DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Ref 120 in fig. 1(a)-1(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, the limitation “opposite the second surface” in line 4, should read “opposite to the second surface”.
For claims 8-9, claim 9 should be its own separate claim.
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 2-4, 15, 17-18 and 20 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.
For claim 2, the limitation “the opening” in line 2 is unclear as to which opening is being referred to as claim 1 states an opening and another opening that is opposite to the second surface. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the opening as the opening that is opposite to the second surface.
For claim 4, the limitation “at least one of the first module and the second module is made substantially of vermiculite.” is unclear if one or both of the modules must be made of vermiculite. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret it as at least one of the modules.
For claim 15, the limitation “the group” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. Also, the limitation “and a combination thereof” in lines 2-3 is unclear if one or both the acrylate polymer and the super absorbent polymer are required. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret it as at least one is required and suggests that the limitation “and a combination thereof” be amended to – or a combination thereof—.
For claim 17, the limitation “the group” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. Also, the limitation “and a combination thereof” in lines 2-3 is unclear if one or both the gibberellin and an auxin are required. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret it as at least one is required and suggests that the limitation “and a combination thereof” be amended to – or a combination thereof—.
For claim 18, the limitation “and a combination thereof” in line 2 is unclear if one or all the GA3 and GA 4+7 are required. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret it as at least one is required and suggests that the limitation “and a combination thereof” be amended to – or a combination thereof—.
For claim 20, the limitation “the ratio” in line 1 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Momose (JP H0775456 A as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Momose discloses a system for retaining water and providing nutrients to plantlets ([0015]), comprising: a first surface (12) that is concaved (fig. 8), an opening (opening leading to 21), and an exterior wall (outer surface of 11) extending between the first surface and the opening (fig. 8); an interior cavity (21) defined by an interior surface (interior surface of 11) of the exterior wall (fig. 8), a second surface (upper surface of 21), and an opening that is opposite the second surface (opening of 21 facing the ground of fig. 8); and a channel (channel of fig. 8) extending through the first surface and the second surface (channel of fig. 8), the channel comprising a first end (end of channel near 12 of fig. 8) and a second end (end of channel near 21 of fig. 8), the channel in fluid communication with the interior cavity (fig. 8), the first end being distal (fig. 8) to the interior cavity and the second end being proximal (fig. 8) to the interior cavity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose in view of Momose (JP H0775456 A as cited in IDS, fig. 11, hereon referred to as Momose’11).
Regarding claim 2, Momose teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a first module (14 and see machine translation “the seed S is placed on the mesh-like material 14”) the module adapted to support one or more seeds thereon (see machine translation “the seed S is placed on the mesh-like material 14”).
However, Momose is silent wherein the first module is spatially disposed within the interior cavity between the second end of the channel and the opening.
Momose’11 teaches the first module 14 is spatially disposed within the interior cavity (cavity of 12) between the second end (end of 13 near the opening of 12) of the channel (13) and the opening (opening underneath 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the placement of the first module of Momose to be spatially disposed within the interior cavity between the second end of the channel and the opening as taught by Momose’11 in order to further protect the module within the walls and have the seed near the ground so that the roots can easily access the soil as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Momose as modifed by Momose’11 teaches the system as claimed in claim 2, but is silent about further comprising a second module disposed within the interior cavity between the second end of the channel and the first module, wherein a space exists between the first module and the second module.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a second module disposed within the interior cavity between the second end of the channel and the first module, wherein a space exists between the first module and the second module into the system of Momose as modifed by Momose’11 in order to further protect the seed as it is well known in the art, since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose as modifed by Momose’11 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of OHLUND (US 20160198621 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Momose as modifed by Momose’11 teaches the system as claimed in claim 3, and but is silent wherein at least one of the first module and the second module is made substantially of vermiculite.
OHLUND teaches wherein at least one of the first module (2) and the second module is made substantially of vermiculite ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of at least one of the first module and the second module of Momose as modifed by Momose’11 to be made substantially of vermiculite as taught by OHLUND in order to make the module with a material with a higher degree of water absorption ([0129] of OHLUND), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vestergaard (US 4058931 A as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Momose teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, but is silent about further comprising a base for enclosing the opening of the interior cavity that is opposite the second surface.
Vestergaard teaches a base (9) for enclosing the opening of the interior cavity (8) that is opposite the second surface (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a base as taught by Vestergaard into the system of Momose in order to form supports for the system to rest (Col. 2, lines 44-45 of Momose).
Claims 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TURPIN (WO 2020150813 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Momose teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, but is silent about the exterior wall comprising a first organic material, a binding material and a buffering material.
TURPIN teaches the exterior wall (110) comprising a first organic material ([0044 and 0053]), a binding material ([0013] and [0053]) and a buffering material ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exterior wall of Momose to include a first organic material, a binding material and a buffering material as taught by TURPIN in order to enhance nutrient uptake ([0044] of TURPIN), promote adhesiveness ([0041] of TURPIN) and balance the pH ([0049] of TURPIN), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 6, but is silent wherein the exterior wall further comprises basalt.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exterior wall of Momose as modified by TURPIN to comprise of basalt in order to improve the health of the plant and further provide nutrients as it is well known in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 6, but is silent wherein the exterior wall further comprises a root growth promoting hormone.
TURPIN teaches wherein the exterior wall further comprises a root growth promoting hormone (abstract and [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a root growth promoting hormone as taught by TURPIN into the exterior wall of Momose as modified by TURPIN in order to ensure healthy root growth ([0047] of TURPIN).
Regarding claim 9, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 6, and TURPIN further teaches wherein the combination of the first organic material and the binding material is between about 45% to about 60% of the overall weight of the system ([0041 and 0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 9, but is silent wherein the binding material is clay.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the binding material of Momose as modified by TURPIN to include clay in order to improve the exterior wall’s structure while also enhancing water retention as it is well known in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 6, but is silent about wherein the buffering material is a dry stalk of a cereal plant post grain and chaff removal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a dry stalk of a cereal plant post grain and chaff removal into the buffering material of Momose as modified by TURPIN in order to stabilize the pH as it is well known in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 6, but is silent wherein the exterior wall further comprises a second organic material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the exterior wall further comprises a second organic material into the exterior wall of Momose as modified by TURPIN in order to further provide nutrients and water retention to the plant, since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 13, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 12, but is silent wherein the second organic material is peat.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second organic material of Momose as modified by TURPIN to include peat in order to provide aeration and improve water retention as it is well known in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 14, Momose the system as claimed in claim 1, but is silent about the exterior wall comprising a water controlling agent, an organic material, and a binding material.
TURPIN teaches the exterior wall (110) comprising a water controlling agent ([0040]), an organic material ([0044]), and a binding material ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water controlling agent, an organic material, and a binding material as taught by TURPIN into the exterior wall of Momose in order to improve water absorption ([0040] of TURPIN), enhance nutrient uptake ([0044] of TURPIN), and promote adhesiveness ([0041] of TURPIN), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 15, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 14, and TURPIN further teaches wherein the water controlling agent is selected from the group consisting of an acrylate polymer, a super absorbent polymer, and a combination thereof ([0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 14, and TURPIN further teaches wherein the organic material is worm casting ([0044]), soil, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 14, but is silent wherein the exterior wall further comprising a seed germination enhancer selected from the group consisting of a gibberellin, an auxin, and a combination thereof.
TURPIN teaches the exterior wall further comprising a seed germination enhancer ([0047]) selected from the group consisting of a gibberellin, an auxin, and a combination thereof ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a seed germination enhancer selected from the group consisting of a gibberellin, an auxin, and a combination thereof as taught by TURPIN into the exterior wall of Momose as modified by TURPIN in order to promote the germination of the seeds ([0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 17, and TURPIN further teaches wherein the gibberellin is selected from the group consisting of GA3, GA 4+7, and a combination thereof ([0047]).
Regarding claim 19, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 14, and TURPIN further teaches wherein the binding material is microcrystalline cellulose ([0013]).
Regarding claim 20, Momose as modified by TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 15, and TURPIN further teaches wherein the ratio of the water controlling agent to the organic material is between about 1:1 and about 1:3 ([0014]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobs (US 2893168 A) teaches a concaved surface.
Takeda (US 20060231451 A1) teaches a concaved surface.
BOTMAN (US 20160270310 A1) teaches a module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643