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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments made with respect to the drawing objection previously set forth in the Office action dated 7/9/2025. All substitute sheets filled on 4/14/2024 replaced those drawings filled on 8/19/2023. The reference sign 100' is still mentioned within the instant application’s description and does not appear in the drawings as such the objection is maintained
With regard to the arguments that “Sumi does not disclose "an outer crust portion" of claim 53.” The claim term of the outer crust has been rendered obvious by the needling process where the needles will act under compression to entangle fibers creating a tougher, denser, more rigid, and less porous (based on the tightening of the fibers) outer crust. There is not distinct claim language that separates the outer crust as claimed from the teachings of Sumi and as such the claim stands rejected.
With regard to the arguments that “Sumi additionally does not disclose "the second fiber density being different than the first fiber density" of claim 53.” The inner portion or the core is still a fibrous structure per paragraph 40, as it is disclosed that the core layer is fibrous and less dense than the barrier layers or outer crust thus meeting the limitation of the claim. The claim stands rejected over Sumi.
With regard to the arguments that “Sumi does not disclose "the inner portion and the outer crust portion forming horizontal and vertical liquid pathways structured to distribute liquid throughout the body" of claim 53.” The examiner does concede “wick” is not quite a proper description of how the water travels through the mineral wool since capillary action is not utilized however, the term in this instance was used to describe how the liquid would flow along the surface of the fiber without restriction. Logically the wool will still form pathways in every direction and water will drain along the fibers that repel the liquid thus forming spaces in an infinite number of directions for liquid to drain therefrom. As such the claim remains rejected over Sumi as applied.
With regard to the argument that Ahilan in view of Sumi fails to fairly render obvious “"the second fiber density being different than the first fiber density."” These arguments are moot since the applicant did not argue why the fiber densities of Ahilan do not meet the claim language, simply a sweeping statement was made. The alleged acknowledgement was a statement that Ahilan fails to disclose is an outer crust portion per se, that is what is being covered by the teachings of Sumi.
With regard to the arguments that Ahilan in view of Sumi fails to fairly render obvious “"the inner portion and the outer crust portion forming horizontal and vertical liquid pathways structured to distribute liquid throughout the body" of claim 53.” The combination of Ahilan and Sumi does disclose such structure, please see the rebuttal above. With respect to the rejections over Ahilan in view of Sumi, mineral wool is not the material of the final substrate. The teachings of Ahilan discloses combining wood fiber and coconut coir to form a growing medium some products are “loose” per paragraph 43 of Ahilan, thus “a slab” with no liquid pathways is not an accurate representation of the complete reference and the needling of Sumi is applied to further densify the upper and lower surfaces as taught therein.
With regard to the arguments that the components of Ahilan are broken down into a dust and thus cannot be needled. Paragraph 34 and 37 of Ahilan discusses particle sizes on the scale of millimeters and centimeters, the examiner is of the stance needling is very much possible and a “dust” is only one embodiment of Ahilan’s disclosure and not representative of the entire disclosure.
With regard to the arguments that the combination of Ahilan and Sumi fail to disclose “"wherein a ratio of the first fiber density to the second fiber density is about 0.3-0.5" of claim 57 as neither reference discloses fibrous density of the inner layer.” Sumi does indeed fairly render obvious the fiber density ratio, since the teaching discloses multiple combinations of fiber density ratios equating to a density ratio of 0.3-0.5 and case law has been utilized to even further denote that such a ratio of the fiber densities is indeed obvious.
With regard to the argument that the combination of Ahilan and Sumi fail to disclose a rewettable substrate free of surfactant. Just because the reference does not explicitly disclose rewettability does not mean the final product is not capable of being rewetted. The combination of coconut coir and wood are intended to easily absorb water and drain it therefrom, thus not becoming hydrophobic or completely breaking down, paragraphs 35, 49, & 53 of Ahilan describes how the substrate is suitable to be capable of draining out water and being rewetted.
With regard to the arguments that the compression alone would not fairly render obvious “"wherein the outer crust has a smaller average pore size than an average pore size of the inner portion" of claim 59.” As stated by the applicant compression is indeed a variable of pore size thus, the combination of the needling and compression would solidify the crust portion would have a higher density and smaller pore size than that of the inner portion.
With regard to the argument that “Groot is silent with respect to a layer having an inner portion and the outer core with different fiber densities” Groot is not used to cover the density limitation as such this argument holds no merit on the rejection that was applied.
With regard to the arguments that Sumi fails to disclose “"the second fiber density being at least about 2.5% higher than the first fiber density" of claim 61.” Sumi does disclose the fiber density of the inner core is stated in paragraph 47, “[t]o increase the density of the core 11 of the mineral wool batt 21, preferably to a density in the range 30 to 120 kg/m3 or in the range 30 to 160 kg/m3.” As such, the limitation is covered and remains rejected.
With regard to the arguments that “Sumi and Groot rely on fundamentally incompatible materials and manufacturing processes.” First, the materials (e.g. rockwool) are not being combined only the manufacturing process, the needling does not need to be applied to the final product the mineral wool that would be counter intuitive, the needling would occur prior to the layering/superimposing and final shaping process thus the results are indeed expected and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Groot also discloses a looser core system since the fibers are vertical as such the logic used in the arguments that the looser mineral wool core will inherently fail as alleged by applicant does not hold merit.
With regard to the arguments that the combination of Sumi and Groot fail to disclose “"wherein a densified fiber of the outer crust has a pore structure arranged to form substantially lateral liquid pathways" of claim 63.” As stated prior, the wool will still form pathways in every direction and water will drain laterally along the fibers and pores until dry.
With regard to the arguments that Sumi does not disclose a cube shape. The examiner points to the case law utilized with the rejection to cover the shape limitation.
With regard to the arguments that the combination of Sumi and Groot fail to disclose “"wherein a ratio of the first fiber density to the second fiber density is about 0.3-0.5" of claim 68 as neither reference discloses fibrous density of the inner layer.” Sumi does indeed fairly render obvious the fiber density ratio, since the teaching discloses multiple combinations of fiber density ratios equating to a density ratio of 0.3-0.5 and case law has been utilized to even further denote that such a ratio of the fiber densities is indeed obvious.
With regard to the arguments that the combination of Sumi and Groot fail to disclose “"wherein a densified fiber of the outer crust includes smaller pores on average than the inner portion" of claim 69.” The claim term of the outer crust has been rendered obvious by the needling process where the needles will act under compression to entangle fibers creating a tougher, denser, more rigid, and less porous (based on the tightening of the fibers) outer crust. There is not distinct claim language that separates the outer crust as claimed from the teachings of Sumi and as such the claim stands rejected.
With regard to the arguments that “Sumi, Groot, and Ahilan do not disclose, teach, or suggest "an outer crust portion" of claim 61.” There is not distinct claim language that separates the outer crust as claimed from the teachings of Sumi and as such the claim stands rejected.
With regard to the arguments that the combination of Sumi, Groot, and Ahilan fail to disclose “"an outer crust portion comprising a second fiber density, the second fiber density being at least about 2.5% higher than the first fiber density" of claim 61.” Sumi does disclose the fiber density of the inner core is stated in paragraph 47, “[t]o increase the density of the core 11 of the mineral wool batt 21, preferably to a density in the range 30 to 120 kg/m3 or in the range 30 to 160 kg/m3.” As such, the limitation is covered and remains rejected.
With regard to the argument that “Sumi does not disclose fiber density of the inner portion. Ahilan and Groot do not disclose slabs having different density within a single layer.” Sumi does disclose a core fiber density, see paragraph 47. Ahilan and Groot are not utilized to cover the limitation as such the argument is moot.
With regard to the argument that there is “there is no motivation to combine the references [Sumi, Groot, & Ahlian]. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the manufacturing processes are being combined which is well within the skill of one ordinary in the art as described above in earlier rebuttals, not the materials as referenced by applicant.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 100'. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 53 & 79 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim is written in list form however, it does not have proper grammatical structure.
For example: An apparatus comprising: A, B, and C.
Claim 79 is objected to because of the following informalities:
An article is missing from the claim phrase “are made from same material(s)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 79-88 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 79 recites the limitation "the inner portion and the outer crust are made from same material(s)" in the final line of the claim. Which renders the claim indefinite because, it is not clear whether applicant is stating that all materials within the portions are the same or if there must be at least one same material. Claims 78-89 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 53, 56, 79, & 87-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sumi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0130410 A1, herein Sumi.
Re claim 53, Sumi discloses a hydroponic substrate comprising:
a three-dimensional self-supporting (fig. 2 and para 54, the wool bat is a 3D shape), vertically stable (again see fig. 2 and para 54) fibrous body (abstract, via the wool fibers) comprising
an inner portion (11; the absorbent layer/core, fig. 1-2 & 5-7) having a first fiber density (para 40, the core has a first fiber density lower than the barrier layers) and
an outer crust portion (13 & 14; the upper and lower barrier layers, fig. 2 & 5-7) comprising densified fiber (para 51-53, via the needling operation the barrier layers are subsequently densified) having a second fiber density (para 40, the barrier layers have a greater density compared to the core),
the second fiber density being different than the first fiber density (again see para 40),
the inner portion and the outer crust portion forming horizontal and vertical liquid pathways structured to distribute liquid throughout the body (fig. 2 & 5-7, via the fibers positioning the wool will wick the liquid in an infinite number of directions in both the vertical and horizontal).
Re claim 56, Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Sumi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate includes fertilizers (para 27, wherein the wool bat contains fertilizers).
Re claim 79, as best understood, Sumi discloses a hydroponic substrate comprising:
a three-dimensional self-supporting (fig. 2 and para 54, the wool bat is a 3D shape), vertically stable (again see fig. 2 and para 54) fibrous body (abstract, via the wool fibers) comprising
an inner portion (11; the absorbent layer/core, fig. 1-2 & 5-7) having a first fiber density (para 40, the core has a first fiber density lower than the barrier layers) and
an outer crust portion (13 & 14; the upper and lower barrier layers, fig. 2 & 5-7) comprising densified fiber (para 51-53, via the needling operation the barrier layers are subsequently densified) having a second fiber density (para 40, the barrier layers have a greater density compared to the core), the second fiber density being different than the first fiber density (again see para 40),
the inner portion and the outer crust portion forming horizontal and vertical liquid pathways structured to distribute liquid throughout the body (fig. 2 & 5-7, via the fibers positioning the wool will wick the liquid in an infinite number of directions in both the vertical and horizontal),
and wherein the inner portion and the outer crust are made from a same material (para 39-40, the mineral wool fibers are present within both the core and barrier layers).
Re claim 87, as best understood, Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Sumi further discloses wherein the inner portion and the outer crust have a same chemical composition (para 39-40, the mineral wool is present within both the core and barrier layers, both fibers having the same material make-up).
Re claim 88, as best understood, Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Sumi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate includes fertilizers (para 27, wherein the wool bat contains fertilizers).
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.
Claim 53, 56-60, 79-85 & 87-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahilan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0383282 A1, herein Ahi as supported by the disclosure and filling date of the provisional application in view of Sumi.
Re claim 53, Ahi discloses a hydroponic substrate comprising:
a three-dimensional self-supporting (para 43, the growing medium being compressed into bricks), vertically stable (again see para 43) fibrous body (para 5-6, the wood and coconut coir are fibrous components) comprising
a first fiber (para 33, the coconut coir) having a first density (para 33, the particle has a bulk density of 0.074 g/cm3) and
a second fiber (para 36, the wood fiber) having a second density (fig. 2, the wood fiber has a loose bulk density of 0.022 g/cm3 or a packed bulk density of 0.296 g/cm3),
the second fiber density being different than the first fiber density (see above),
the fibers forming horizontal and vertical liquid pathways structured to distribute liquid throughout the body (para 32 & 49, the wood fibers and the coconut coir optimize the air porosity in a plurality of directions denoted by the optimal water retention and drainage via the material properties of the medium).
Ahi fails to disclose an inner portion having a first fiber density and an outer crust portion comprising densified fiber having a second fiber density. However, Sumi discloses a hydroponic substrate comprising
an inner portion (11; the absorbent layer/core, fig. 1-2 & 5-7) having a first fiber density (para 40, the core has a first fiber density lower than the barrier layers) and
an outer crust portion (13 & 14; the upper and lower barrier layers, fig. 2 & 5-7) comprising densified fiber (para 51-53, via the needling operation the barrier layers are subsequently densified) having a second fiber density (para 40, the barrier layers have a greater density compared to the core),
the second fiber density being different than the first fiber density (again see para 40),
the inner portion and the outer crust portion forming horizontal and vertical liquid pathways structured to distribute liquid throughout the body (fig. 2 & 5-7, via the fibers positioning the wool will wick the liquid in an infinite number of directions in both the vertical and horizontal).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose an inner portion having a first fiber density and an outer crust portion comprising densified fiber having a second fiber density however, Sumi discloses a method of utilizing needling to create barrier layers/a crust. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the needling method taught by Sumi to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by creating denser barrier layers to prevent seed or growth medium fallout. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 56, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Ahi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate includes wood (para 6), bark (para 6, the wood fiber may include bark), coir (para 5, the coconut coir), and a combination thereof (para 49, the invention is a growing medium comprising a combination of wood and coconut coir fibers).
Re claim 57, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Sumi further discloses wherein a ratio of the first fiber density to the second fiber density is 30-160:50-140 (para 47 & 50).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a fiber density ratio between 0.3 & 0.5 such that the core is maintained between both barrier layers, since it has been held that that where a claimed range is either overlapping or lying within the range disclosed within the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exits. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Re claim 58, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Ahi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate is rewettable while being free of a surfactant (para 5-6 & 48-49, both wood and coconut coir are wettable).
Re claim 59, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Sumi further discloses wherein the outer crust has a smaller average pore size than an average pore size of the inner portion (para 42, via the compression set forth to the barrier layers, the fibers are more densely packed therefore there are smaller gaps/pores).
Re claim 60, Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Ahi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate includes coir and wood fiber in a weight ratio of 90:10 to 10:90 wt. %, based on the total weight of the substrate (para 48).
Claims 57 & 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi.
Re claim 57, Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Sumi further discloses wherein a ratio of the first fiber density to the second fiber density is 30-160:50-140 (para 47 & 50).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a fiber density ratio between 0.3 & 0.5 such that the core is maintained between both barrier layers, since it has been held that that where a claimed range is either overlapping or lying within the range disclosed within the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exits. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Re claim 59, Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Sumi further discloses wherein the outer crust has a smaller average pore size than an average pore size of the inner portion (para 42, via the compression set forth to the barrier layers, the fibers are more densely packed therefore there are smaller gaps/pores).
Re claim 79, as best understood, Ahi discloses a hydroponic substrate comprising:
a three-dimensional self-supporting (para 43, the growing medium being compressed into bricks), vertically stable (again see para 43) fibrous body (para 5-6, the wood and coconut coir are fibrous components) comprising
a first fiber (para 33, the coconut coir) having a first density (para 33, the particle has a bulk density of 0.074 g/cm3) and
a second fiber (para 36, the wood fiber) having a second density (fig. 2, the wood fiber has a loose bulk density of 0.022 g/cm3 or a packed bulk density of 0.296 g/cm3),
the second fiber density being different than the first fiber density (see above),
the fibers forming horizontal and vertical liquid pathways structured to distribute liquid throughout the body (para 32 & 49, the wood fibers and the coconut coir optimize the air porosity in a plurality of directions denoted by the optimal water retention and drainage via the material properties of the medium), and
an inner portion and outer crust made from the same materials (para 43, the mixture is uniform so the inner portions of the brick will be the same material as the exterior surfaces or crust).
Ahi fails to disclose an inner portion having a first fiber density and an outer crust portion comprising densified fiber having a second fiber density. However, Sumi discloses a hydroponic substrate comprising
an inner portion (11; the absorbent layer/core, fig. 1-2 & 5-7) having a first fiber density (para 40, the core has a first fiber density lower than the barrier layers) and
an outer crust portion (13 & 14; the upper and lower barrier layers, fig. 2 & 5-7) comprising densified fiber (para 51-53, via the needling operation the barrier layers are subsequently densified) having a second fiber density (para 40, the barrier layers have a greater density compared to the core),
the second fiber density being different than the first fiber density (again see para 40),
the inner portion and the outer crust portion forming horizontal and vertical liquid pathways structured to distribute liquid throughout the body (fig. 2 & 5-7, via the fibers positioning the wool will wick the liquid in an infinite number of directions in both the vertical and horizontal).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose an inner portion having a first fiber density and an outer crust portion comprising densified fiber having a second fiber density however, Sumi discloses a method of utilizing needling to create barrier layers/a crust. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the needling method taught by Sumi to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by creating denser upper and lower barrier layers to prevent seed or growth medium fallout. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 80, as best understood, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Ahi further discloses wherein the same material(s) include wood fiber (para 6), coco coir (para 5, the coconut coir), and both (para 49, the invention is a growing medium comprising a combination of wood and coconut coir fibers).
Re claim 81, as best understood, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Ahi further discloses wherein the same materials include a same type of organic material (para 5-6, the wood and coconut coir are organic materials).
Re claim 82, as best understood, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Sumi further discloses wherein a ratio of the first fiber density to the second fiber density is 30-160:50-140 (para 47 & 50).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a fiber density ratio between 0.3 & 0.5 such that the core is maintained between both barrier layers, since it has been held that that where a claimed range is either overlapping or lying within the range disclosed within the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exits. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Re claim 83, as best understood, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Ahi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate is rewettable while being free of a surfactant (para 5-6 & 48-49, both wood and coconut coir are wettable).
Re claim 84, as best understood, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Sumi further discloses wherein the outer crust has a smaller average pore size than an average pore size of the inner portion (para 42, via the compression set forth to the barrier layers, the fibers are more densely packed therefore there are smaller gaps/pores).
Re claim 85, as best understood, Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Ahi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate includes coir and wood fiber in a weight ratio of 90:10 to 10:90 wt. %, based on the total weight of the substrate (para 48).
Re claim 87, as best understood, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Ahi further discloses wherein the inner portion and the outer crust have a same chemical composition (para 5-6, the wood and coconut coir of the barrier layers and core have identical chemical composition, only the fiber density will vary).
Re claim 88, as best understood, the combination of Ahi and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 53, Ahi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate includes wood (para 6), bark (para 6, the wood fiber may include bark), coir (para 5, the coconut coir), and a combination thereof (para 49, the invention is a growing medium comprising a combination of wood and coconut coir fibers).
Claims 61, 63-65, & 67-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi in view of De Groot et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,992,093 A, herein Groot.
Re claim 61, Sumi discloses a hydroponic substrate comprising:
a rewettable (abstract, wool is a rewettable material) three-dimensional self-supporting (fig. 2 and para 54, the wool bat is a 3D shape) fibrous structure (abstract, via the wool fibers) including two or more compressed layers (11, 13, & 14; the core and upper and lower barrier layers, fig. 2 & 5-7) disposed in a vertically stacked arrangement (fig. 2 & 5-7), comprising:
an inner portion (11; the absorbent layer/core, fig. 1-2 & 5-7) having a first fiber density (para 40, the core has a first fiber density lower than the barrier layers), and
an outer crust portion (13 & 14; the upper and lower barrier layers, fig. 2 & 5-7) comprising a second fiber density (para 40, the barrier layers have a greater density compared to the core),
the second fiber density being at least about 2.5% higher than the first fiber density (para 47 & 50, for example at the barrier layers minimum density and the core layers minimum density 50>37.5 kg/m3).
Sumi fails to disclose a plurality of said hydroponic substrates in said vertical arrangement. However, Groot discloses a vertical arrangement of a plurality of hydroponic growth mediums (fig. 2-3 and col 3; 62-63, the two growth substrates are superimposed).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a plurality of said hydroponic substrates in said vertical arrangement however, Groot discloses vertically superimposing growth substrates. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of superimposing the growing suberates taught by Groot to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by creating a space for roots to develop. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 63, the combination of Sumi and Groot discloses the invention of claim 61, Sumi further discloses wherein a densified fiber of the outer crust (para 51-53, via the needling operation the barrier layers are subsequently densified) has a pore structure arranged to form substantially lateral liquid pathways (fig. 7, the layers will have fibers moving in the lateral direction allowing for passage of water there through).
Re claim 64, the combination of Sumi and Groot discloses the invention of claim 61, Sumi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate is free of an added binder (para 7, wherein there is no binder present).
Re claim 65, the combination of Sumi and Groot discloses the invention of claim 61, Sumi further discloses wherein the two or more compressed layers have independently different properties (again see para 40, the density).
Re claim 67, the combination of Sumi and Groot discloses the invention of claim 61, Sumi further discloses wherein the two or more compressed layers have generally the same dimensions (fig. 2 & 5-7 and para 45, the blocks).
The combination of Sumi and Groot discloses the claimed invention except for forming a grow cube however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the block into a square to conserve the amount of growth medium in each unit, since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in shape of a component which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Re claim 68, The combination of Sumi and Groot discloses the invention of claim 61, Sumi further discloses wherein a ratio of the first fiber density to the second fiber density is 30-160:50-140 (para 47 & 50).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a fiber density ratio between 0.3 & 0.5 such that the core is maintained between both barrier layers, since it has been held that that where a claimed range is either overlapping or lying within the range disclosed within the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exits. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Re claim 69, as best understood, the combination of Sumi and Groot discloses the invention of claim 61, Sumi further discloses wherein a densified fiber of the outer crust (para 51-53, via the needling operation the barrier layers are subsequently densified) has a smaller average pore size than an average pore size of the inner portion (para 42, via the compression set forth to the barrier layers, the fibers are more densely packed therefore there are smaller gaps/pores).
Re claim 70, the combination of Sumi and Groot discloses the invention of claim 61, Sumi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate includes fertilizers (para 27, wherein the wool bat contains fertilizers).
Claims 61, 66, & 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahi in view of Groot and Sumi.
Re claim 61, Ahi discloses a hydroponic substrate comprising:
a rewettable (para 5-6, wood and coconut coir are rewettable) three-dimensional (para 43, the growing medium being compressed into bricks) self-supporting fibrous structure (para 5-6, the wood and coconut coir are fibrous components) in a vertical arrangement (again see para 43), comprising:
a first fiber (para 33, the coconut coir) having a first density (para 33, the particle has a bulk density of 0.074 g/cm3) and
a second fiber (para 36, the wood fiber) having a second density (fig. 2, the wood fiber has a packed bulk density of 0.296 g/cm3, ), the second fiber density being at least about 2.5% higher than the first fiber density (0.296 > 0.093).
Ahi fails to disclose two or more compressed layers disposed in a vertically stacked arrangement, each layer comprising: an inner portion having a first fiber density, and an outer crust portion comprising a second fiber density, the second fiber density being at least about 2.5% higher than the first fiber density. However, discloses a vertical arrangement of a plurality of hydroponic growth mediums (fig. 2-3 and col 3; 62-63, the two growth substrates are superimposed).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a plurality of said hydroponic substrates in said vertical arrangement however, Groot discloses vertically superimposing growth substrates. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of superimposing the growing suberates taught by Groot to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by creating a space for roots to develop. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Ahi and Groot fails to disclose each layer comprising: an inner portion having a first fiber density, and an outer crust portion comprising a second fiber density, the second fiber density being at least about 2.5% higher than the first fiber density. However, Sumi discloses an inner portion (11; the absorbent layer/core, fig. 1-2 & 5-7) having a first fiber density (para 40, the core has a first fiber density lower than the barrier layers) and an outer crust portion (13 & 14; the upper and lower barrier layers, fig. 2 & 5-7) comprising a second fiber density (para 40, the barrier layers have a greater density compared to the core), the second fiber density being at least about 2.5% higher than the first fiber density (para 47 & 50, at its minimum 59 > 37.5).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose each layer comprising: an inner portion having a first fiber density, and an outer crust portion comprising a second fiber density, the second fiber density being at least about 2.5% higher than the first fiber density however, Sumi discloses a method of utilizing needling to create barrier layers/a crust. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the needling method taught by Sumi to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by creating denser barrier layers to prevent seed or growth medium fallout. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 66, the combination of Ahu, Groot and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 61, Ahi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate comprises wood fiber (para 6), coir fiber(para 5, the coconut coir), and a combination thereof (para 49, the invention is a growing medium comprising a combination of wood and coconut coir fibers).
Re claim 70, the combination of Ahu, Groot and Sumi discloses the invention of claim 61, Ahi further discloses wherein the hydroponic substrate comprises wood fiber (para 6), coir fiber(para 5, the coconut coir), and a combination thereof (para 49, the invention is a growing medium comprising a combination of wood and coconut coir fibers).
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi in view of Groot as applied to claim 61 above, in further view of Melvold, U.S. Patent No. 3,375,607 A, herein Mel.
Re claim 62, the combination of Sumi and Groot disclose the invention of claim 61, the combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hydroponic substrate is hydratable and structured to have vertical stability after hydration. However, Mel discloses a hydroponic substrate that is hydratable and structured to have vertical stability after hydration (fig. 1 & 4 and col 2; 15-29, the mesh retains the shape of the compressed medium even during expansion/watering periods).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the hydroponic substrate is hydratable and structured to have vertical stability after hydration however, Mel discloses such a method of utilizing a mesh structure to retain the shape of a growth medium. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the mesh barrier taught by Mel to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the growing medium to retain its structural integrity. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 82 & 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumi as applied to claim 79 above.
Re claim 82, as best understood, Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Sumi further discloses wherein a ratio of the first fiber density to the second fiber density is 30-160:50-140 (para 47 & 50).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a fiber density ratio between 0.3 & 0.5 such that the core is maintained between both barrier layers, since it has been held that that where a claimed range is either overlapping or lying within the range disclosed within the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exits. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Re claim 84, as best understood, Sumi discloses the invention of claim 79, Sumi further discloses wherein the outer crust has a smaller average pore size than an average pore size of the inner portion (para 42, via the compression set forth to the barrier layers, the fibers are more densely packed therefore there are smaller gaps/pores).
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahi in view of Sumi as applied to claim 79 above, in further view of Mel.
Re claim 62, the combination of Ahi and Sumi disclose the invention of claim 61, the combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hydroponic substrate is hydratable and structured to have vertical stability after hydration. However, Mel discloses a hydroponic substrate that is hydratable and structured to have vertical stability after hydration (fig. 1 & 4 and col 2; 15-29, the mesh retains the shape of the compressed medium even during expansion/watering periods).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the hydroponic substrate is hydratable and structured to have vertical stability after hydration however, Mel discloses such a method of utilizing a mesh structure to retain the shape of a growth medium. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the mesh barrier taught by Mel to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the growing medium to retain its structural integrity. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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 J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642