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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 52 is 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. The limitation of “scanning and harvesting” lacks antecedent basis because these steps were not claimed in claim 31.
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.
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 31-34,50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt (SE 424399 B as cited on PTO-1449) in view of Gallant (US 20180325053 A1).
For claim 31, Sjostedt discloses a method of cultivating plants, comprising the steps of:
suspending a plant (23) from a support structure (22,24), which plant comprises a stem and a root portion, wherein step of suspending comprises freely hanging the plant by a top portion of the stem and wherein the root portion freely hangs from the stem, in a substantially enclosed root compartment (compartment or area where the roots are located in fig. 1) in the absence of growth medium, wherein the root compartment comprises a substantially enclosed gutter (10-15; noting that the translation states: “Optionally, the opening between the edges 14 and 15 can be closed with a folding door or with a folding door. opaque plastic film, which can be swung, pulled or rolled up from its opening covering position.”), wherein the root portions of a plurality of the plants are configured to be arranged in a row extending parallel to the gutter (as shown in figs. 1-2),
providing water in the root compartment by means of a watering device (19,29), arranged at least partially in the root compartment,
lowering the plant after having allowed the plant to grow, wherein the step of lowering comprises the re-suspending of the plant by a newly-grown portion of the stem (page 3 of the translation provided by applicant: “Eventually, the plant grows up to the tension line 22, as shown with respect to the plant 23B, to the right of the plant 23A, and it is observed that the plant has developed its root system in the dark or light space, so that air roots 27 protrude from the root lump 25. Now the leaves of the stem 26 are removed over the lower part of the plant almost above the top wall 10, for example over a portion 28, and lowered the plant from the line 22, so that the root bail 25 will hang further down in the space 17, where also the deflated portion 28 now. The next plant 23C is in this position. As the plant grows in the top, this portion 28 will develop in the dark or light space 17 air roots 29 above the plant's existing root neck, so that a new root neck is created on the plant adjacent to the underside of the top wall 10, as shown with respect to the next plant in the row, the plant 23D.”), and wherein, after the step of lowering, a bottom portion of the stem becomes freely hanging in the root compartment (as shown in fig. 2, ref. 25 at 23C-23G), to allow new roots to grow on the bottom portion of the stem in the root compartment,
pruning the root portion at least partially at a bottom end thereof (page 2 of the translation provided by applicant: “In addition to being long-lived in application of this method, the plant can be kept constantly at a height that allows convenient harvesting of the fruits. As it grows, it is slackened so that growth is, so to speak, transmitted to the lower end of the plant, where the plant can gradually be cut, so that its total length is kept within certain limits, without prejudice to the growth of the plant or fruit set, and repeating the steps of lowering and root pruning after each time the plant has been allowed to grow.”…page 3, ”At this stage of the plant, the lower part of the root system is cut so that the plant gets the appearance shown with respect to the plant 23H at the far right of FIG. 2. The cut-off of the lower part of the root system can possibly be done with a machine which is advanced along the cultivation bench and with a rotating knife or similar chopping of the root system just below the lower edge 14 of the side wail 13. In the manner described, it is then continued that time after another leaves the lower part of the plant just above the top wall 10, and then to lower the plant as it grows, the root system occasionally, when it has become too long, is cut off at the bottom. Thus, the plant can be kept growing in the space bounded below by the top wall 10 and up to the horizontal tension line 22, and in this space it is easy to pick the fruits from the fruit-bearing lower portions of the plant”); and
repeating the steps of lowering and root pruning after each time the plant has been allowed to grow (page 2 of the translation provided by applicant: In the manner described, it is then continued that time after another leaves the lower part of the plant just above the top wall 10, and then to lower the plant as it grows, the root system occasionally, when it has become too long, is cut off at the bottom. Thus, the plant can be kept growing in the space bounded below by the top wall 10 and up to the horizontal tension line 22, and in this space it is easy to pick the fruits from the fruit-bearing lower portions of the plant”).
However, Sjostedt is silent about wherein the gutter comprises a slit at a top of the gutter, said slit is substantially continuously along the gutter and relatively narrow compared to a width of the gutter perpendicular to an elongate direction of the gutter, through which said slit the plants are configured to enter the gutter, wherein the plants are non-constrainably positionable along the slit,
Gallant teaches in the same field of endeavor of a method of cultivating plants comprising a gutter (20,30,32,40,42) comprises a slit (50) at a top of the gutter, said slit is substantially continuously along the gutter and relatively narrow compared to a width of the gutter perpendicular to an elongate direction of the gutter, through which said slit the plants (150) are configured to enter the gutter, wherein the plants are non-constrainably positionable along the slit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a slit as taught by Gallant substantially continuously along the gutter of Sjostedt instead of individual openings in order to allow ease of access for the plants to be removed in and out of the gutter since the slit will allow the user to slide the plants out of the gutter.
