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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words, contains more than one paragraph, and contains the phrase “The invention relates to”. 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).
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 7 and 16-18 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 7 recites the limitation "the moment of harvesting" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the stems and leaves" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17 and 18 recite limitations towards a growth tray and holder members that are previously recited in parent claim 1. Elements such as but not limited to a plurality of holder, sidewalls and bottom of a growth tray, and holders having a root opening are found in the previous claim, making them redundant.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagadome et al US 20150000191 in view of Eisenberg et al US 4,379,375.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Nagadome discloses a method of growing a fruit-bearing crop comprising the steps of: growing a seedling in a first growing substrate (Nagadome, ¶0127, abstract), placing the substrate in a growth tray (200) (Nagadome, ¶0127), the growth tray having upstanding sidewalls (Nagadome, Figure 2), placing growth trays in a conditioned growth chamber (101)(Nagadome, ¶0041) and exposing the plants to artificial light (109) and arranging the growth trays along a number of parallel rows (301) extending in a length direction Lg of the growth chamber, after a predetermined period of time, removing of the growth trays to a harvesting area (302) by contacting the trays with transport members and moving the trays by the transport members along their respective rows to a side conveyor extending in a width direction Wg of the growth chamber (Nagadome, ¶0015).
Nagadome fails to disclose the substrate being a plug/pellet, the details of the growth tray, or a holder member within the growth tray.
Eisenberg teaches a pellet comprising a growing seedling (Eisenberg, column 1: 67-68, Figure 1) in a holder member (218, 220, 222) of a growth tray (202). Eisenberg teaches the holder member comprising a tubular body (Eisenberg, column 5: line 10) and a flange (224, 226, 228) extending transversely to the tubular body, the body having a bottom with a root opening (Eisenberg, column 5: lines 19-21), placing a number of holder members, each carrying a crop, in a growth tray (Eisenberg, Figure 2); the growth tray having a bottom and upstanding sidewalls (Eisenberg, Figure 2), defining an irrigation space (230) that is adapted for receiving water and nutrients, and a top surface (212) forming a removable lid (Eisenberg, column 5: lines 1-3) spaced from the bottom (Eisenberg, column 4: lines 65), with openings (214) for receiving a holder member, the flange being supported near the top surface (Eisenberg, Figure 2), and a bottom of the holder members the bottom being in fluid communication with the irrigation space (Eisenberg, Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the method of Nagadome by substituting the pellets, growth tray, and holder members of Eisenberg for the tray and soil of Nagadome as to provide system where seedlings were able to be selected and removed easily.
Regarding claim 4, Nagadome in view of Eisenberg further discloses the flange covering the area of the opening in the top surface (Eisenberg, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Nagadome in view of Eisenberg further discloses the growth tray being elongate, comprising a row of at least 3 holder members (Eisenberg, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Nagadome in view of Eisenberg discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose the height of the growth trays. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the growth trays to be placed at the claimed height depending on what was a comfortable height for the user to access the growth tray.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, 16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2, 3, and 19-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642