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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered.
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 1-8, 10-12, 14-16 and 21-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the low part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-16 and 21-22 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 10 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 Pavlecka (U.S. Patent No. 1,953,363).
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.
Pavlecka teaches a pot for cultivating a plant (Figs. 1-4) comprising a planting area (Figs. 1-4: interior of portion 1) and a root guide channel (Figs. 2 and 4: inner flange 8); the channel having a porous bottom (as discussed on page 1, lines 73-79 and Figs. 2 and 4: at bottom 4), wherein the porous bottom designates, in a gravity environment, a low part of the channel (as shown in Figs. 2 and 4). 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 Pavlecka for the advantage of reducing evaporation, and providing air flow and circulation of nutrient fluid to the roots of the plants.
For claim 2, Major et al. as modified by Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka 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.
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 Pavlecka (U.S. Patent No. 1,953,363), 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 Pavlecka 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]) 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. and Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka 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. and Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka 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]) 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. and Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka (U.S. Patent No. 1,953,363), 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 Pavlecka 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. and Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka 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. and Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka 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. and Pavlecka 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 Pavlecka (U.S. Patent No. 1,953,363), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spets (WO 2016116659).
For claim 14, Major et al. as modified by Pavlecka disclose a pot according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, but fail to show a method of manufacturing method for 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. and Pavlecka to include additive manufacturing as taught by Spets for the advantage of reducing manufacturing costs.
Claim 20 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 Pavlecka (U.S. Patent No. 1,953,363) and DeMitchell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0067301).
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.
Pavlecka teaches a pot for cultivating a plant (Figs. 1-4) comprising a planting area (Figs. 1-4: interior of portion 1) and a root guide channel (Figs. 2 and 4: inner flange 8); the channel having a porous bottom (as discussed on page 1, lines 73-79 and Figs. 2 and 4: at bottom 4), wherein the porous bottom designates, in a gravity environment, a low part of the channel (as shown in Figs. 2 and 4). 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 Pavlecka 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 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]) 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. 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 1 and 20-25 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 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.
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). 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 reducing evaporation, and providing air flow and circulation of nutrient fluid to the roots of the plants.
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 21, Major et al. as modified by Anderson et al. discloses the pot according to claim 1, 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 22, Major et al. as modified by Anderson et al. discloses the pot according to claim 21, wherein the microporous bottom has a homogenous porosity (Anderson et al. as discussed in [0031]: “root-pruning aeration apertures 36 are spaced evenly throughout the entire surface of growing media support layer 32”).
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 and 20-25 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.
Conclusion
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
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights