DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergeldt (US 20230380359 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Vergeldt discloses a method for growing leaf vegetables and/or herbs and/or potato plants (abstract), comprising the steps of: providing a growth substrate (442); providing one or more leaf vegetable seeds and/or herb seeds and/or potato plant seeds and/or leaf vegetable plants and/or herb plants and/or potato plants to a growth substrate (para 54); providing growth media (water 443) to the one or more leaf vegetable seeds and/or herb seeds and/or potato plant seeds and/or leaf vegetable plants and/or herb plants and/or potato plants, wherein the growth media at least comprises a liquid (water 443); and providing iron to the growth media (para 42 discloses providing iron to the system).
Vergeldt fails to teach ferrate.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as substitution of functional equivalent to substitute iron to ferrate (VI) since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). Providing nutrients and elements into the growth medium of plants are known by those in the art to provide beneficial effects such as optimizing growth and cleaning the growth medium to prevent disease, therefore such substitution would achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 2: Vergeldt as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the growth media comprise one or more selected from the group of water, fertilizer, nutrients, stabilizers (water 443, and fertilizer provided described in para 42).
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Vergeldt as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the quantity of ferrate is in the range of 0.01 cc m-3 liquid to 1000 cc m-3 liquid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the quantity of ferrate to be within 0.01 cc m-3 liquid to 1000 cc m-3 liquid, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such an amount of ferrate would achieve the predictable result of providing the growth medium with a sufficient amount of nutrient to achieve the growth and conditions as desired.
Regarding claim 4: Vergeldt as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the leaf vegetable seeds and/or leaf vegetable plants is spinach (para 54 describes the plant grown to be spinach).
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 4 as shown above.
Vergeldt as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the step of providing growth media comprises the step of providing 0.7 to 1.3 litre of liquid to 1 kilogram of harvestable spinach. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide 0.7 to 1.3 litre of liquid to 1 kilogram of harvestable spinach since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Providing such a ratio of fluid per vegetable would be completed in order to provide the vegetable with a sufficient amount of nutrient while minimizing water loss, further optimizing the system.
Regarding claim 6: Vergeldt as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the step of providing ferrate (as modified above) to the growth media comprises the step of dissolving the ferrate in a solvent (para 42 describes providing the element into water which would naturally dissolve the element into the water).
Regarding claim 7: Vergeldt as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the ferrate is ferrate(VI) (as modified above).
Regarding claim 8: Vergeldt as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches measuring one or more selected from the group of temperature, pH, nutrient level, flow, and volume of the growth media (para 36).
Regarding claim 9: Vergeldt as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the pH of the growth media is in the range of 3 to 10 (para 38)
Regarding claim 10: Vergeldt as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the temperature of the growth media is in the range of 0 0C to 60 0C (para 39).
Regarding claim 11: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Vergeldt as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a nutrient level is in the range of 1 mM to 100 mM. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the range of the nutrient level, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such range would be done in order to provide the growth medium with a sufficient amount of nutrient so as to provide the plants with the desired benefits to be achieved by the nutrient.
Regarding claim 12: Vergeldt as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the growth substrate is part of an aqua based growth system (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13: Vergeldt as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the fertilizer comprises organomineral fertilizer comprising one or more elements selected from the group of boron, calcium, magnesium, manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, silicon, sodium, and sulphur (para 42).
Response to Arguments
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 02/04/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-13 based upon Vergeldt as set forth in the last Office action because the declaration is not currently directed to the claim language used in the method claims. Furthermore, Applicant should provide in the affidavit either experimental results or published data comparing the results when using iron as compared to ferrate.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks discussing the Declaration filed were not persuasive. As currently written, the Declaration does not support the claims. The Declaration should include data comparing iron to ferrate to show why such a change would produce unexpected results, and the claims should be revised so that the step of adding ferrate to the growth media has an intended purpose.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not substitute ferrate for iron because iron is not used in growth media. The Office respectfully disagrees, as Vergeldt in paragraph [0042] discusses the use of adding iron to the water, in which the water serves as the growth media, for the advantageous purpose of plant growth.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not substitute iron for ferrate because ferrate does not provide the nutrient value of iron. The Office respectfully disagrees, since ferrate is used to remove pollutant one of ordinary skill in the art may find it beneficial to include ferrate to keep the plant healthy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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 Huson can be reached at 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.
/E.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642