Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20, 21, 25, 26, 30, 33, 36, 38, 39, 42 and 46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11-13 and 17 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024 and 8/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 5 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, line 4, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one desired growth condition" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the corresponding selectable parameter" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, lines 2 and 4, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 2, 5, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0034653 A1).
For claim 1, Ramsey et al. discloses a growing medium for a plant organism comprising: a plurality of bodies (Fig. 4: 50) forming a network of bodies (the system 55 as shown in Figs. 5-8 and discussed in [0041]: “The pellets 50 contribute by picking up, holding, and slowly releasing water, as well as by providing a network of `anchors` for the roots 35 to extend into and through.”), wherein at least one body in the plurality of bodies has at least one pore (Fig. 4: 51) for receiving a fluid ([0023] “The foamed glass substrate 10 can typically hold between about 1.5 and about 5 times its own weight in water in the plurality of interconnected pores.”).
Ramsey et al. discusses the growing medium having a desired hardness ([0021]), but fails to explicitly disclose each body in the plurality of bodies having a Shore D hardness value of at least 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the growing medium of Ramsey et al. to include a Shore D hardness value of at least 5, for the advantage of maintaining the structural integrity of the at least one body to withstand the flow of fluid and passage of roots through the at least one pore without collapsing.
For claim 2, Ramsey et al. disclose the growing medium of claim 1, wherein the at least one pore (Fig. 4: 51) extends from a first side of the at least one body to a second side of the at least one body such that liquid is passable from the first side to the second side, and/or wherein the at least one pore is a recess in a first side of the at least one body (as shown in Figs. 4 and 5), and/or wherein the network of bodies has a network porosity in the range of about 20% to about 95% ([0030]: “The resulting foamed glass article is then crushed to produce foamed glass media with an open porosity of between about 80 and 90 percent”).
For claim 5, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 1, wherein the plurality of bodies (Fig. 4: 50) comprises a plurality of first bodies (Figs. 5 and 6 and [0042]: “Typically, the bed 71 is prepared in the form of bags of media 50 containing a substantially constant, predetermined volume (such as, for example, 15 liters) of media 50.” where one bag of media defines a plurality of first bodies) and a plurality of second bodies (a second bag of media 50 defines a plurality of second bodies), wherein the plurality of first bodies and the plurality of second bodies are combinable to form the network of bodies (as shown in the system 55 in Fig. 5), optionally i) wherein the plurality of first bodies and the plurality of second bodies are combinable in a ratio such that the combination of the first bodies and the second bodies at the ratio forms the network having the at least one desired growth condition ([0021]: Ramsey et al. discusses producing the at least one body “having a desired density, pore size and hardness”; [0028] discusses producing the at least one body tailored for desired acidic and alkaline solution compatibility, and adsorption properties; and [0022] discusses producing the at least one body having desired pore structure, bulk density, and [0039]: desired shape. Thus, the plurality of first bodies and the plurality of second bodies are combinable in different ratios based on at least one desired growth condition.), and/or ii) wherein a selectable parameter of each body in the plurality of first bodies is different from the corresponding selectable parameter of each body in the plurality of second bodies and the selectable parameter is at least one of structure, size, shape, material composition, void ratio, porosity, pore size, pore position, number of pores, hardness, compressibility, rigidity, bulk density, fluid retention, fluid percolation, pathogen resistance, permeability, surface chemistry, material bulk properties, or wettability.
For claim 8, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 1, wherein one or more bodies in the plurality of bodies (Fig. 4: 50) is modified to alter a surface property of the one or more bodies ([0019]: “an agent is typically added to amend the surface properties to make the foamed glass more hydrophilic”).
For claim 13, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 1, wherein the at least one pore is at least one of a macro intra-body pore and a micro intra-body pore, and/or wherein the network of bodies has a plurality of inter-body pores, and/or wherein at least one body in the plurality of bodies (Fig. 4: 50) has a polyhedral shape ([0023]: “The substrate 10 is typically either formed as either crushed pebbles 50 (typically sized to be less than 1 inch in diameter) or machined polyhedral shape (see FIG. 4).”) and/or is round.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0034653 A1) in view of Kramer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0095555 A1).
For claim 9, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 8 substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the surface property modification comprises at least one of amino acids, polypeptides, sugars, collagen, organic molecules, alkali earth metals, transition metals, polyatomics, or alkanes. Kramer et al. teaches a growth medium comprising: a plurality of bodies (100), wherein one or more bodies in the plurality of bodies is modified to alter a surface property of the one or more bodies, and wherein the surface property modification comprises at least one of amino acids, polypeptides, sugars, collagen, organic molecules, alkali earth metals, transition metals, polyatomics, or alkanes ([0058]: “The additive(s) act as prodegradant catalysts and may include one or more transition metals (or a metallic salt thereof) such as cobalt (Co), magnesium (Mg), or manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), or nickel (Ni).”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the growing medium of Ramsey et al. to include transition metals as taught by Kramer et al. for the advantage of providing surface property modification to encourage controlled biodegradation of the growing medium.
For claim 12, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 1 substantially as claimed, including molding used for forming the growing medium ([0024]), but fail to show wherein the plurality of bodies is formed by at least one of additive manufacturing and injection molding. Kramer et al. teaches a growth medium comprising: a plurality of bodies (100), wherein the plurality of bodies is formed by at least one of additive manufacturing and injection molding ([0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the growing medium of Ramsey et al. to form the plurality of bodies by injection molding as taught by Kramer et al. for the advantage of providing a cost-effective moldable material.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0034653 A1) in view of Akatsuka (WO 2018/151117 A1).
For claim 11, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 8 substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the surface property modification is at least one of a surface air plasma treatment or alkali treatment. Akatsuka teaches a growing medium comprising: one or more body (Fig. 2: 3), wherein the one or more body is modified to alter a surface property of the one or more body, and wherein the surface property modification is at least one of a surface air plasma treatment or alkali treatment (as discussed in the translated description “Furthermore, the acid-treated glass may be washed with at least one alkali solution and hot water. This washing treatment is performed for the purpose of dissolving and removing the residue generated by the acid treatment. At that time, the silicon oxide may be removed by hydrolysis or the like, and the porous formation may be promoted, and it can be used for adjusting the degree of the porous formation. In particular, the alkaline solution is effective for adjusting the degree of porosity”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the growing medium of Ramsey et al. to include alkali treatment as taught by Akatsuka for the advantage of adjusting the degree of porosity of the growing medium.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0034653 A1) in view of Qi et al. (WO CN 112273191 A).
For claim 17, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 1 substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein each body in the plurality of bodies has a melting temperature of at least 100°C, optionally each body in the plurality of bodies comprises at least one of a biodegradable material or a recyclable material, optionally the biodegradable material is at least one of thermoplastic starch- based plastic (TPS), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), or polycaprolactone (PCL). Qi et al. teaches a growing medium (as discussed in the translated description: “Comparative Example 1”) comprising: at least one body (as discussed in the translated description: “seedling substrate block 3”), wherein each body in the plurality of bodies has a melting temperature of at least 100°C (as discussed in the translated description: “(melting temperature is 250 degrees centigrade -255 degrees centigrade)”), optionally each body in the plurality of bodies comprises at least one of a biodegradable material or a recyclable material, optionally the biodegradable material is at least one of thermoplastic starch- based plastic (TPS), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), or polycaprolactone (PCL) (as discussed in the translated description: “As a preference, the raw material particles further comprises water retention agent, the water retention agent is selected from polyacrylamide, polyacrylate, polyacrylate, starch graft acrylic acid salt polymer in the one kind of or mixture of several kinds. the water retention agent is selected from polyacrylamide, polyacrylate, polyacrylate, starch graft acrylic acid salt polymer in the one kind of or mixture of several kinds.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the growing medium of Ramsey et al. to include a melting temperature of at least 100°C as taught by Qi et al. for the advantage of forming a solidified, yet permeable, uniform structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ramsey et al. (U.S. 2007/0186467 A1) shows a foamed glass plant growth support structure having a porosity of at least 80%; Tietema et al. (CN 113163723 A) shows a biodegradable foam matrix having a plurality of pores and porosity at least 76%; and Wu et al. (CN 107353389 B) shows a high perforated bio-hard polyurethane foam having a porosity at 70%-90%.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM.
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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643