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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porter (US 3241264), hereinafter referred to as Porter.
Regarding claim 1:
Porter discloses a device for arranging seed (seed-germination and plant starter packet, title), comprising
a container (container 1, Fig 1) with a container wall having an upper edge and a lower edge at a perpendicular distance from one another (see annotated Fig 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
313
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a germination paper extending along an inside of the container wall (wick 5, Fig 1; see Fig 3 for extension along an inside of the container wall; paper per spec), and
a retaining device (trough 7, Fig 1) which cooperates with the germination paper in such a way that a seed is carried on the germination paper at or above an intermediate height above the lower edge and below the upper edge of the container wall (see Figs 2 and 3) in such a way that germs of the seed can grow upwards and roots of the seed can grow downwards (see Fig 3),
wherein the retaining device comprises a retaining rail formed at the intermediate height (portion of trough is at the intermediate height, see Fig 1 and 3; considered a rail under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) - Merriam Webster defines rail as a structural member or support).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahm (US 6735902, as cited on previous 892) in view of Poul Henrik Ahm (US 8061078, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Ahm and Poul, respectively (for distinction).
Regarding claim 1:
Ahm discloses a device for arranging seed, comprising
a container with a container wall having an upper edge and a lower edge at a perpendicular distance from one another (germinating box 32, Fig 5)
a germination paper (material layers 2,4 of tape 1, see Fig 2), extending along the inside of the container wall (see tape 1 in container in Fig 5), and
a glue (glue 6,6’, see Fig 2) which cooperates with the germination paper in such a way that the seed is carried on the germination paper at or above an intermediate height above the lower edge and below the upper edge of the container wall in such a way that germs of the seed can grow upwards and roots of the seed can grow downwards (see seed 10 intermediate location and upwards/downwards growth in Fig 3; Col 4, lines 40-50).
Ahm fails to disclose wherein the retaining device comprises a retaining rail formed at the intermediate height.
Poul however discloses a similar seed tape (seed tape 6, Fig 6) with a retaining device (string-like connecting part 7b, Fig 6) which cooperates with germination elements (8a-8c) in such a way that the seed (seeds 3a-3c) is carried on the germination element at a height above the lower edge and below the upper edge of the tape in such a way that germs of the seed can grow upwards and roots of the seed can grow downwards (see Fig 6), the retaining device comprising a retaining rail (rail-like – see Fig 5; also provides support to tape – Merriam Webster defines rail as a structural member or support).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed tape of Ahm to include string-like connecting parts 7a-7c, and thereby a retaining rail 7b, as claimed, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide structural support to the seed and carrier, strengthening the tape as a whole, and preventing tearing of the tape, unless when desired (i.e. someone cuts it with a knife).
Regarding claim 2:
Ahm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the container is cylindrical or conical or polygonal (see Fig 5).
Regarding claim 3:
Ahm discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the germination paper comprises a plurality of vertically or obliquely extending folds (see annotated fig 5 below; fig 5 is top view).
PNG
media_image2.png
339
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6:
Ahm as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the retaining rail is designed to be flexible and meandering with a plurality of loops and connecting regions provided between the respective loops (Poul – ‘string-like connecting parts’; when added to the tape of Ahm, which is folded in the orientation shown in fig 5 in box 32, the retaining rail 7b would follow the meandering tape directionality pictured, resulting in loops and connecting regions, as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
363
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
371
551
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7:
Ahm as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 above and further discloses wherein the number of folds of the germination paper corresponds to the number of loops of the retaining rail (see annotations of loops and folds in rejections of claims 3 and 5 above; since loops of retaining rail are a direct result of folding of the seed tape/germination paper; the number of loops and folds are congruous).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 2, the applicant argues that the tape 1 does not extend “along an inside of the container wall,” as recited in claim 1, given it zig-zags throughout the entire volume of the package 32.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and contends that the applicant is reading the claim scope more narrowly than deserved. As can be seen in Fig 5 of Ahm, many portions of the paper (particularly at the peaks), are adjacent/along an inside of the container wall, further the paper, by extending from left to right (even if in a zig-zag manner), extends along an inside of the container wall. The claims do not require that the entirety of the area of the paper extend along an inside of the container wall, and, in fact, doing so would be contrary to the applicant’s own invention, which also zig zags, with alternating peaks being along an inside of the container wall (see Fig 5 of the applicant’s drawings).
