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 .
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 05/01/2026 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1, 3-4, 15, 17-18 and 20 were amended, Claim 2 was canceled. Claims 1and 3-20 are presented for examination.
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 1, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose (JP H0775456 A as cited in IDS) in view of Momose (JP H0775456 A as cited in IDS, fig. 11, hereon referred to as Momose’11).
Regarding claim 1, Momose discloses a system for retaining water and providing nutrients to plantlets ([0015]), the system comprising: an enclosing structure (11), the enclosing structure comprising: a first surface (12) on an exterior (exterior of 11) of the enclosing structure that is concaved (fig. 8 as the first surface 12 forms a portion of the exterior of the enclosing structure) and configured to direct environmental moisture toward a channel (channel of fig. 8 as the concave structure of the first surface will direct environmental moisture toward the channel) that extends through the enclosing structure (fig. 8), and an exterior wall (outer surface of 11) extending from the first surface (fig. 8); and an interior cavity (21) defined by a second surface (upper surface of 21) on an interior of the exterior wall (interior of 11 in fig. 8); an opening (opening leading to 21) that is opposite to the second surface (opening of 21 facing the ground of fig. 8); and a first module (14 and see machine translation “the seed S is placed on the mesh-like material 14”), the first module adapted to support one or more seeds thereon (see machine translation “the seed S is placed on the mesh-like material 14”); wherein the channel extends through the first surface and the second surface (channel of fig. 8), the channel comprises a first end (end of channel near 12 of fig. 8) and a second end (end of channel near 21 of fig. 8), the first end is distal to the interior cavity (fig. 8) and the second end is proximal to the interior cavity (fig. 8), and the channel is in fluid communication with the interior cavity (fig. 8 as the channel is in fluid communication with the interior cavity) and is configured to direct the environmental moisture into the interior cavity (fig. 8 as the opening of the channel will direct the environmental moisture into the interior cavity).
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, wherein the first module is coupled to the second surface.
Momose’11 teaches wherein 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 (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 11) and the opening (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 11 of opening underneath 14), wherein the first module is coupled to the second surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 11 as the first module 14 is coupled to the second surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, wherein the first module is coupled to the second surface 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 modified by Momose’11 teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, 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 modified 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 modified 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 modified by Momose’11 teaches the system as claimed in claim 3, and but is silent wherein the first module, the second module, or both the first module and the second module are made substantially of vermiculite.
OHLUND teaches wherein the first module (2), the second module, or both the first module and the second module are 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 the first module and the second module of Momose as modified 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 modified by Momose’11 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vestergaard (US 4058931 A as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Momose as modified by Momose’11teaches 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 as modified by Momose’11 in order to form supports for the system to rest (Col. 2, lines 44-45 of Vestergaard).
Claims 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose as modified by Momose’11 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TURPIN (WO 2020150813 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Momose as modified by Momose’11 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 as modified by Momose’11 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and TURPIN in order to ensure healthy root growth ([0047] of TURPIN).
Regarding claim 9, Momose as modified by Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and 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 as modified by Momose’11 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 as modified by Momose’11 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 Momose’11 and TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 14, and TURPIN further teaches wherein the water controlling agent is selected from an acrylate polymer, a super absorbent polymer, or a combination thereof ([0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Momose as modified by Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 14, but is silent wherein the exterior wall further comprising a seed germination enhancer selected from a gibberellin, an auxin, or a combination thereof.
TURPIN teaches the exterior wall further comprising a seed germination enhancer ([0047]) selected from a gibberellin, an auxin, or 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 a gibberellin, an auxin, or a combination thereof as taught by TURPIN into the exterior wall of Momose as modified by Momose’11 and TURPIN in order to promote the germination of the seeds ([0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Momose as modified by Momose’11 and TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 17, and TURPIN further teaches wherein the gibberellin is selected from GA3, GA 4+7, or a combination thereof ([0047]).
Regarding claim 19, Momose as modified by Momose’11 and 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 Momose’11 and TURPIN teaches the system as claimed in claim 15, and TURPIN further teaches wherein a ratio of the water controlling agent to the organic material is between about 1:1 and about 1:3 ([0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues “For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that D1 does not anticipate the amended claims presently on file.”.
The examiner respectively disagrees. Please see rejection above as Momose’11 is relied upon to teach the claimed amendments.
Applicant further argues “Per the disclosure of D1, "In the embodiment shown in FIG. 11, the seed support portion 12 is made of a mesh-like material sandwiched in the middle of a hole 13 penetrating the upper and lower surfaces of the hydroponic base material 11" [emphasis added].' In order for D1 to teach or suggest the amended claims of the present application, module 200 of the present application would have to be disposed in the channel that connects the interior space 1030 to the outside environment. However, per amended claim 1, module 200 is not disposed within the channel but instead resides within the interior cavity.
The above difference is critical, given that module 200 is strategically located within the system to increase the likelihood of one or more seedling emerging through the channel of the enclosing structure. For example, as described at paragraph 91 of the disclosure as originally filed, "[p]referably, the one or more seeds 10 are disposed at a location on module 200 that increases the likelihood of one or more seedlings emerging through channel 1026 of enclosing structure 1000." It is not possible for D1 to teach or suggest this feature given that the seed in Figure 11 of D1 is disposed within the channel itself (and therefore cannot emerge through the channel).”.
The examiner respectively disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Also, as stated above, Momose’11 teaches wherein the module 14 is within the interior cavity of 12 and not the within the channel, as examiner’s illustration of fig. 11 illustrates that the module is within the interior cavity of 12 while the channel is above the module.
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claim 1 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights