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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “-comprising” which should be revised to -comprising-.
Claim 3 recites “to admit to oxygen” which should be revised to read -to admit oxygen-.
Claim 4 recites “using a soilless” should be revised to -soilless-.
Claim 8 recites “using a soilless” should be revised to -soilless-.
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 1-9 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 is rejected because as written, the claim seems to recite that “the remainder of the time of said irrigation phase(s) concerned” is the same as “the first period of which has been boosted”. It is therefore unclear how the dissolved oxygen content can be both greater than the set point and equal to the set point. The office suggests removing the language of “the first period of which has been boosted” to clarify that the language is referencing to the time period outside of the first period, as this is the Office’s best understanding of the intended recital of the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: It is unclear how the duration of the boosting is calculated and performed as a function of the flow rate, as there is no recitation of how the flow rate is being measured, nor how the functional relationship is established.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "two gas lines" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Office interpreted this to reference the “two supply lines” earlier however the claim does not require both of these lines to be used for gas.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "each gas supply line" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this is in reference to. If Applicant intended to introduce a new structure then they should revise the limitation to read -an installation-, otherwise the language should be changed to clearly reference whichever element was previously introduced.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "each gas supply line" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Office interpreted this to reference the “two supply lines” earlier however the claim does not require both of these lines to be used for gas.
Claim 9 is unclear. As written, the claim seems to recite that “the remainder of the time of said irrigation phase(s) concerned” is the same as “the first period of which has been boosted”. It is therefore unclear how the dissolved oxygen content can be lower than the boosted content of the first period. The office suggests removing the language of “the first period of which has been boosted” to clarify that the language is referencing to the time period outside of the first period, as this is the Office’s best understanding of the intended recital of the invention.
Claims 4-6, 8 are similarly rejected due to dependency on a rejected claim above.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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, 4, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messer (EP 2184097 A1) in view of Takeuchi (US 20140215912 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Messer discloses a method for cultivating plants (Fig. 1), wherein the plants are supplied with water (Fig. 1) during irrigation phases of determined duration, spread over a 24- hour day, which water has a given dissolved-oxygen content (para 23, oxygen supplied by 13), comprising:- boosting the injection of oxygen or of a gaseous mixture containing oxygen (via 13) into an irrigation water (Fig. 1) during a first period, of given duration, of one or of some of the irrigation phases concerned, through the fact that the oxygen content in the irrigation water during said first period is greater than a given set-point (para 23 describes varying the oxygen supplied which inherently means oxygen is boosted at some duration).
Messer fails to explicitly teach wherein -the remainder of the time of said irrigation phase(s) concerned, the first period of which has been boosted, is characterized by a dissolved-oxygen content of the irrigation water which is equal to said set-point.
However, Takeuchi teaches wherein -the remainder of the time of said irrigation phase(s) concerned, the first period of which has been boosted, is characterized by a dissolved-oxygen content of the irrigation water which is equal to said set-point (paras 18-19, irrigation during step B can be considered the first period boosted time and irrigation during step A can be considered the remainder of the time, where the oxygen content during step A is lower).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the irrigation water as disclosed by Messer with the standard oxygen content as taught by Takeuchi with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a standard oxygen within the water would provide the plants with a sufficient amount of oxygen in order to grow at a healthy and optimal manner.
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Messer further teaches wherein said plant cultivation is cultivation in a controlled medium, using one of the following methods: in a greenhouse, in a cellar protected from light, using a soilless, hydroponic, aquaponic, aeroponic, or bioponic (para 20 discusses a greenhouse).
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Messer further teaches wherein the oxygen injection is boosted during a first part, of given duration, of all the irrigation phases spread over 24 hours (para 23 discusses the oxygen content can vary over the day, which inherently means there are periods of boosted oxygen throughout the 24 hour period of a day).
Regarding claim 9: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Messer modified by Takeuchi further teaches wherein the remainder of the time of said irrigation phase(s) concerned, the first period of which has been boosted, is characterized by a dissolved-oxygen content of the irrigation water which is thus lower than the boosted content of the first period (as modified by Takeuchi, since step B has higher boosted content it is natural that step B would be lower).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messer and Takeuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bu (KR 200147391 Y1).
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Messer as modified fails to teach wherein the oxygen injection is boosted during a first part, of given duration, of at least one or some of the irrigation phases following an irrigation stoppage.
However, Bu teaches wherein the oxygen injection is boosted during a first part, of given duration, of at least one or some of the irrigation phases following an irrigation stoppage (Specification discusses draining water from container (1), stopping irrigation from the water supply, supplying oxygen from supply unit 7 for a predetermined time, and then resuming the flow of water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the oxygen injection as disclosed by modified Messer with the injection occurring after stoppage as taught by Bu with a reasonable expectation of success because Such arrangement would be done in order to balance the water supply therefore reducing manpower and cost, as described by Bu
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 108862809 A) in view of Hamler (US 11344852 B1).
Regarding claim 7: Jiang discloses plant cultivation equipment, wherein the plants are supplied with water (water in 1) during irrigation phases of determined duration, spread over a 24- hour day (Jiang discusses the use of water for plant life, 24-hour day could be met by the equipment), which water (in 15) contains a given dissolved-oxygen content, the plant cultivation equipment comprising:- at least one irrigation water supply line (Fig 2), configured to supply water to the crop;- means of injecting oxygen or a gas containing oxygen into the irrigation water (ozone or oxygen); wherein the installation comprises a flow rate sensor (vortex flowmeter 4), located on the water supply line supplying water to the crop, and in that the means for injecting oxygen or a mixture containing oxygen comprise two supply lines for admitting oxygen or a mixture containing oxygen into the water supply line (via oxygen generator 22 and ozone generator 23), each gas supply line being equipped with a flowmeter (20, 25) in series with an electrically operated valve (solenoid valves 19, 26).
Jiang fails to teach one of the two electrically operated valves being on a timer.
However, Hamler teaches one of the two electrically operated valves being on a timer (Col 9 lines 34-35, “In some configurations, the gas concentration controller 128 may include a timer switch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a solenoid valve as disclosed by Jiang with the timer as taught by Hamler with a reasonable expectation of success because having the valve on a timer would allow for sufficient amount of oxygen content to be provided to the plant while simultaneously preventing oxygen waste as the return on the effect becomes minimal due to distinguishing returns.
Regarding claim 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and further teaches wherein said plant cultivation is cultivation in a controlled medium, using one of the following methods: in a greenhouse, in a cellar protected from light, using a soilless, hydroponic, aquaponic, aeroponic, or bioponic (Hamler is directed to hydroponics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the irrigation as disclosed by modified Jiang with the hydroponics as taught by Hamler with a reasonable expectation of success because having hydroponics further optimizes the system by reducing the need for soil, allowing for water consumption to be optimized and ensuring that the oxygen within the water reaches the roots of the plants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field or providing gas or oxygen to water.
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