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
Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/16/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims contain unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because unity of invention is only present when a special technical feature in view of the prior art is found among the inventions. The ISA providing a restriction requirement between the different claim sets does not matter when it comes to US practice in handling PCT cases. Search and examination burden is established in the fact that method claims require explicit steps that must be taught by prior art, which would require a greater burden of searching as prior art may have the technical structures to perform said steps, however not disclose the actual steps being performed. As such, restriction is proper and rejoinder will be completed upon allowable subject matter being shared between both claim sets.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BISSONNETTE (US 20050241231 A1).
Regarding claim 1: BISSONNETTE discloses a culture apparatus (1) for a plant whole body comprising a light-shading case (3,12) that has at least one through hole (4) on its ceiling surface and holds culturing liquid (11) on its bottom surface and grows vapor-phase roots (7) without using soil within a spacial area formed with the ceiling surface, the bottom surface and an inner side surface (Fig. 3) and an internal object (6) showing capillary force arranged on at least a part of the inner side surface from among an inner surface forming the spacial area of the light-shading case (para 51).
Regarding claim 2: BISSONNETTE discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein a water-level adjustment means for adjusting a water level of the culturing liquid is connected to the light- shading case (paras 81-82,85).
Regarding claim 6: BISSONNETTE discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein a door that can be opened and closed is set on at least one side of the light-shading case (para 82).
Regarding claim 11: BISSONNETTE discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the internal object (6) is arranged diagonally by leaning against the inner side surface of the light-shading case (para 71).
Regarding claim 17: BISSONNETTE discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein a lighting unit provided with a light source (18) illuminating light to a top surface of the light-shading case is set above the light-shading case (Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TATSUO (JP 2002-305996 A).
Regarding claim 1: TATSUO discloses a culture apparatus (1) for a plant whole body comprising a light-shading case (4,8,11) that has at least one through hole (9,19) on its ceiling surface and holds culturing liquid (para 19) on its bottom surface and grows vapor-phase roots without using soil (paras 40, 55) within a spacial area formed with the ceiling surface, the bottom surface and an inner side surface (Fig. 3) and an internal object (14,20) showing capillary force arranged on at least a part of the inner side surface from among an inner surface forming the spacial area of the light-shading case (para 25).
Regarding claim 3: TATSUO discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the light- shading case comprises a light-shading case main body (8) in a form of a box, and a lid (18) that covers an upper opening of the light-shading case main body and is removable. (Figs. 5A-5B, paras 26, 42, 53).
Regarding claim 5: TATSUO discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the through hole is in a form of a slit-like long hole (12, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8: TATSUO discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the internal object (14) is arranged on the inner surface of the lid of the light-shading case other than an area of the through hole (Figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 10: TATSUO discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the internal object is removably arranged on the light-shading case via at least one holder that is attached on at least an inner side surface from among an inner surface of the light-shading case (Figs. 6-7, para 31).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TATSUO as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of BISSONNETTE (US 20050241231 A1).
Regarding claim 4: TATSUO discloses the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
TATSUO fails to teach wherein the lid is hung by spanning multiple hanging tools that span opposing opening edges of the light-shading case main body.
However, BISSONNETTE teaches wherein the lid is hung by spanning multiple hanging tools that span opposing opening edges of the light-shading case main body (tools 5, 22, 23, seen in Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus as disclosed by TATSUO with the multiple tools as taught by BISSONNETTE with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of tools such as hooks to hang a lid of a culture apparatus would allow for the plants to be quickly reeled and suspended in, allowing for easier manipulation of the plants either for diagnostic purposes or to obtain desired environmental conditions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BISSONNETTE as applied to claim BISSONNETTE above, and further in view of BISSONNETTE’S embodiment of Figure 3.
Regarding claim 7: BISSONNETTE discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
BISSONNETTE fails to teach wherein the internal object is arranged on the entire inner side surface of the light-shading case.
However, Figure 3 of BISSONNETTE teaches wherein the internal object (6) is arranged on the entire inner side surface of the light-shading case (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device as disclosed by BISSONNETTE with the wicking material spanning the entire interior of the device as taught by Figure 3 of BISSONNETTE with a reasonable expectation of success because having the filter span the entire interior would assist the plants in receiving a sufficient amount of nutrient, in order to ensure that the plant grows as desired.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BISSONNETTE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HIPPO (US 20230028722 A1).
Regarding claim 9: BISSONNETTE discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
BISSONNETTE fails to teach wherein another internal object having water retention capacity to supply the culturing liquid to the plant whole body is laid on the entire bottom surface of the light-shading case.
However, HIPPO teaches wherein another internal object (314) having water retention capacity to supply the culturing liquid to the plant whole body (para 77) is laid on the entire bottom surface of the light-shading case (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device as disclosed by BISSONNETTE with the retention mat as taught by HIPPO with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a mat at the bottom of the device structure would decrease the probability of the plant becoming dehydrated, achieving the predictable result of allowing the user to optimize the amount of water supplied to the device.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BISSONNETTE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the embodiment shown in Figs. 8A-8B of BISSONNETTE.
Regarding claim 12: BISSONNETTE discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
BISSONNETTE fails to teach wherein a mounting table that mounts the plant whole body is set on a bottom surface of the light-shading case.
However, Figs. 8A-8B of BISSONNETTE teach wherein a mounting table (first tier 26) that mounts the plant whole body is set on a bottom surface of the light-shading case (Figs. 8A-8B, the entirety of the device (1) contains wicking filter material (23) as discussed in para 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device as disclosed by BISSONNETTE with the filter tiers as taught by Figs. 8A-8B of BISSONNETTE with a reasonable expectation of success because providing tiers would allow for the entirety of the device to assist with plant growth, allowing for a seed to grow from germination to maturity with the device, allowing for the roots of the plant to grow and removing the need to transplant the seed/seedling when it reaches a stage of growth.
Regarding claim 13: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, and BISSONNETTE as modified further teaches wherein the mounting table is made of the same material for the internal object (Figs. 8A-8B, para 61).
Regarding claim 14: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, and BISSONNETTE as modified further teaches wherein the mounting table is made up of a drain board (Figs. 8A-8B, bottom of tier 26 contains holes 14 which would act as a draining board).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TATSUO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LESTELLE (EP 2903411 B1).
Regarding claim 15: TATSUO discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the internal object is a fired body made of a non-metal inorganic solid material, and contains continuous pores that are voids (Para 25).
TATSUO fails to teach the void rate of the entire fired body is 10 to 80% (vol/vol), the average pore size of the void is 3 pm or less, and the voids with a pore size of 3 pm or less account for 70% or more of the total voids in volume ratio.
However, LESTELLE teaches the void rate of the entire fired body is 10 to 80% (vol/vol), the average pore size of the void is 3 pm or less, and the voids with a pore size of 3 pm or less account for 70% or more of the total voids in volume ratio (para 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the porosity as disclosed by TATSUO with the void characteristics as taught by LESTELLE with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of different porous conditions would allow for a user to obtain different water flow rates, as discussed in paragraph 10 of LESTELLE, allowing for the growth conditions of the device to be further optimized to specific plant types.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BISSONNETTE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MICHAEL (GB 2614328 A).
Regarding claim 16: BISSONNETTE discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
BISSONNETTE fails to teach wherein a lighting case provided with a light source illuminating light to a top surface of the light-shading case is stacked on the light-shading case.
However, MICHAEL teaches wherein a lighting case (30) provided with a light source (50) illuminating light to a top surface of the light-shading case is stacked on the light-shading case (34, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lighting as disclosed by BISSONNETTE with the stacked lighting as taught by MICHAEL with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a stacked lighting configuration would achieve the predictable result of having a closed environment, in which only desired illumination characteristics are provided to the plant, achieving the predictable result of providing the user with a greater amount of control over the growth of the plant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are related to applicant’s field of inventions which could teach vapor phase roots without the use of soil.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642