DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-26 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,953,322 to Edwards (“Edwards”).
Regarding claim 1, Edwards discloses a growing system for hydroponics (FIG. 2), comprising a gutter (6) and a tape (3, 5), wherein the gutter (6) comprises: a plurality of walls extending in a longitudinal direction and defining a receptacle configured to receive a fluid (FIG. 2); and a top comprising an opening into the receptacle, said opening extending along the longitudinal direction of the gutter (FIG. 2); wherein the tape (3, 5) comprises: a length fixed to the gutter (via 9), said length extending along the longitudinal direction of the gutter (FIG. 2); a portion (5) extending into the opening of the gutter and into the receptacle (FIG. 2); and wherein the tape supports or holds a plant propagation material (2, FIG. 2; Col. 5, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 3, Edwards discloses wherein the tape (3, 5) is in contact with the fluid in the receptacle, whereby the fluid is wicked through the tape by capillary action (claim 16).
Regarding claim 4, Edwards discloses wherein the tape comprises at least two layers that are held together and wherein the plant propagation material is disposed at a position between where the at least two layers are held together (FIG. 2; Col. 5, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 5, Edwards discloses wherein the at least two layers are held together by gluing the layers together by folding (see 3, FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Edwards discloses wherein the tape (3, 5) comprises at least two layers that overlap with each other to form a platform configured to support or hold the plant propagation material (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Edwards discloses wherein the at least two layers that overlap with each other form a horizontal plane equal that is flush with a horizontal plane of the top of the gutter (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Edwards discloses wherein the tape is fixed to the gutter by clamping means located at the opening at the top of the gutter (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Edwards discloses wherein the gutter further comprises a guiding element (9) extending along the longitudinal direction of the gutter, wherein the guiding element extends from along one side of the opening of the top of the gutter into the receptacle (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Edwards discloses a method for growing plants, comprising providing plant propagation material in the growing system of claim 1 and allowing the plant propagation material to develop into plant (Col. 5, lines 15-30; see also analysis of claim 1 above).
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 2, 12, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Edwards teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, and it teaches wherein the plant propagation material comprises plants (Col. 5, lines 15-30), but it does not explicitly teach wherein the plant propagation material comprises seeds, germinated seeds, seedlings, plantlets or cuttings.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. Also, the Background section of Edwards teaches wherein the plant propagation material comprises seeds (Col. 4, lines 40-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the growing system of Edwards so that the plant propagation material comprises seeds, germinated seeds, seedlings, plantlets or cuttings, in order to allow a user to grow seeds, germinated seeds, seedlings, plantlets or cuttings.
Regarding claim 12, Edwards teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the tape is fixed to the gutter by adherence of a portion of the at least two layers of the tape that extend beyond the opening of the top of the gutter.
However, at the time of the effective filing date, it was well known in the art to adhere portions of a growing system through adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the growing system of Edwards so that the tape is fixed to the gutter by adherence of a portion of the at least two layers of the tape that extend beyond the opening of the top of the gutter, in order to ensure that the components remain together in the correct configuration.
Regarding claims 22-24, Edwards teaches each and every element of claim 13, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the guiding element forms an angle between 10 and 80 degrees- or between 30 and 70 degrees, or between 45 and 55 degrees- with respect to one of the plurality of walls of the gutter.
It is well settled that “a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree… is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2144. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the growing system of Edwards so that the guiding element forms an angle between 10 and 80 degrees- or between 30 and 70 degrees, or between 45 and 55 degrees- with respect to one of the plurality of walls of the gutter, in order to properly position the tape (3, 5).
Claims 6-8, 14, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent No. 2, 571,491 to Schindler (“Schindler”).
Regarding claim 6, Edwards teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the tape is a seed tape comprising a plurality of seeds located along the length of the tape.
Schindler teaches a growing system including a tape that is a seed tape comprising a plurality of seeds located along the length of the tape (FIGS. 1-4; claims 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the growing system of Edwards so that the tape is a seed tape comprising a plurality of seeds located along the length of the tape, as taught by Schindler, in order to facilitate growing seeds.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Edwards and Schindler teaches each and every element of claim 6, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein the tape holds or supports the plurality of seeds at a position between where at least two layers of the tape are held together (Edwards at FIG. 2; Schindler at claims 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Edwards and Schindler teaches each and every element of claim 7, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein a seal holding the at least two layers together is not continuous, whereby roots and cotyledons of germinated seeds are able to emerge from between the at least two layers (Edwards at FIG. 2; Schindler at claims 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Edwards teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the plant propagation material comprises seeds, germinating seeds, seedlings, plantlets or cuttings of vegetable plants.
Schindler teaches a growing system including plant propagation material that comprises seeds of vegetable plants (Col. 2, lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the growing system of Edwards so that the plant propagation material comprises seeds of vegetable plants, as taught by Schindler, in order to allow a user to grow vegetable plants.
Regarding claims 25-26, the combination of Edwards and Schindler teaches each and every element of claim 14, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the vegetable plants are leafy vegetable plants, and wherein the leafy vegetable plants are lettuce plants.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the growing system of the Edwards and Schindler combination so that the vegetable plants are leafy vegetable plants, and wherein the leafy vegetable plants are lettuce plants, in order to allow a user to grow leafy vegetable plants such as lettuce plants.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,026,322 to Raines (“Raines”).
Regarding claim 16, Raines teaches a method for growing harvestable plants, comprising the steps of: providing a plant propagation material held in or supported by a tape (29) that is fixed to a gutter (10), wherein the gutter comprises: a plurality of walls extending in a longitudinal direction and defining a receptacle configured to receive a fluid (25, 26, FIGS. 1-2); and a top comprising an opening into the receptacle, said opening extending along the longitudinal direction of the gutter (FIGS. 1-2); wherein the tape (29) comprises a length fixed to the gutter, said length extending along the longitudinal direction of the gutter (FIGS. 1-2); a portion extending into the opening of the gutter and into the receptacle (FIGS. 1-2); at least two layers partially extending beyond the opening of the top of the gutter (FIGS. 1-2); irrigating the fluid through the receptable (pg. 2, Col. 1); nourishing the plant propagation material by contacting the tape with the fluid, whereby the fluid is wicked through the tape via capillary action to contact the plant propagation material (pg. 2, Col. 1, lines 30-34); and allowing the plant propagation material to grow into harvestable plants (pg. 2, Col. 1).
Raines does not explicitly teach wherein the tape is fixed to the gutter by adherence of a portion of the at least two layers of the tape that extend beyond the opening of the top of the gutter
However, at the time of the effective filing date, it was well known in the art to adhere portions of a growing system through adherence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the growing system of Raines so that the tape is fixed to the gutter by adherence of a portion of the at least two layers of the tape that extend beyond the opening of the top of the gutter, in order to ensure that the components remain together in the correct configuration.
Regarding claim 17, Raines, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 16, as discussed above, and it teaches the plants are vegetable plants (pg. 2, Col. 2, lines 7-8).
Regarding claims 18-19, Raines, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 17, as discussed above, and it teaches the plants are vegetable plants (pg. 2, Col. 2, lines 7-8), but it does not explicitly teach wherein the vegetable plants are leafy vegetable plants, and wherein the leafy vegetable plants are lettuce plants.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Raines so that the vegetable plants are leafy vegetable plants, and wherein the leafy vegetable plants are lettuce plants, in order to allow a user to grow leafy vegetable plants such as lettuce plants.
Regarding claim 20 Raines, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 16, as discussed above, and it teaches wherein the plant propagation material comprises seeds (pg. 2, Col. 1, lines 50-51).
Regarding claim 21 Raines, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 20, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach lettuce seeds.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Raines so that seeds are lettuce seeds, in order to allow a user to grow leafy vegetable plants such as lettuce plants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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.
/MARISA V CONLON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643