DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action non-final rejection on the merits.
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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in Claims 29-36 and 47-48 in the reply filed on is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Claims 29 and 37 have the same technical feature that distinguishes those claims of Groups I and II from Belger. This is not found persuasive because Claim 29 requires that the fibers or filaments in the strip be substantially vertically or horizontally (See Lines 4-5 of Claim 29), while Claim 37 recites that the fibers in a layer be substantially oriented horizontally or vertically (See Lines 7-8 of Claim 37). Therefore, this feature is not a shared feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 assembly of a gutter or floater and a plurality of plant plugs from Claim 48 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Fig. 4, the recesses 32 are not clearly shown.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “50” has been used to designate both “filaments” and “air” (See ¶42).
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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Line 1 of the Abstract, the phrase “and/or growing plants and/ or for tissue culture” should read “and/or growing plants and/or for tissue culture”.
In Line 4 of the Abstract, the phrase “In a layer the fibres may be substantially oriented” should read “In a layer, the fibres may be substantially oriented”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶17, the phrase “DDM” should read “diaminodiphenylmethane (DDM)” to expand the acronym on first use.
In ¶38, the limitation “fibres 16” should read “fibres 14” to keep the limitation consistent throughout the Specification.
In ¶42, the limitation “a (gear) pump 42” is unclear. In other words, does this mean that reference “42” refers to a pump that could be a gear pump?
In ¶42, the phrase “e.g. using cutter 60,,” should read “e.g. using cutter 60,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Tween” (see ¶17), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 29-30, 33, and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 29 Line 2, the limitation “the fibres” should read “the fibres or filaments” to keep the limitation consistent throughout the claim.
In Claim 29 Line 3, the phrase “optionally” is indirect, and suggests an optional and passive recitation which lends any limitation claimed thereafter limited patentable weight.
In Claim 29 Line 4, the phrase “in the strip the fibres” should read “in the strip, the fibres” for better clarity.
In Claim 30 Line 1, the phrase “in a layer the fibres” should read “in a layer, the fibres” for better clarity.
In Claim 30 Line 1, the limitation “the fibres” should read “the fibres or filaments” to keep the limitation consistent with the parent claim 29.
In Claim 33 Line 2, the phrase “in the web the fibres” should read “in the web, the fibres” for better clarity.
In Claim 33 Line 2, the limitation “the fibres” should read “the fibres or filaments” to keep the limitation consistent with the parent claim 29.
In Claim 33 Lines 2-3, the phrases “preferably” and “optionally” are indirect, and suggest an optional and passive recitation which lends any limitation claimed thereafter limited patentable weight.
In Claim 36 Line 1, the limitation “the fibres” should read “the fibres or filaments” to keep the limitation consistent with the parent claim 29.
In Claim 36 Line 2, the phrase “optionally” is indirect, and suggests an optional and passive recitation which lends any limitation claimed thereafter limited patentable weight.
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 29-36 and 47-48 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.
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29 recites the limitations “the longitudinal direction” and “the width direction” in Line 5 of claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 33 recites the limitation “the plane” in Line 2 of claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 34, Claim 34 is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the “fibres” in Line 1 of the claim refers to the same fibres of the parent claim 29. For the purposes of examination, the “fibres” of Claim 29 will be interpreted as being the same fibres as those of the parent claim 29.
Claims 30-32, 35-36 and 47-48 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 29-31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challet et al. (EP 0172060 A2) in view of McKenna (US 20190029192 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Challet teaches a plant plug (1) for germinating, cutting and/or growing plants and/or for tissue culture (See Fig. 1 and Pg. 1; Plant plug 1 serves as a culture substrate for cells, tissues, plant organs and whole plants.), comprising:
A strip (10) of polymeric fibres or filaments (2; Pg. 2 states that the fibres 2 are made of polymers, such as polyester.), and
Wherein the strip (10) is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers (See Fig. 3; Strip 10 is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers.).
However, the system of Challet fails to explicitly state that the fibres are substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another, and that, in the strip, the fibres or filaments are substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction or the width direction thereof.
McKenna teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches a grow media.), the system of McKenna teaches a plant plug (300; shown in Fig. 29) wherein fibres (208; ¶116 states that structure 208 is made of a wicking material. Wicking materials are composed of fibers.) are substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another (See Figs. 28-29 and ¶116; The fibres of structure 208 are substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and they are locally mutually bonded to one another.) and that, in the strip, the fibres or filaments are substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction or the width direction thereof (See Figs. 28-29; The fibres 208 are substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Challet to have the fibres be substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another, and to have, in the strip, the fibres or filaments be substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction or the width direction thereof as taught by McKenna with reasonable expectation of success to improve water and nutrient absorption (McKenna, ¶8).
allow for adjustments to depth and distance to the seabed.
Regarding Claim 30, the system of Challet as modified by McKenna, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 29.
The system of Challet as modified by McKenna further teaches (references to McKenna) that in a layer, the fibres (208) are substantially oriented horizontally or vertically (See Fig. 28; The fibres 208 are substantially oriented horizontally in a layer.).
Regarding Claim 31, the system of Challet as modified by McKenna, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 29.
Challet further teaches that the strip (10) is wound onto itself in multiple layers into a cylinder shape (shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 33, the system of Challet as modified by McKenna, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 29.
The system of Challet as modified by McKenna further teaches (references to McKenna) that the strip is derived from a web (404), wherein in the web, the fibres are substantially oriented in the plane of the web, preferably in the longitudinal direction thereof, and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another (See Figs. 25 and 28; The fibres are substantially oriented in the plane of web 404 in the longitudinal direction of the web 404 and locally mutually bonded to one another.).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challet et al. (EP 0172060 A2) as modified by McKenna (US 20190029192 A1) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Knop et al. (US 5009031 A).
Regarding Claim 32, the system of Challet as modified by McKenna, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 29.
The system of Challet as modified by McKenna teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the strip is arranged in a zigzag configuration. Knop teaches a strip (3) arranged in a zigzag configuration (See Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the strip be arranged in a zigzag configuration as taught by Knop with reasonable expectation of success to provide structural strength since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challet et al. (EP 0172060 A2) as modified by McKenna (US 20190029192 A1) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Dwire (US 20210321580 A1).
Regarding Claim 34, the system of Challet as modified by McKenna, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 29.
However, the system of Challet as modified by McKenna fails to explicitly state that the strip is comprised of fibres laid using air.
Dwire teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches a cultivation substrate.), the system of Dwire teaches a strip (15) is comprised of fibers laid using air (See ¶41; Strip 15 comprises wool fibers that are laid using air.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Challet as modified by McKenna to have the strip be comprised of fibres laid using air as taught by Dwire with reasonable expectation of success to provide faster installation.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challet et al. (EP 0172060 A2) as modified by McKenna (US 20190029192 A1) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Belger (DE 102017116487 A1).
Regarding Claim 35, the system of Challet as modified by McKenna, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 29.
The system of Challet as modified by McKenna teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the plug is biodegradable. Belger teaches a plug (11) that is biodegradable (See Claims and Pg. 2; Plug 11 is made of biodegradable materials.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the plug be biodegradable as taught by Belger with reasonable expectation of success to reduce pollution and waste, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challet et al. (EP 0172060 A2) as modified by McKenna (US 20190029192 A1) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Kosinski et al. (US 20090019765 A1).
Regarding Claim 36, the system of Challet as modified by McKenna, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 29.
However, the system of Challet as modified by McKenna fails to explicitly state that the fibres are prepared from a polymer composition comprising a biodegradable polymer, and optionally one or more additives.
Kosinski teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches a plant growth medium.), the system of Kosinski teaches a plant plug (10) wherein the fibres are prepared from a polymer composition comprising a biodegradable polymer, and optionally one or more additives (See Abstract, ¶50, and Claim 4; Plant plug 10 comprises fibers that are prepared from a polymer composition comprising a biodegradable polymer as well as an additive cohesion promoter.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Challet as modified by McKenna to have the fibres be prepared from a polymer composition comprising a biodegradable polymer, and optionally one or more additives as taught by Kosinski with reasonable expectation of success to provide soil supplementation (Kosinski, ¶76).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasmer et al. (WO 2018009944 A1).
Regarding Claim 47, Gasmer teaches an assembly (See Figs. 12-13) of a tray (155) having a plurality of recess (See Fig. 13; Sidewalls 120 form a plurality of recesses where plugs 100 can be inserted.), wherein a recess comprises a plant plug (100; shown in Fig. 13) for germinating, cutting and/or growing plants and/or for tissue culture (Stated in Abstract and ¶1; Plant plugs 100 serve to grow plants.).
However, the system of Gasmer fails to explicitly state that the plant plug comprises a strip of polymeric fibres or filaments, wherein the fibres are substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another, and wherein the strip is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers, wherein in the strip the fibres or filaments are substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction or the width direction thereof.
Challet teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches a plant plug.), the system of Challet teaches a plant plug (1) for germinating, cutting and/or growing plants and/or for tissue culture (See Fig. 1 and Pg. 1; Plant plug 1 serves as a culture substrate for cells, tissues, plant organs and whole plants.), comprising:
A strip (10) of polymeric fibres or filaments (2; Pg. 2 states that the fibres 2 are made of polymers, such as polyester.),
Wherein the strip (10) is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers (See Fig. 3; Strip 10 is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gasmer to have the plant plug comprise a strip of polymeric fibres or filaments, wherein the strip is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers, as taught by Challet with reasonable expectation of success to provide more gardening efficiency.
McKenna teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches a grow media.), the system of McKenna teaches a plant plug (300; shown in Fig. 29) wherein fibres (208; ¶116 states that structure 208 is made of a wicking material. Wicking materials are composed of fibers.) are substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another (See Figs. 28-29 and ¶116; The fibres of structure 208 are substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and they are locally mutually bonded to one another.) and that, in the strip, the fibres or filaments are substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction or the width direction thereof (See Figs. 28-29; The fibres 208 are substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gasmer as modified by Challet to have the fibres be substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another, and to have, in the strip, the fibres or filaments be substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction or the width direction thereof as taught by McKenna with reasonable expectation of success to improve water and nutrient absorption (McKenna, ¶8).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westlind et al. (US 20200329654 A1).
Regarding Claim 48, Westlind teaches an assembly (1200) of a gutter or floater (See ¶113; Assembly 1200 includes a gutter.) and a plurality of plant plugs (See ¶112; Assembly 1200 comprises plug apertures 1244 that can accommodate plant plugs 1348.).
However, the system of Westlind fails to explicitly state that the plant plug comprises a strip of polymeric fibres or filaments, wherein the fibres are substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another, and wherein the strip is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers, wherein in the strip the fibres or filaments are substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction or the width direction thereof.
Challet teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches a plant plug.), the system of Challet teaches a plant plug (1) for germinating, cutting and/or growing plants and/or for tissue culture (See Fig. 1 and Pg. 1; Plant plug 1 serves as a culture substrate for cells, tissues, plant organs and whole plants.), comprising:
A strip (10) of polymeric fibres or filaments (2; Pg. 2 states that the fibres 2 are made of polymers, such as polyester.),
Wherein the strip (10) is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers (See Fig. 3; Strip 10 is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Westlind to have the plant plug comprise a strip of polymeric fibres or filaments, wherein the strip is arranged in multiple, vertically arranged layers, as taught by Challet with reasonable expectation of success to provide more gardening efficiency.
McKenna teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches a grow media.), the system of McKenna teaches a plant plug (300; shown in Fig. 29) wherein fibres (208; ¶116 states that structure 208 is made of a wicking material. Wicking materials are composed of fibers.) are substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another (See Figs. 28-29 and ¶116; The fibres of structure 208 are substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and they are locally mutually bonded to one another.) and that, in the strip, the fibres or filaments are substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction or the width direction thereof (See Figs. 28-29; The fibres 208 are substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Westlind as modified by Challet to have the fibres be substantially oriented in the plane of the strip and optionally locally mutually bonded to one another, and to have, in the strip, the fibres or filaments be substantially oriented in the longitudinal direction or the width direction thereof as taught by McKenna with reasonable expectation of success to improve water and nutrient absorption (McKenna, ¶8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tobias et al. (US 20210400865 A1) teaches a seed mat for growing plants.
Anton (US 5224292 A) teaches a plant-growing nonwoven mat.
Chamont (FR 2630293 A1) teaches a growth culture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights