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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: miscellaneous punction.
In claim 6, line 11, delete “portion” and insert --part-- therefor.
In claim 7, line 2, remove the single quotation marks from the recited step of supplying water. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite --wherein the step of supply water--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
CLAIMS 1 AND 6 The originally filed specification is non-enabling for making and using a terrain structure including “a dry layer, formed under the ground surface layer, having a relatively low water-permeability for allowing water to permeate thereinto from the ground surface layer and/or a relatively low water-containing capacity for containing the water.” In paragraph 0025 of the originally filed specification, Applicant discloses “the dry layer 17 may be terrain that contains very little water.” It is unclear what type of terrain meets the claim criteria, since different terrains comprise soils having various properties, and it is not clear that any known soils would meet the claimed criteria. The specification fails to disclose any other examples. This is problematic because the phrase “very little water” is relative, and Applicant fails to disclose or adequately suggest a standard for ascertaining the amount of water content allowed to successfully make and/or use the claimed invention. Additionally, overall there is little suggestion in the state of the art to suggest what type(s) of materials would meet the claimed criteria. Also, the disclosure provides little direction on such materials that would work. Likewise, there is not sufficient disclosure of the existence of working examples, and it would require a large quantity of experimentation to meet the claimed criteria.
CLAIMS 1 AND 6 Similarly, the originally filed specification is non-enabling for “a water-containing layer.” In paragraph 0026 of the originally filed specification, Applicant discloses “the water-containing layer 19 may be a terrain element that contains some amount of water.” The specification fails to disclose any other examples. This is problematic because the phrase “some amount of water” is relative, and Applicant fails to disclose or adequately suggest a standard for ascertaining the amount of water content allowed to successfully make and/or use the claimed invention. Similar to the above, overall there is little suggestion in the state of the art to suggest what type(s) of materials would meet the claimed criteria. Also, the disclosure provides little direction on such materials that would work. Likewise it there is not sufficient disclosure of the existence of working examples and it would require a large quantity of experimentation to meet the claimed criteria.
Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected because they depend from claim 6.
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 1-8 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.
CLAIMS 1 AND 6 On lines 3-5 of both claims, the recitation “having a relatively low water-permeability for allowing water to permeate thereinto from the ground surface layer and/or a relatively low water-containing capacity for containing the water” renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite because the phrase “relatively low” is a term of degree, and the specification fails to disclose examples or a standard for measuring the intended degree.
CLAIMS 1 AND 6 Both claims are further similarly rejected for the recitation “relatively high water-permeability and/or water-containing capacity” on lines 6-7.
Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected because they depend from claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bracey (US 3,067,543 A).
CLAIM 1 Bracey ‘543 (“Bracey”) shows a terrain structure, comprising:
a ground surface layer (4);
a dry layer (6, fine gravel), formed under the ground surface layer (4), having a relatively low water-permeability for allowing water to permeate thereinto from the ground surface layer and/or a relatively low water-containing capacity for containing the water;
a water-containing layer (5, coarse gravel), formed under the dry layer (6), having a relatively high water-permeability and/or water-containing capacity; and
a root-growth part (3) having a structure in which a water-permeable material and/or a hygroscopic material is filled between the ground surface layer and the water-containing layer to allow the water supplied to the ground surface layer to permeate into the water-containing layer through the root-growth part, so that when a plant having roots is planted on the ground surface layer, the roots of the plant can grow from the ground surface layer to the water-containing moisture layer; and
CLAIM 5 further comprising a water supply unit (16) that is provided above the ground surface layer for supplying the water to the ground surface layer (via capillary action) on which the plant is planted.
CLAIM 6 All of the method steps recited therein are inherent to assembly and use of the terrain structure taught by Bracey, as applied above to claim 1.
CLAIM 7 The method steps recited therein are inherent to assembly of the terrain structure taught by Bracey, as applied above to claim 5.
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.
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracey (US 3,067,543 A) in view of Southard (US 1,200,396 A).
CLAIMS 2-4 Bracey fails to teach a through-hole. Southard ‘396 (“Southard”) shows a root-growth part (7; Fig. 4)
configured to provide a through-hole (cylindrical form; p. 1, l. 71) extending between a ground surface layer and a water-containing layer and a water-permeable material (soil; p. 1, ll. 88-93) filling the through-hole;
configured such that a water-permeable structural membrane (8; Fig. 1) made of the water-permeable material (soil sidewall; and p. 1, ll. 73-6) is formed to surround sidewalls of the through-hole, and the through-hole surrounded by the water-permeable structural membrane is filled with the water-permeable material; and
wherein the root-growth part comprises an insertion structure (8; Fig. 1) made of the water-permeable material and/or hygroscopic material and having a structure adapted to be inserted into the through-hole.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art terrain structure with the addition of a through-hole (Southard, Fig. 4), as suggested by Southard. The motivation for making the modification would have been ease of planting with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bracey (US 3,067,543 A).
CLAIM 8 Bracey fails to disclose the step of stopping the supply of water. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the supplying step inherent to assembly and use of the prior art terrain structure, such that it would have been stopped when the roots of the plant have grown downwards to the water-containing layer, since the examiner takes Official Notice of over-watering as harmful to plants. The motivation for making the modification would have been to prevent water-logging of the plant roots.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tully (US 3,710,510 A) shows a stratified terrain structure.
Ogawa et al. (US 5,472,458 A) shows a terrain structure comprising a through hole (20) formed of plastic.
Baron (US 9,686,921 B2) shows a terrain structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
07 January 2026