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, 4-8, 10, 12 and 17 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 Syrovatski (WO 2019160435 A1).
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.
Syrovatski teaches a pot for cultivating a plant (Figs. 1-2) comprising a planting area (Figs. 1-2: spiral cassette 1) and a root guide channel (Figs. 1-2 cells bound by protrusions 2, 3); the channel having a porous bottom (Fig. 1: at 8), wherein the porous bottom designates, in a gravity environment, a low part of the channel (as shown in Fig. 1 and discussed in the translated description “Oxygen from the air channels 7 to the plant roots flows through the openings 8, 9 and through the capillaries of the bags 5, carbon dioxide moves into reverse direction.”). 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 Syrovatski for the advantage of providing efficient separation of the channel for air flow and circulation of nutrient fluid to the roots of the plants.
For claim 2, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski 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 Syrovatski 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 Syrovatski 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 Syrovatski 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 Syrovatski 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 8, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski 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).
For claim 10, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski 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 12, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski 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]).
For claim 17, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski discloses the pot according to claim 8, wherein the core (Major et al. Figs. 1-2: 61) supports (Major et al. as discussed in [0051]: via supports 62) the channel (Major et al. as shown in Figs. 1-2: 63).
Claims 9, 11, 15, 18 and 19 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 Syrovatski (WO 2019160435 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 108834871 A).
For claims 9 and 18, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski discloses the invention substantially as claimed, 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 (Chen et al. describes the core of the pot being “glass support tube 4” and shown in Fig. 1); 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 Syrovatski 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 claims 11 and 19, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski 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 plant culture surface adjacent with the light supplement lamp 8 light direction of the fill light towards the plant culture surface”) 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 Syrovatski to include a lighting element as taught by Chen et al. for the advantage of providing optimal growing conditions for the plants.
For claim 15, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski 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 Syrovatski 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.
Claims 3, 13 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 Syrovatski (WO 2019160435 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of DeMitchell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0067301).
For claims 3 and 16, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski 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; 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 Syrovatski 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 13, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski discloses the invention substantially as claimed, 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 Syrovatski 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.
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 Syrovatski (WO 2019160435 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spets (WO 2016116659).
For claim 14, Major et al. as modified by Syrovatski 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 Syrovatski 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 Syrovatski (WO 2019160435 A1) 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.
Syrovatski teaches a pot for cultivating a plant (Figs. 1-2) comprising a planting area (Figs. 1-2: spiral cassette 1) and a root guide channel (Figs. 1-2 cells bound by protrusions 2, 3); the channel having a porous bottom (as shown in Fig. 1: at 8 and discussed in the translated description “Oxygen from the air channels 7 to the plant roots flows through the openings 8, 9 and through the capillaries of the bags 5, carbon dioxide moves into reverse direction.”). 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 Syrovatski for the advantage of providing efficient separation of the channel for 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “DeMitchell, either individually or in combination, does not cure the deficiencies of Major and Dreschel. According to the Office Action, DeMitchell discloses a channel including cutouts configured to receive plants and a basket (Fig. 1: element 174) designed to retain water-soluble material. (Office Action at 7.) The basket is positioned between the inlet (Fig. 1: element 155) and the planting area (Fig. 1: element 172). (Office Action at 7.) The Office Action further states that it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify the devices of Major and Dreschel to incorporate such a basket, in order to retain the water-soluble load and thereby prevent clogging of the pot. (Office Action at 7.) However, as explicitly stated in paragraph [0020] of DeMitchell, the basket (174) functions to secure the plant within the cutout (172) and to prevent it from becoming dislodged. This configuration inherently restricts root growth into the channel, thereby preventing the roots from being guided or developing therein. Consequently, the structure disclosed by DeMitchell is incompatible with the claimed invention.”
The examiner respectfully notes that the reference to DeMitchell explicitly recites in [0020] “The basket (174) is porous so as to allow the solution to come into contact with the plant roots. The basket (174) may be sufficiently porous to allow the plant roots to exit the basket (174), thus increasing the amount of roots that contact the solution.”. The roots exit the basket and are not restricted from growing into and developing in the channel, as argued. Like Applicant’s invention, the holder of DeMitchell provides means to retain the filler and allow roots to grow in the channel.
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