On page 2, the applicant remarks that, since the glue 6, 6’ of Ahm extends along the entire height of tape 1, this teaches away from a retaining device that is “a retaining rail formed at the intermediate height.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement for a number of reasons. First, the fact that Ahm has Glue, does not prevent a retaining rail from Poul being added at an intermediate height, nor does it teach away from such an implication. In order to properly support an argument of ‘teaches away’, the examiner asks the applicant to cite where in these prior art references the disclosure expressly teaches away from the proposed modifications, providing teachings that the proposed modifications would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its Intended Purpose. See MPEP 2145 (X)(D). Second, just in terms of general claim interpretation, the examiner notes that, even though the glue extends along the entire length of the tape, this does not prevent the glue from being considered ‘formed at the intermediate height’; under BRI, in order for a structure to read on ‘formed at the intermediate height’, it must have at least a portion of its structure at the intermediate height of the container wall, and it is clear that the glue does. If it was unclear in the previous 103 of claim 5, the examiner further clarifies that they do not consider the Glue of Ahm to be analogous to the ‘retaining device’ which is a ‘retaining rail’, for the purposes of the amended claim 1, the glue was previously taught as a retaining device for claim 1 alone (given the breadth of the previous claim 1), and the modification for claim 5 did not replace the glue retaining device with the string/rail retaining device of Poul, rather the modification with Poul constituted an addition of an additional retaining device, which met the retaining device limitations of both claim 1 and claim 5, combined.
On page 2, the applicant further submits that the string-like connecting parts of Poul (particularly 7b), are not ‘retaining rails’ that ‘cooperate with the germination paper in such a way that a seed is carried on the germination paper’ since the connecting parts 7a-7c do not actually support the seeds, rather the carrier material portions 2a-2c do.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the previous rejection, “rail” is given its plain and ordinary meaning under BRI, in light of the specification, that being “a structural member or support” (per Merriam-Webster dictionary). The connecting members 7a-7c very clearly read on this incredibly broad meaning. Further, they may be considered “retaining” (retain defined by Merriam webster as “to hold secure or intact”), given they are capable of holding together the germination paper/tape in an intact/secure state. Further, the connecting members cooperate with the germination elements (bags 8a-8c), as can be seen in Fig 6, and do so in such a way that the seed is carried on the germination element (seed is carried on the germination element regardless of the manner of cooperation between the connecting members/retaining rail and the germination element, so the retaining rail/connecting members cooperates with the germination elements in such a way that the seed is carried on the germination paper). Also, it is noted that the claims do not require that the connecting parts support the seeds 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). Regardless, even if the claim did recite such a limitation, the examiner asserts that the connecting parts do support the seeds, indirectly, given they support the bags 8a-8c which support the carrier material portions 2a-2c which support the seeds.
Lastly, on page 2, the applicant remarks that there is no teaching or suggestion that the position of the connecting part 7b has anything to do with the position of seed 3 in carrier material 2.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, the examiner notes that the claims do not require that the position of the connecting part have any positively recited determinative effect on the position of the seed. 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). Regardless, the examiner notes that they generally disagree with the applicant’s statement, as it is clear from the drawings of Poul that the seed position and that of the connecting part 7b are clearly aligned; in that sense, the position of the connecting part 7b is related to the position of the seed 3 in the carrier material 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (KR 19990066124 A) and Azuchi (JP 2007222034) exhibit similarities to the present invention.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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 on 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.
/B.V.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642