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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 7 is rejected as new matter as the water absorption and retaining capacity are not described in the specification or drawings and therefore Applicant does not have support for this amendment. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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 5 and 7 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 5 is rejected for lack of clarity for the following reasons. Firstly, it is unclear if the nutrient solution is a liquid nutrient solution or just water, as the claim contemplates both. The claim asserts that it is stagnant water, but it is unclear if it is stagnant only if it is water or also if it is a nutrient solution. Further, it is unclear how the nutrient solution could be stagnant water – it could be a stagnant liquid but a solution including nutrients could not be considered stagnant “water.” Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 7 is rejected for lack of clarity. It is unclear if the water absorption and water retainment capabilities are the same or different qualities. Additionally, the unit and weight/weight language is unclear and as discussed above, does not have further detail or support in the specification. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (JP 2002186359 A) in view of Adelberg (US 20160120133 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kinoshita discloses a culture apparatus (holder 13, see fig 2 and para 27) for a plant whole body, which comprises a container (15, microporous body and sucks water through capillary action, see figs 2, 3a-3c and page 5); and a basin holding liquid (water supply pipe 7, see figs 2, 3a-3c and page 5),
wherein the container (13) consists of a cylinder part (cylindrical shape, see page 4 and figs 2, 3a-3c) and a closure part (cap 20, see figs 3a-3c and page 7), wherein a top edge of the cylinder part is closed with the closure part (cap 20, see figs 3a-3c and page 7), wherein the closure part is an upper surface part integrated with the cylinder part or a lid removably formed from the top edge of the cylinder part (see figs 3a-3c), wherein a through hole is formed in the closure part (opening 21, see figs 3a-3c and page 7), and wherein a bottom edge of the cylinder part has an open form or a closed form (opening for water to enter, see figs 3a-3c and 4), and
wherein the container with a microporous body is a fired body made of a non-metal inorganic solid material (ceramic microporous body, see page 5), and the cylinder part and the closure part contains continuous pores that are voids (microporous body has voids, resin has pores, see pages 3 and 5) and the void rate of the entire fired body is 10 to 80%(vol/vol) (see page 5, voids constitute a continuous moisture passage through the microporous body).
Kinoshita fails to disclose the average pore size of the void is 3 µm or less, the voids with a pore size of 3 µm or less account for 70% or more of the total voids in volume ratio.
Adelberg teaches the average pore size of the void is 3 µm or less (pore size of about 0.2um, see para 0052), the voids with a pore size of 3 µm or less account for 70% or more of the total voids in volume ratio (pore size of about 0.2um throughout, see para 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pores of Kinoshita to be 3 µm or less as taught by Adelberg with a reasonable expectation of success because this small pore size will ensure pathogenic organisms are unable to pass into the growing container while still allowing oxygen to the roots (see Adelberg para 0052).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches a culture method for a plant whole body, which uses the culture apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Kinoshita further discloses wherein the method comprises at least a step of forming a spatial area capable of accommodating a root system of the plant whole body with the inner surface of the basin and the interior wall of the container by setting the container within the basin (spatial area for roots is 13 within planting member 15, planting member 15 is set in basin 7 for accessing liquid) so that its open or closed bottom edge is in contact with the inner surface of the basin (see figs 3a-3c and 4, planting member 15 has open bottom in contact with liquid basin 7);
a step of introducing a liquid into the basin before or after the step of forming a spatial area (see figs 3a-3c and 4, planting member 15 has open bottom in contact with liquid basin 7);
a step of growing root parts that absorb moisture and nutrition from the liquid phase in the liquid held within the basin (see figs 2-4); and
a step of growing root parts that absorb oxygen from the vapor phase in moisture and oxygen present inside the spatial area (see figs 2-4, oxygen supplied via pores, prevents root decay, see page 3).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the culture method according to claim 4, and Kinoshita further discloses wherein the liquid held in the basin is water or a nutrient solution containing nutrition required for growing the plant whole body to be cultured (water stored in tank 10 has nutrients, see page 4), and is stagnant water (water to be supplied is still water, see page 7).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (JP 2002186359 A) in view of Adelberg (US 20160120133 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Xu (US-11109545-B2).
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the culture method according to claim 5.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the nutrition required for growing the plant whole body is an essential macroelement selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulfur; an essential trace element selected from the group consisting of iron, manganese, boron, zinc, molybdenum, copper, chlorine, nickel; or a useful element selected from the group consisting of silicon, sodium, cobalt.
Xu teaches wherein the nutrition required for growing the whole plant body is an essential macroelement selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulfur (magnesium sulfate, see col 6, lines 42-49); an essential trace element selected from the group consisting of iron, manganese, boron, zinc, molybdenum, copper, chlorine, nickel (zinc, copper sulfate, see col 6, lines 42-49); or an useful element selected from the group consisting of silicon, sodium, cobalt (sodium molybdate, see col 6, lines 42-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kinoshita with the nutrients of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the plants are receiving optimal nutrients required for growth.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (JP 2002186359 A) in view of Adelberg (US 20160120133 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qi (CN 114563552 A).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the culture method according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the container has a water absorption capacity capable of retaining water, at 20°C, 0.005 to 500 times with respect to the amount per unit weight of the fired body made of a non-metal inorganic solid material, weight/weight.
Qi teaches container has a water absorption capacity capable of retaining water, 0.005 to 500 times with respect to the amount per unit weight of the fired body made of a non-metal inorganic solid material, weight/weight (water absorption/retainment 150-160 times self-weight, see page 4, see also 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the container with the water retainment capability of Qi with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the container is able to retain moisture for the plants to optimize growth conditions.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the absorption capability is at 20⁰C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified this capability to be at 20⁰C with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the water absorption is efficient at room temperature, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Applicant does not provide criticality for the temperature in regards to the water absorption capability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Specifically, Applicant’s arguments over Kinoshita do not present specific reasons or limitations that they believe Kinoshita fails to teach. In regards to Applicant’s arguments about positioning ring 17 being made of resin, resin is porous, and therefore it would be obvious for the porous resin to have the same voids as the planting container. Applicant does not provide specific arguments against the combination of Kinoshita in view of Adelberg.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments over claim 5, the claim does not specify the inclusion of an essential macroelement, only that the solution is “containing nutrition.” Therefore this argument is not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments over claim 6, Applicant does not clearly point out how they believe Examiner misunderstood claim 6. As seen in the rejection, Xu clearly teaches the nutrient solution having Zinc, along with other elements, as claimed. Therefore, without further explanation from Applicant, it is unclear what further context Applicant believes is not taught by the cited references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642