opening the inlet valve; charging the tank with liquid from the reservoir as taught by Newby with reasonable expectation of success to maintain the liquid level in the tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 19, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, arguments surrounding the McKenna and Evans references will be addressed herein.
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 21, on Pg. 10, Applicant argues the following: “Applicant respectfully submits that McKenna's air bell and Applicant's tank serve different purposes, have different structures, and operate on different principles. The air bell is designed for bacterial zone creation and oxygenation, not for liquid storage and measured delivery. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed modification of McKenna with Evans and Campbell is untenable because McKenna provides no tank to modify.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that McKenna’s tank is not designed for liquid storage or measured delivery) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, a tank is defined as “a usually large receptacle for holding, transporting, or storing liquids” (Source: “Tank.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tank. Accessed 30 Jan. 2026.). Fig. 1 of McKenna shows that air bell 112 is a receptacle for holding liquids. Therefore, air bell 112 is a tank.
In addition, on Pg. 10, Applicant argues the following: “However, even if the tank of Evans could be substituted for the air bell of McKenna (which it cannot), Evans' tank is explicitly not disposed in a reservoir. Evans discloses an airtight liquid plant nutrient tank 25 in the box like structure 12. (Evans, col. 3, 11. 45-47; and FIG. 2, which is reproduced below for the Examiner's convenience.) The tank (25) is located in a box structure, not in a reservoir. In fact, no reservoir structure is disclosed in Evans. The tank (25) is the primary storage container for the nutrient solution and must be manually drained via drain plug (43). (Id. at col. 5, 11. 15-20.).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the rejection of claims 1, 19, and 21 above, McKenna is relied upon for its teaching of a tank (112) disposed in a reservoir (108).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Craig et al. (US 20200154659 A1) teaches a hydroponic growing apparatus.
Cox (US 20190075740 A1) teaches an indoor flower growing device.
Tanaka (WO 0100009 A1) teaches a planter based on automatic bottom water feed system.
Kaneko et al. (WO 9012495 A1) teaches a plant growing apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643