For claim 32, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant teaches the method according to claim 31, and further teaches (emphasis on Sjostedt) wherein the step of suspending further comprises the clamping of the top portion of the stem with at least one clamp of the support structure (page 3 of the translation provided by applicant states that the plants are supported by a fixed clamped rope 22; also, figs. 1-2 show some sort of clamping device for rope 24 to be attached to rope 22).
For claim 33, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant teaches the method according to claim 31, and further teaches (emphasis on Sjostedt) wherein the step of providing nutrients comprises the spraying of nutrients onto the plant in the root compartment (with conduit 19 and nozzles 20).
For claim 34, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant teaches the method according to claim 31, and further teaches (emphasis on Sjostedt) wherein the root compartment is substantially opaque (page 2 of the translation provided by applicant: “The top wall 10 and the two side walls 11 and 13 may be made of sheet metal or rigid opaque plastic, the latter being also a suitable material for the trough, but it is also possible to allow the top wall and the side walls to be formed by a thick opaque plastic film which is laid over a framework supported by the stands 16.”).
For claim 50, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant teaches the method according to claim 31, and further teaches (emphasis on Sjostedt) wherein the plant comprises leaves and produce along the stem (fig. 1, self-explanatory), the method further comprising the step of harvesting the produce from the stem after having allowed the plant to grow (translation states: “In addition to being long-lived in application of this method, the plant can be kept constantly at a height that allows convenient harvesting of the fruits.”).
Claims 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt as modified by Gallant as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Steuart (EP 2888933 B1).
For claim 35, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant teaches the method according to claim 31, but is silent about wherein the root portion is tightly surrounded at least partially by a circumferential root growth promotor.
Steuart teaches a method of cultivating plants comprising a circumferential root growth promotor (10) tightly surrounding a root portion (12) of a plant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surround the root portion in the method of Sjostedt as modified by Gallant with a circumferential root growth promotor as taught by Steuart in order to protect the root portion, provide stability, retention of nutrient, and provide air and water circulation around the roots.
For claim 36, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Steuart teaches the method according to claim 35, wherein the root growth promotor comprises a circumferential wall, which defines a through passage along an elongate axis and which comprises one or more side apertures, which provide access towards the through passage in one or more transverse directions perpendicular to the elongate axis (see figs. 1,6-8 of Steuart; also, Steuart stated that the promotor comprising apertures: “The element made of perforated material 9,10 may comprise a plurality of apertures of an average surface of from about 10 to about 100 square centimetres, alternatively from about 30 to about 90 sqcm.sup.2, alternatively from about 50 to about 80 sqcm.sup.2. In figures 1 and 4; it is shown photographs of elements 9,10, wherein the apertures can be seen.”).
For claim 37, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Steuart teaches the method according to claim 35, wherein the circumferential wall of the root growth promotor extends along the elongate axis over a length substantially equal to the length of the root portion (see figs. 6-8 of Steuart).
For claim 38, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Steuart teaches the method according to claim 35, but is silent about wherein the step of lowering further comprises the upward shifting of the root growth promotor with respect to the plant over a height substantially equal to the height over which the plant has been lowered, so that the bottom portion of the stem in the root compartment becomes at least partially surrounded by the root growth promotor. In addition to the above, Steuart shows in figs. 6-8 how the promotor (10) can be adjusted and wrapped around the plant’s roots and stem, and allow closing the promotor with a closing member (16) with the roots exposed as desired at a chosen height. Also, figs. 5 in Steuart appears to show that the promotor can be shifted upwardly with respect to the plant’s height movement (figs. 5D to 5E, for example). Thus, although not directly teaching the step of lowering as claimed by applicant, based on Steuart’s upward shifting or lowering of the promotor with respect to the plant, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the step of lowering further comprises the upward shifting of the root growth promotor with respect to the plant over a height substantially equal to the height over which the plant has been lowered, so that the bottom portion of the stem in the root compartment becomes at least partially surrounded by the root growth promotor in the method of Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Steuart in order to assure that the promotor wraps the plant’s stem/roots as the plant grows so as to continue to protect the root portion, provide stability, retention of nutrient, and provide air and water circulation around the roots.
Claims 39-40,51,52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt as modified by Gallant as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view Alexander et al. (US 20180295783 A1).
For claim 39, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant teaches the method according to claim 31, but is silent about the step of optically scanning one or more parameters of the plant with one or more cameras.
Alexander et al. teach in the same field of endeavor of a method of cultivating plants comprising a step of optically scanning one or more parameters of the plant with one or more cameras (in various paragraphs such as 0013,0034,0035,0062). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the step of optically scanning one or more parameters of the plant with one or more cameras as taught by Alexander et al. in the method of Sjostedt as modified by Gallant in order to provide real time scanning of the plants’ conditions.
For claim 40, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant teaches the method according to claim 31, but is silent about wherein the steps of lowering and root pruning are carried out at one or more respective stations, located remote from a cultivation location, the method further comprising the steps of: moving the plant from the cultivation location to the stations, prior to the steps of lowering and root pruning, and moving the plant from the stations to the cultivation location, after the steps of lowering and root pruning.
In addition to the above, Alexander et al. teach different stations for different tasks or growth stages of the plant in their method (see the figures which show different stations for different tasks). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the steps of lowering and root pruning as taught by Sjostedt as modified by Gallant be carried out at one or more respective stations, located remote from a cultivation location as taught by Alexander et al. in order to separate each tasks or stages of growing the plants from each other so as to prevent contamination or overcrowding of equipment or the like.
The combination of Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Alexander et al. is silent about the steps of: moving the plant from the cultivation location to the stations, prior to the steps of lowering and root pruning, and moving the plant from the stations to the cultivation location, after the steps of lowering and root pruning.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of: moving the plant from the cultivation location to the stations, prior to the steps of lowering and root pruning, and moving the plant from the stations to the cultivation location, after the steps of lowering and root pruning in the method of Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Alexander et al. because it is common sense and ingenuity based on both teachings from Sjostedt and Alexander et al. that one would need to cultivate the plant from seedling or the like first, and then as the seedlings grow, the lowering and pruning steps can take place. In addition, it is also common sense and ingenuity based on both teachings from Sjostedt and Alexander et al. that one would need to move the plant from the stations to the cultivation location again because Sjostedt stated that the process or method can be repeated for growing the plants per page 3.
For claim 51, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant teaches the method according to claim 50, but is silent about the step of optically scanning one or more parameters of the plant with one or more cameras.
Alexander et al. teach in the same field of endeavor of a method of cultivating plants comprising a step of optically scanning one or more parameters of the plant with one or more cameras (in various paragraphs such as 0013,0034,0035,0062). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the step of optically scanning one or more parameters of the plant with one or more cameras as taught by Alexander et al. in the method of Sjostedt as modified by Gallant in order to provide real time scanning of the plants’ conditions.
For claim 52, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Alexander et al. teaches the method according to claim 51, but is silent about wherein the steps of lowering, root pruning, scanning and harvesting are carried out at one or more respective stations, located remote from a cultivation location, the method further comprising the steps of: moving the plant from the cultivation location to the stations, prior to the steps of lowering, root pruning, scanning and harvesting, and moving the plant from the stations to the cultivation location, after the steps of lowering, root pruning, scanning and harvesting.
In addition to the above, Alexander et al. teach different stations for different tasks or growth stages of the plant in their method (see the figures which show different stations for different tasks). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the steps of lowering, root pruning, scanning and harvesting as taught by Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Alexander et al. be carried out at one or more respective stations, located remote from a cultivation location as further taught by Alexander et al. in order to separate each tasks or stages of growing the plants from each other so as to prevent contamination or overcrowding of equipment or the like.
The combination of Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Alexander et al. is silent about the steps of: moving the plant from the cultivation location to the stations, prior to the steps of lowering, root pruning, scanning and harvesting; and moving the plant from the stations to the cultivation location, after the steps of lowering, root pruning, scanning and harvesting.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of: moving the plant from the cultivation location to the stations, prior to the steps of lowering, root pruning, scanning and harvesting, and moving the plant from the stations to the cultivation location, after the steps of lowering, root pruning, scanning and harvesting in the method of Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Alexander et al. because it is common sense and ingenuity based on both teachings from Sjostedt and Alexander et al. that one would need to cultivate the plant from seedling or the like first, and then as the seedlings grow, the lowering, pruning, scanning and harvesting steps can take place. In addition, it is also common sense and ingenuity based on both teachings from Sjostedt and Alexander et al. that one would need to move the plant from the stations to the cultivation location again because Sjostedt stated that the process or method can be repeated for growing the plants per page 3.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Alexander et al. as applied to claims 31 & 40 above, and further in view Bai et al. (US 20050044785 A1 as cited on form PTO-1449).
For claim 41, Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Alexander et al. teaches the method according to claim 40, but is silent about wherein the plant is freely suspended from a movable support structure in its entirety.
Bai et al. teach a method of cultivating plant comprising a movable support structure (13,33,18,14, etc.) for suspending the plants. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a movable support structure as taught by Bai et al. to suspend the plant in its entirety in the method of Sjostedt as modified by Gallant and Alexander et al. in order to rotate or move the plants so as to get full exposure to elements such as sunlight or artificial lights or nutrient solutions or the like that are located in a certain location and not surround all the plants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 31-41,50-52 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.
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 SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights