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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the thickness of the body transitioning gradually between a central portion and the opposing edge portions (claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Specifically, the examiner notes that it is not fully clear what the applicant considers the central portion/opposing edge portions in Fig 10A/10B, and it is not wholly clear where this gradual transitioning of thickness occurs, especially given the lack of associated description in the specification. The examiner requires that the applicant clearly point out or add into the drawings (via reference character/lead line) these claimed structures. The examiner suggests doing the same for the inner arcuate sidewall, outer sidewall, and intermediate sidewall segments for improved clarity. If the applicant is unable to provide a showing of this claim feature in the drawing of the species selected, the examiner will consider claim 14, as amended, as being directed to an unelected species (e.g. Fig 1E) and the claim will be withdrawn in future actions.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 1-3, 10-11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3 and 18: “discreet” should read –discrete--.
Claim 10, line 3: “discrete part having” should read –discrete part having:--
Claim 11: the examiner suggests changing “The plant growing medium of claim 10, wherein the grow plug is configured to support a plant seedling, the grow plug being disposed within the recess of the body, the grow plug and the body being made of fibrous material” to –The plant growing medium of claim 10, further comprising the grow plug; wherein the grow plug is disposed within the recess of the body, the grow plug is configured to support a plant seedling, and the grow plug and the body are made of fibrous material.—or similar to better emphasize the fact that the applicant is now positively claiming the grow plug in the body as part of the plant growing medium, not just the body capable of holding a grow plug.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hydrophilic body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inner arcuate portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the recess" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the outwardly projecting portions have a different shape and dimensions and define a variable, lobed perimeter of the discrete parts.” It is unclear what this limitation is requiring, particularly to what the outwardly projecting portions shape/dimensions is being compared to. Is the applicant requiring that each of the outwardly projecting portions has a different shape and different dimensions then the rest of the outwardly projecting portions, that the outwardly projecting portions have a different shape/dimension compared to the body or discrete parts, something else?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the intermediate sidewall segments" in the 5th line up from the bottom. Claim 10 only recites previously that each discrete part has one or more intermediate sidewall segments. By referring, in the same clause, to the intermediate sidewall segments (plural), it is unclear whether the applicant is now limiting the claim scope so that each discrete part comprise two or more intermediate sidewall segments (a plurality).
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 1-7, 10-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiersen (US 20210037724, as cited on previous 892) in view of Van Der Knapp (US 20170094896 A1 – its foreign equivalent, WO 2015183094, cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Reiersen and Van Der Knapp, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Reiersen discloses a plant growing medium comprising:
a self-supporting, semi-rigid body (¶0091) with two parts structured to cooperatively form the hydrophilic body (see annotated Fig 31 below), each part having:
an outer sidewall including a repeating pattern of integrally formed outwardly projecting perimeter portions collectively defining an external perimeter of the body (see annotated Fig 31 below), wherein each outwardly projecting perimeter portion:
extends outwardly from an upper portion of the body (see Figs 30-31),
wherein the at least two parts cooperatively form the body by aligning opposing edge portions of the discrete parts (see annotated Fig 31 below), the body structured to provide support to plant roots (¶0070).
PNG
media_image1.png
856
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
830
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The embodiment of Reiersen mapped above fails to specifically disclose that the parts are discrete parts which are structured to cooperatively form the body by aligning opposing edge portions, and that each outwardly projecting perimeter portion of each discrete part tapers inwardly toward the body in a direction from the top toward the bottom of the body and terminates at an endpoint positioned vertically above the bottom of the body.
However, Reiersen explicitly contemplates, in certain embodiments, splitting a wrap 312 in half into two discreet wrap segments which cooperatively form the body by aligning opposing edge portions of the discrete parts (¶0005; ¶0070; Figs 21-23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have split the body of the embodiment with protrusions in half, thereby forming two discrete parts which cooperatively form the body, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Reiersen, doing so allows for a gentler transplantation and cupping around the roots of the plant held in the central plug (¶0070). Further, The equivalence of a single part wrap and a multi-part wrap in their ability to support plant growth is known in the art, as evidenced by Reiersen (see Figs 2 and 21), and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Finally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
The examiner notes that division of the wrap into two halves would result in halves which would each include the claimed outer sidewall, pattern of integrally formed outwardly projecting perimeter portions, and opposing edge portions, as claimed – this can be seen visually in Figs 21 and 31).
Van Der Knapp discloses a plant growing medium comprising a body having outwardly projecting perimeter portions, wherein each outwardly projecting perimeter portion extends outwardly from an upper portion of the body, tapers inwardly toward the body in a direction from the top toward the bottom of the body, and terminates at an endpoint positioned vertically above the bottom of the body (see press sections 5a-5c, Fig 1).
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protrusions of Reiersen such that they were shaped as those in Van Der Knapp, tapering to an endpoint above the bottom of the body, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce material costs; to better fit a differently shaped or tapered container/tray; to better balance rooting space and container space with aeration for better space efficiency and optimal growth for a desired plant; or to provide a more structurally stable body, less prone to crumbling or breakage. Further, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
It is noted, for the record, that the applicant’s specification offers no criticality to the specific shape and dimensions of the projections claimed. Instead, the disclosure equally contemplates various shapes and dimensions, including shapes with rounded or sharp edges; shapes that taper and shapes that don’t; and shapes whose lowest tip is above the bottom of the part or plug, and shapes whose lowest tip is at the bottom of the part or plug. (¶0081-0082).
Regarding claim 2:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the at least two discreet parts are symmetrical (see Figs 21 and 31; ¶0095).
Regarding claim 3:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the at least two discrete parts include more than two parts (see Figs 30-31, each of the parts, when separated would include more than two parts – e.g. each projection could be considered a part of the discrete part; or a segment of the curved arc forming each part could be considered a part, a different segment being another part.)
Regarding claim 4:
Reiersen discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the outwardly projecting perimeter portions are integrally formed with the outer sidewall and are separated by uninterrupted intermediate sidewall segments (see annotated Fig 31 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
652
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein adjacent outwardly projecting perimeter portions are interconnected by intermediate sidewall segments to define a faceted external perimeter (see annotated Fig 31 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
652
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the body is hydrophilic (¶0091: “hydrophilic”).
Regarding claim 7:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein each of the at least two discrete parts includes one or more intermediate sidewall planar segments extending between the inner arcuate portion of the part and the outwardly projecting perimeter portions such that the intermediate sidewall segments define faceted transition regions between the recess and an external perimeter of the body (see annotated Fig 31 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
686
931
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10:
Reiersen discloses a plant growing medium comprising:
a self-supporting, semi-rigid body (¶0091) with at least two parts (see annotated Fig 31 below), each part having:
a top portion (see Figs 30-31 – top portion is that seen from above view in Fig 31);
a bottom portion (see Figs 30-31 – bottom is portion opposite top);
an inner arcuate sidewall defining a curved surface that cooperatively forms a recess configured to receive a grow plug when the parts are assembled (see annotated Fig 31 below);
an outer sidewall including a repeating pattern of outwardly projecting perimeter portions that define an external perimeter of the body (see annotated Fig 31 below), wherein each outwardly projecting perimeter portion:
extends outwardly from an upper portion of the body (see Fig 30)
one or more intermediate sidewall segments extending between the inner arcuate sidewall and the outwardly projecting perimeter portions, the intermediate sidewall segments defining faceted transition regions between the recess and the outer sidewall (see annotated Fig 31 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
781
837
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
670
969
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The embodiment of Reiersen mapped above fails to specifically disclose that the parts are discrete parts, each discrete part having opposing edge portions (plural); and that each outwardly projecting perimeter portion of each discrete part tapers inwardly toward the body in a direction from the top portion toward the bottom portion, and terminates at an endpoint positioned vertically above the bottom of the body.
However, Reiersen explicitly contemplates, in certain embodiments, splitting a wrap 312 in half into two discreet wrap segments which cooperatively form the body by aligning opposing edge portions of the discrete parts (¶0005; ¶0070; Figs 21-23; see annotated Fig 22 below for opposing edge portions).
PNG
media_image7.png
682
774
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have split the body of the embodiment with protrusions in half, thereby forming two discrete parts which cooperatively form the body with opposing edge portions, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Reiersen, doing so allows for a gentler transplantation and cupping around the roots of the plant held in the central plug (¶0070). Further, The equivalence of a single part wrap and a multi-part wrap in their ability to support plant growth is known in the art, as evidenced by Reiersen (see Figs 2 and 21), and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Finally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
The examiner notes that division of the wrap into two halves would result in halves which would each include the claimed outer sidewall, inner arcuate sidewall, pattern of outwardly projecting perimeter portions, intermediate sidewall segments, and opposing edge portions, as claimed – this can be seen visually in Figs 21 and 31).
Van Der Knapp discloses a plant growing medium comprising a body having outwardly projecting perimeter portions, wherein each outwardly projecting perimeter portion extends outwardly from an upper portion of the body, tapers inwardly toward the body in a direction from the top toward the bottom of the body, and terminates at an endpoint positioned vertically above the bottom of the body (see press sections 5a-5c, Fig 1).
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protrusions of Reiersen such that they were shaped as those in Van Der Knapp, tapering to an endpoint above the bottom of the body, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce material costs; to better fit a differently shaped or tapered container/tray; to better balance rooting space and container space with aeration for better space efficiency and optimal growth for a desired plant; or to provide a more structurally stable body, less prone to crumbling or breakage. Further, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
It is noted, for the record, that the applicant’s specification offers no criticality to the specific shape and dimensions of the projections claimed. Instead, the disclosure equally contemplates various shapes and dimensions, including shapes with rounded or sharp edges; shapes that taper and shapes that don’t; and shapes whose lowest tip is above the bottom of the part or plug, and shapes whose lowest tip is at the bottom of the part or plug. (¶0081-0082).
Regarding claim 11:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein the grow plug is configured to support a plant seedling, the grow plug being disposed within the recess of the body (claim 32; Fig 32B), the grow plug and the body being made of fibrous material (¶0088).
Regarding claim 12:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses a container supporting the body and the grow plug such that the body is disposed between the grow plug and the container (see Fig 32B).
Regarding claim 13:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein each outwardly projecting portion has a rounded or convex external surface (see Fig 1 of Van Der Knapp, and rejection of claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 14:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein a thickness of the body transitions gradually between a central portion of the body and the opposing edge portions (Per Figs 30-31 of Reiersen there are protrusions between a central portion of the body and the opposing edge portions, these protrusions defining a thicker area of the body than areas of the body without protrusions; based on the modification with Van Der Knapp, and the rounded nature of the protrusions of Van Der Knapp – see Fig 1 – the resultant structure would exhibit a gradual transition in thickness between a central portion of the body and the opposing edge portions, between the peak of the protrusions cross-sectional arc, and the base).
Regarding claim 15:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 above and further discloses wherein the outwardly projecting portions have a different shape and dimensions and define a variable, lobed external perimeter of the discrete parts (see Figs 30-32B and Van Der Knapp Fig 1).
Regarding claim 18:
Reiersen discloses an orchid cultivation assembly (wrap, plug, and container; see Fig 32B) comprising:
a container having one or more sides
defining a central aperture (see outer container in Figs 31 and 32B)
a self-supporting, semi-rigid hydrophilic body (¶0091) disposed within the central aperture of the container (see Fig 31), the hydrophilic body including at least two parts (see annotated Fig 31 below) cooperating to form a recess in the body (see Fig 31), each part having:
a top portion (see Figs 30-31 – top portion is that seen from above view in Fig 31);
a bottom portion (see Figs 30-31 – bottom is portion opposite top);
an inner arcuate sidewall defining a curved surface that cooperatively forms the recess when the discrete parts are assembled (see annotated Fig 31 below);
an outer sidewall including a repeating pattern of integrally formed outwardly projecting perimeter portions collectively defining an external perimeter of the hydrophilic body (see annotated Fig 31 below), wherein each outwardly projecting perimeter portion:
extends outwardly from an upper portion of the body (see Fig 30),
intermediate sidewall segments extending between the inner arcuate sidewall and the outer sidewall, the intermediate sidewall segments defining faceted transition regions between the recess and the external perimeter of the hydrophilic body (see annotated Fig 31 below); and
an orchid starter material located in the recess of the hydrophilic body (‘plug’; see Figs 31-32B); and
wherein the orchid starter material is capable of forming plant roots and the hydrophilic body is structured to support the plant roots (see roots 20, Fig 21; ¶0003).
PNG
media_image5.png
781
837
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
670
969
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The embodiment of Reiersen mapped above fails to specifically disclose that the parts are discrete parts, each discrete part having opposing edge portions (plural); and that each outwardly projecting perimeter portion of each discrete part tapers inwardly toward the body in a direction from the top portion toward the bottom portion, and terminates at an endpoint positioned vertically above the bottom of the body.
However, Reiersen explicitly contemplates, in certain embodiments, splitting a wrap 312 in half into two discreet wrap segments which cooperatively form the body by aligning opposing edge portions of the discrete parts (¶0005; ¶0070; Figs 21-23; see annotated Fig 22 below for opposing edge portions).
PNG
media_image7.png
682
774
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have split the body of the embodiment with protrusions in half, thereby forming two discrete parts which cooperatively form the body with opposing edge portions, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Reiersen, doing so allows for a gentler transplantation and cupping around the roots of the plant held in the central plug (¶0070). Further, The equivalence of a single part wrap and a multi-part wrap in their ability to support plant growth is known in the art, as evidenced by Reiersen (see Figs 2 and 21), and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Finally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
The examiner notes that division of the wrap into two halves would result in halves which would each include the claimed outer sidewall, inner arcuate sidewall, pattern of outwardly projecting perimeter portions, intermediate sidewall segments, and opposing edge portions, as claimed – this can be seen visually in Figs 21 and 31).
Van Der Knapp discloses a plant growing medium comprising a body having outwardly projecting perimeter portions, wherein each outwardly projecting perimeter portion extends outwardly from an upper portion of the body, tapers inwardly toward the body in a direction from the top toward the bottom of the body, and terminates at an endpoint positioned vertically above the bottom of the body (see press sections 5a-5c, Fig 1).
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protrusions of Reiersen such that they were shaped as those in Van Der Knapp, tapering to an endpoint above the bottom of the body, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce material costs; to better fit a differently shaped or tapered container/tray; to better balance rooting space and container space with aeration for better space efficiency and optimal growth for a desired plant; or to provide a more structurally stable body, less prone to crumbling or breakage. Further, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
It is noted, for the record, that the applicant’s specification offers no criticality to the specific shape and dimensions of the projections claimed. Instead, the disclosure equally contemplates various shapes and dimensions, including shapes with rounded or sharp edges; shapes that taper and shapes that don’t; and shapes whose lowest tip is above the bottom of the part or plug, and shapes whose lowest tip is at the bottom of the part or plug. (¶0081-0082).
Claims 8, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiersen and Van Der Knapp, as applied to claims 1, 10, and 18 above, in view of Kay (US 6195938, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Kay, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 8:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Reiersen as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the semi-rigid body has a moisture content of about 60-90%.
Kay discloses a plant growth medium that has been hydrated so as to have a moisture content of about 60-90% (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have hydrated the grow medium forming the body of Reiersen to have a moisture content of about 60-90%, as in Kay, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a grow medium that is not so wet that it molds or falls apart, but is wet enough to ensure sufficient moisture holding capacity to water the planted plant (Col 2, lines 35-50), and generally to provide a moisture content sufficient to provide a density and a porosity that will support plant growth (claim 5). Further, 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.
Regarding claim 16:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Reiersen as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the semi-rigid body has a moisture content of about 60-90%.
Kay discloses a plant growth medium that has been hydrated so as to have a moisture content of about 60-90% (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have hydrated the grow medium forming the body of Reiersen to have a moisture content of about 60-90%, as in Kay, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a grow medium that is not so wet that it molds or falls apart, but is wet enough to ensure sufficient moisture holding capacity to water the planted plant (Col 2, lines 35-50), and generally to provide a moisture content sufficient to provide a density and a porosity that will support plant growth (claim 5). Further, 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.
Regarding claim 19:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 18 above.
Reiersen as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the semi-rigid body has a moisture content of about 60-90%.
Kay discloses a plant growth medium that has been hydrated so as to have a moisture content of about 60-90% (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have hydrated the grow medium forming the body of Reiersen to have a moisture content of about 60-90%, as in Kay, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a grow medium that is not so wet that it molds or falls apart, but is wet enough to ensure sufficient moisture holding capacity to water the planted plant (Col 2, lines 35-50), and generally to provide a moisture content sufficient to provide a density and a porosity that will support plant growth (claim 5). Further, 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiersen and Van Der Knapp, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Spittle (US 20170114276, as cited on IDS dated 12/10/2024), hereinafter referred to as Spittle, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 9:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Reiersen as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the semi-rigid body has a bulk density may be about 100 to 140 kg/m3.
Spittle discloses a grow medium with a bulk density about 100 to 140 kg/m3 (claim 1; ¶0076).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grow medium forming the body of Reiersen to have a bulk density about 100 to 140 kg/m3, as in Spittle, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide optimal water distribution or root support to the plant. Further, 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.
Claims 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiersen, Van Der Knapp, and Kay, as applied to claim 16 and 19 above, in view of Spittle, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 17:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 16 above.
Reiersen as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the semi-rigid body has a bulk density may be about 100 to 140 kg/m3.
Spittle discloses a grow medium with a bulk density about 100 to 140 kg/m3 (claim 1; ¶0076).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grow medium forming the body of Reiersen to have a bulk density about 100 to 140 kg/m3, as in Spittle, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide optimal water distribution or root support to the plant. Further, 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.
Regarding claim 20:
Reiersen as modified discloses the limitations of claim 19 above.
Reiersen as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the semi-rigid body has a bulk density may be about 100 to 140 kg/m3.
Spittle discloses a grow medium with a bulk density about 100 to 140 kg/m3 (claim 1; ¶0076).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grow medium forming the body of Reiersen to have a bulk density about 100 to 140 kg/m3, as in Spittle, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide optimal water distribution or root support to the plant. Further, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights