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 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, 2, 4-7, 10, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0039931) in view of Brabbs et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0080202) and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V (NL 8700101 A).
For claim 1, Major et al. discloses a pot (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 6-12: 60) for cultivating a plant (as discussed in the abstract), comprising a planting area (Fig. 1: 64) and a root guide channel (Fig. 1: 63) extending between a fluid inlet (Figs. 1-2: at the “top end of primary tube”) and a fluid outlet (Figs. 1-2: at the “bottom end of primary tube) and configured to guide a development of roots downstream of the planting area (as discussed in [0038]), said channel (63) being accessible to the roots of a plant (Fig. 1: 70) planted in the planting area (as shown in Figs. 10-12: 64), the channel (63) winding around a guideline (Figs. 1-2 and 6-12 show a vertical axis at trunk 61 through the center of the pot 60) and making more than one revolution around said guideline between the inlet and the outlet (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 6-12 and discussed in [0038]: “The primary tube 63 is in a helical shape circling the trunk 61”). Major et al. fails to show the channel having a porous bottom.
Brabbs et al. teaches, in the same field of endeavor of hydroponics, a pot for cultivating a plant (Fig. 1: 110) comprising a planting area (Fig. 1: 124) and a root guide channel (as discussed in [0031] and Fig. 1: within 116, exterior to 112); the channel having a porous bottom (as discussed in [0041] and Fig. 1: 114), wherein the porous bottom designates, in a gravity environment, a low part of the channel (as shown in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Major et al. to include a porous bottom as taught by Brabbs et al. for the advantage of reducing evaporation, and providing air flow and circulation of nutrient fluid to the roots of the plants.
Major et al. fails to show the bottom is ridged to promote attachment of microorganisms. Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V teaches a pot (as shown in Figs. 1-2) for cultivating a plant, comprising a planting area (Figs. 1-2: 7) and a root guide channel (Figs. 1-2: 1), the channel having a bottom, wherein the bottom is ridged (Figs. 1-2: 3) to promote attachment of microorganisms. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Major et al. to include the ridged bottom of the channel as taught by Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V for the advantage of guiding excess fluid through the channel.
For claim 2, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the planting area (Major et al. Fig. 1: 64) is located along the channel (Major et al. Fig. 1: 63), between the inlet and the outlet (Major et al. as shown in Figs. 1-2).
For claim 4, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the planting area (Major et al. an opening 64 at the top of the pot) is provided closer to the guideline (Major et al. Figs. 1-2 and 6-12 show a vertical axis at trunk 61 through the center of the pot 60) than to an outside of the pot (Major et al. an outer surface of the channel 63 near the outlet).
For claim 5, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the channel (Major et al. Fig. 1: 63) is configured to allow a gravity flow of liquid between the inlet and the outlet (Major et al. as discussed in [0039]).
For claim 6, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein, with reference to a radius - azimuth - dimension reference frame having the guideline as axis, a parameterization of the channel is such that the azimuth takes a same value several times and the dimension evolves in a monotonic manner (Major et al. shows in Fig. 9 the dimensions of the pot is constant from the inlet to the outlet).
For claim 7, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the channel (Major et al. Fig. 1: 63) has a general helix shape (Major et al. as shown in Figs. 1-2 and discussed in [0038]).
For claim 10, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the channel (Major et al. Fig. 1: 63) has a closed cross-section (Major et al. as shown in Figs. 6-8), or wherein the channel is, in cross-section, open opposite to the bottom.
For claim 21, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the porous bottom is a microporous bottom (Brabbs et al. as discussed in [0041]: microporous films).
For claim 22, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the pot according to claim 21, wherein the microporous bottom has a homogenous porosity (Brabbs et al. Fig. 1 shows the single microporous bottom at 114 is equally distributed and maintained along the bottom of the pot).
Claims 3, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0039931) in view of Brabbs et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0080202) and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V (NL 8700101 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeMitchell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0067301).
For claim 3, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the channel is provided with a holder for retaining a water-soluble filler. DeMitchell et al. teaches a pot for cultivating a plant (as discussed in [0019-0020]) comprising a channel (Fig. 1: 105), wherein the channel is provided with a holder (Fig. 1: 174) for retaining a water-soluble filler. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Major et al., Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V to include the holder as taught by DeMitchell et al. for the advantage of retaining filler and thus, preventing it from entering and clogging the pot.
For claim 12, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses a method for cultivating a plant, comprising planting the plant (Major et al. Fig. 1: 70) in the planting area (Major et al. Fig. 1: 64) of the pot according to claim 1, and supplying the inlet (Major et al. Figs. 1-2: at the “top end of primary tube”) of the channel (Major et al. Figs. 1-2: 63) with fluid, so that the fluid flows towards the outlet (Major et al. Figs. 1-2: at the “bottom end of primary tube) while reaching the roots of the plant (Major et al. as discussed in [0039], [0073], and [0074]), but fails to show wherein the supplying is intermittent. DeMitchell et al. teaches a method for cultivating a plant (as discussed in [0019]) comprising supplying fluid to the channel (Figs. 6A-6B: 400), wherein the supplying is intermittent (as discussed in [0019]: “The pumping action may be controlled by the timer (162). The pump rate will depend on the plant variety and plant size.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Major et al., Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V to include intermittent supply of fluid as taught by DeMitchell et al. for the advantage of selectively providing fluid to the plants in order to allow the plants time to take up the nutrients.
For claim 16, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the holder is located between the inlet and the planting area. DeMitchell et al. teaches a pot for cultivating a plant (as discussed in [0019-0020]) comprising a channel (Fig. 1: 105), wherein the channel is provided with a holder (Fig. 1: 174) for retaining a water-soluble filler; wherein the holder is located between the inlet (Fig. 1: 155) and the planting area (Fig. 1: 172). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Major et al., Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V to include the holder as taught by DeMitchell et al. for the advantage of retaining filler and thus, preventing it from entering and clogging the pot.
Claims 8, 11 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0039931) in view of Brabbs et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0080202) and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V (NL 8700101 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 108834871 A).
For claim 8, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the pot according to claim 1, further comprising a core (Major et al. Figs. 1-2 and 6-12: 61) extending along the guideline (Major et al. Figs. 1-2 and 6-12 show a vertical axis at trunk 61 through the center of the pot 60), but fails to show wherein at least one end of the core includes a fastener. Chen et al. teaches a pot for cultivating a plant (as shown in Fig. 1) comprising a core (as discussed in the translated description: the core of the pot being "glass support tube 4" and shown in Fig. 1); wherein the core supports the channel (Fig. 1: at the top of the core 4 supporting the channel 5, 6); wherein at least one end of the core includes a fastener, wherein the fastener comprises at least one of a thread (as discussed in the translated description: "a glass pipeline end part can adopt threaded connection way to connect") or a tapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Major et al., Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V to include a fastener on at least one end of the core as taught by Chen et al. for the advantage of stabilizing and securing the channel to a base.
For claim 11, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show further comprising an instrument configured to monitor or stimulate a growth of the plant. Chen et al. teaches a pot for cultivating a plant (as shown in Fig. 1) comprising a channel (Fig. 1: 2), further comprising an instrument (Fig. 2: 8) configured to monitor or stimulate the growth of the plant; wherein the instrument includes at least one of an image sensor, a lighting element (discussed in the translated description “the fixing structure of the spiral pipe is provided with red and blue spectrum LED light supplement lamp”) or a microfluidic chip. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Major et al., Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V to include a lighting element as taught by Chen et al. for the advantage of providing optimal light growing conditions for the plants.
For claim 15, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V disclose an assembly for cultivating a plant, comprising the a pot (Major et al. as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 6-12: 60) according to claim 1, and a base (Major et al. Figs. 1-2: 20) on which the pot is mounted (Major et al. as discussed in [0036]), but fails to show the pot and base are detachably mounted. Chen et al. teaches an assembly for cultivating a plant (as shown in Fig. 1) comprising a core (Chen et al. describes the core of the pot being “glass support tube 4” and shown in Fig. 1) of a pot (Fig. 1: 2); and a base (Fig. 1: 1) on which the pot is detachably mounted (as discussed in the translated description “a glass pipeline end part can adopt threaded connection way to connect”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of Major et al., Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V to include a detachably mounted pot as taught by Chen et al. for the advantage of selectively removing and securing the pot to the base after cleaning or replacement.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0039931) in view of Brabbs et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0080202) and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V (NL 8700101 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spets (WO 2016116659).
For claim 14, Major et al. as modified by Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V disclose a pot according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, but fail to show a method of manufacturing the pot according to claim 1, comprising making the pot by additive manufacturing. Spets teaches a method of manufacturing a pot for cultivating a plant by additive manufacturing (as discussed on page 11, lines 14-20: “The grow pipe is made in one piece”, “3D printing”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Major et al., Brabbs et al. and Holding Jan Van Gorkom B V to include additive manufacturing as taught by Spets for the advantage of reducing manufacturing costs.
Claims 20 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0039931) in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0240466).
For claim 20, Major et al. discloses a pot (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 6-12: 60) for cultivating a plant (as discussed in the abstract), comprising a planting area (Fig. 1: 64) and a root guide channel (Fig. 1: 63) extending between a fluid inlet (Figs. 1-2: at the “top end of primary tube”) and a fluid outlet (Figs. 1-2: at the “bottom end of primary tube) and configured to guide a development of roots downstream of the planting area (as discussed in [0038]), said channel (63) being accessible to the roots of a plant (Fig. 1: 70) planted in the planting area (as shown in Figs. 10-12: 64), the channel (63) winding around a guideline (Figs. 1-2 and 6-12 show a vertical axis at trunk 61 through the center of the pot 60) and making more than one revolution around said guideline between the inlet and the outlet (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 6-12 and discussed in [0038]: “The primary tube 63 is in a helical shape circling the trunk 61”). Major et al. fails to show the channel having a porous bottom, and the channel is provided with a holder for retaining a water-soluble filler.
Anderson et al. teaches a pot for cultivating a plant (Figs. 1-7) comprising a planting area (Figs. 1-3: interior of portion 20) and a root guide channel (Figs. 2-3: bottom 22); the channel having a porous bottom (as discussed on [0030]-[0031] and Figs. 1-7: 30), wherein the porous bottom designates, in a gravity environment, a low part of the channel (as shown in Figs. 1-3), and the channel is provided with a holder (Fig. 6: 38) for retaining a water-soluble filler. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Major et al. to include a porous bottom as taught by Anderson et al. for the advantage of providing air flow and circulation of nutrient fluid to the roots of the plants without the threat of root rot (Anderson et al. as discussed in [0032]).
For claim 23, Major et al. as modified by Anderson et al. discloses the pot according to claim 20, wherein the porous bottom (Anderson et al. Figs. 1-7: 30) is a microporous bottom (Anderson et al. as discussed in [0031]-[0032]: “aeration apertures 36”).
For claim 24, Major et al. as modified by Anderson et al. discloses the pot substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the microporous bottom comprises a porous layer having a thickness of 0.5 to 1 millimeter configured to form a surface part of the bottom. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Major et al. and Anderson et al. to include the microporous layer having a thickness of 0.5 to 1 millimeter for the advantage of allowing the thin roots to penetrate the porous layer, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 25, Major et al. as modified by Anderson et al. discloses the pot according to claim 24, wherein the porosity extends to a lateral rim of the channel (Anderson et al. as discussed in [0032]: “Root-pruning aeration apertures 36 are generally funnel shaped apertures, with the large opening facing upwards.”), wherein the microporous bottom is ridged to promote attachment of microorganisms (Anderson et al. as discussed in [0033]: funnel-shaped apertures define the ridges “The upper opening of funnel member should be about 2-3 times that of lower aperture opening 40 in order to yield the proper deflection angle and pruning angle on funnel member 38 to sprout root hair or very small root 76 leading to water reservoir 50.”), and wherein ridges of the microporous bottom are parallel to a flow direction of the channel (Anderson et al. downward direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-16, 21 and 22 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.
Applicant's arguments with regard to rejection of claim 20 in view of the combination of Major (US 2019/039931) and Anderson (US 2012/0240466) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “However, the Office Action's reasoning is based on impermissible hindsight, as Anderson does not disclose an element configured to retain a water-soluble material. Element 38 is described as a funnel member forming part of the root-pruning aeration apertures. As explained in Anderson's paragraph [0032], this element is intended to redirect the larger roots upwards into soil while guiding very small roots toward the water reservoir. Anderson neither discloses nor suggests that element 38 is configured to receive, retain, support, or hold a water-soluble material. Moreover, the "holder for retaining a water-soluble filler" recited by claim 20 is configured to retain the water- soluble material within the channel, such that nutrients released by dissolution of the water-soluble material are carried by the flow toward the roots located downstream. The claimed retaining element is therefore not merely an element associated with one of a plurality of openings distributed across a support layer. Rather, it is configured to retain the water-soluble material within the channel, thereby allowing the water-soluble material to be progressively exposed to the liquid and the released nutrients to be conveyed toward the roots”.
Applicant’s own disclosure, in [0018], describes the holder for retaining a water-soluble filler as “a housing, an obstacle such as a grid, a support, or any member for maintaining the water-soluble filler, apart from its gradual dissolution, at the desired location.” Here, the examiner relied upon element 38 of the reference to Anderson to show “funnel shaped rigid impermeable member with hole through center” which forms a holder for maintaining a water-soluble filler, apart from its gradual dissolution toward and out through the hole of the funnel 38. It should also be noted that the water-soluble filler is not a required component of the claimed invention. Thus, notwithstanding the positive recitation and size requirements for the holder, the funnel is structured to retain the water-soluble material within the funnel before reaching a location below the channel.
Applicant argues, “Furthermore, even assuming that the skilled person had attempted to incorporate element 38 of Anderson into Major's primary tube, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant submits that this modification would not, by itself, result in the structural configuration required by claim 20. Element 38 of Anderson is a funnel-shaped opening integrated into the growing media support layer 32 and forms part of a plurality of apertures distributed throughout that layer. Its incorporation into Major's device would therefore require adaptation of both its structure and its position. In particular, the skilled person would have to determine how to position element 38 within Major's channel so that it could retain a water-soluble material despite the flow of liquid, while at the same time ensuring sufficient contact between the water-soluble material and the liquid to allow its progressive dissolution.”
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Incorporation of a funnel-shaped opening 38 of Anderson to support the channel of Major et al. would not destroy the structure of Major et al. since the holders - Fig. 7: 38 - are structured to support the roots of the plant and capable of retaining a water-soluble filler.
For at least these reasons, the rejections of claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-16 and 20-25 are maintained and this action is Final.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM.
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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights