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 § 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, 13, 50, 51, 53 and 55 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).
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.
For claim 50, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 5, 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 wherein a selectable parameter of each body in the plurality of first bodies is different from a corresponding selectable parameter of each body in the plurality of second bodies and the selectable parameter is at least one of structure, size ([0022]), shape ([0022]), material composition, void ratio, porosity, pore size ([0022]), pore position, number of pores, hardness, compressibility, rigidity, bulk density ([0022]), fluid retention, fluid percolation, pathogen resistance, permeability, surface chemistry, material bulk properties, or wettability.
For claim 51, 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.”), the plurality of bodies (Fig. 4: 50) comprising 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) combined in a ratio of the first bodies to the second bodies (as shown in the system 55 in Fig. 5), wherein the ratio is such that the network of bodies has a network porosity in a 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”).
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 53, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 50, wherein the ratio is such that the network of bodies has a network porosity in a 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 55, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 51, wherein a selectable parameter of each body in the plurality of first bodies is different from a corresponding selectable parameter of each body in the plurality of second bodies and the selectable parameter is at least one of structure, size ([0022]), shape ([0022]), material composition, void ratio, porosity, pore size ([0022]), pore position, number of pores, hardness, compressibility, rigidity, bulk density ([0022]), fluid retention, fluid percolation, pathogen resistance, permeability, surface chemistry, material bulk properties, or wettability.
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, injection molding, extrusion, and casting. 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, injection molding ([0058]), extrusion, and casting. 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.
Claims 17, 48, 49 and 52 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 Qi et al. (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. 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)”. 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.
For claims 48, 49 and 52, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 17 substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein each body in the plurality of bodies comprises at least one of a biodegradable material or a recyclable material. 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 comprises at least one of a biodegradable material or a recyclable material; the biodegradable material being 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 biodegradable material as taught by Qi et al. for the advantage of gradually breaking down the medium to deteriorate into the environment of the plant organism.
Claim 54 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 Mankiewicz (WO 2014143716 A1).
For claim 54, Ramsey et al. discloses the growing medium of claim 8 substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the surface property modification comprises a gel coating on the one or more bodies. Mankiewicz teaches a growing medium comprising: a plurality of bodies (Fig. 1: 14), 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 a gel coating ([0022] and [0043]: 16) on the one or more bodies. 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 gel coating as taught by Mankiewicz for the advantage of allowing water to adhere to the plurality of bodies by providing a hydrophilic surface (Mankiewicz [0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Ramsey discusses hardness only qualitatively…The Examiner does not identify a deficiency in Ramsey that would have prompted selection of Shore D testing or the threshold of at least 5. Further, the stated rationale concerns maintaining the structural integrity of "the at least one body" having the pore, but does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified each body in Ramsey's plurality to have the claimed Shore D hardness value.”
The claim recites “having a Shore D hardness value of at least 5”. On the Shore D scale, a material having a value of 5 is very soft, essentially defining a sponge rubber, whereas a material having a value of 30 could be a hard rubber, and a material having a value of 60 could be a rigid plastic. (Shore Hardness Chart | Shore A to D Conversion | EPS). Applicant’s range of hardness values fails to provide criticality for the type of material that would perform as intended, such that the growing medium with a Shore hardness value of at least 5 could be flexible or resistant to deformation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a specific Shore D hardness value based on the user’s desire for the growing medium to perform reliably under stress and wear conditions for a plant organism to withstand the flow of fluid and passage of roots through the at least one pore without collapsing.
Applicant argues “Claim 2 requires the network of bodies to have a network porosity in a range of about 20% to about 95%. The Examiner relies on Ramsey paragraph [0030], which describes crushing a foamed-glass article to produce foamed-glass media having an open porosity of about 80% to about 90%. Office Action, pages 4 to 5. That passage describes the open porosity of the foamed-glass material or media, rather than the porosity of the network formed by the plurality of bodies. Ramsey paragraph [0030] does not account for the inter- body voids produced when the bodies are arranged to form the network or otherwise identify a network-level porosity. Accordingly, Ramsey's open porosity has not been shown to satisfy the claimed network porosity.”
Applicant’s claim 2 also relies on alternative requirements in the claim, such that the reference to Ramsey discloses the claimed limitation “wherein the at least one pore is a recess in a first side of the at least one body” as shown in Figs. 4-5 and discussed in [0040]: “interconnected open pores 15”). Secondly, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a network porosity) has been argued with a narrow interpretation. The examiner has broadly interpreted the claim limitation since the claim fails to specify what the network porosity is, and whether this defines the spacing between each body, the spacing between the pores of each body, or pore volume/capacity.
Applicant argues with regard to claim 9 “Kramer instead describes additives incorporated into resin, where metal ions weaken the polymer chain and encourage microorganism growth within the molecular structure of the polymeric resin. Kramer, paragraphs [0058] and [0059]. Ramsey's substrate is sintered and fused foamed glass, rather than polymeric resin. Ramsey, paragraphs [0020] and [0021]. The stated biodegradation advantage therefore does not explain why the proposed modification would have been made to Ramsey.” and with regard to claim 12 “Kramer describes the material as plastic resin. Kramer, paragraph [0058]. The Examiner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would replace Ramsey's glass composition and foaming process with Kramer's materially different polymer-resin process, or how doing so would preserve Ramsey's porous foamed-glass bodies.”
References to Ramsey and Kramer et al. both disclose a growing medium comprising glass (Ramsey in the abstract and Kramer et al. [0041]). In the same field of endeavor of proving a growing medium, Kramer et al. provides the advantage of a surface property modification to encourage controlled biodegradation of the growing medium ([0057] and [0058]).
Applicant argues “Qi's block comprises 60% peat, 20% perlite, 8% vermiculite, and 12% hot-melt solidified fibres, with the fibre itself having a polyethylene terephthalate core and an ethylene-glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate skin. Qi, Comparative Example 1. The relied-upon value is therefore a property of a constituent of the fibre, not the melting temperature of the block… Qi uses hot-melt fibres to bind loose peat, perlite, and vermiculite particles into a block. Qi, Comparative Example 1. Ramsey already provides a sintered and fused foamed-glass solid. Ramsey, paragraph [0021]. The Examiner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would apply Qi's fibre-binding technique to Ramsey.”
References to Ramsey and Qi both disclose a growing medium comprising glass (Ramsey in the abstract and Qi such that perlite is a naturally occurring mineral in the form of porous volcanic glass). The section of Qi that the examiner explicitly referenced “(as discussed in the translated description: “Comparative Example 1”)” discusses “fully and uniformly mixing the raw materials;…heating the raw material to 140 degrees centigrade; wherein the hot melt curing fibre is melted”, as required by claim 17.
For these reasons, the examiner maintains the rejections above, and the office action is made Final.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 56 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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
/PETER M POON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights