DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first action on the merits of application 18/876,124 filed on December 17, 2024. Claims 1-10 and 84-89 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: a word appears to be missing from the phrase “configured to be in direct with the plant growing medium”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Examiner notes apparent that certain terms and element callouts appear to be used interchangeably throughout the specification and the claims such that correspondence between the claims and the specification/drawings appears unclear. As an example, the “heating element” recited in claim 1 appears to refer to both “heating element 165” (para [0064]) and “heat source layer 250” (para [0084]). As an additional example, the “thermal barrier layer” recited in claim 1 appears to refer to both “EPS layer 220” (para [0081]) and “thermal barrier layer 235” (para [0083]). Applicant is suggested to utilize consistent terminology throughout the specification and claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in at least Fig. 2A and 2B, the hashing, or shading, of different materials appears to be inconsistent, such that the labeling of different materials of different layers is confusing. Per MPEP § 608.02(IX)), the hashing of drawings should be specific to particular materials; however, the instant drawings do not appear to align with the guidance. For example, in Fig. 2A, element “205” corresponds to an “inner PU layer” and is depicted by solid dark shading; in Fig. 2B, element “240b”, which may be polyurethane (para [0083]), corresponds to “inner protective layer” and is depicted by slashed shading. Element “205” of Fig. 2A appears to be analogous to element “240b” of Fig. 2B (see para [0081] and [0083]); however, they appear to be depicted using different shading in each drawing such that the structure of the wall structure is unclear.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 88 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 7-8, it appears the phrase “configured to be in direct with the plant growing medium” is missing a word. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is interpreted as --configured to be in direct contact with the plant growing medium--.
In claim 4, lines 1-2, it is suggested to amend the phrase “material hardness between shore durometer between 25D and 60D” to --material hardness with shore durometer between 25D and 60D--.
In claim 88, lines 10, 12, and 14, it is suggested to amend the terms “monitor”, “compare”, and “generate” to --monitoring--, --comparing--, and –generating--, respectively, to improve readability and consistency of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes the following regarding interpretation of claim limitations:
In claim 1, lines 11-12, regarding the limitation “wherein the heating element is disposed at an outer surface of an inner coating of the at least one of the side walls”, the Examiner interprets “outer surface” to refer to a surface that is outer relative to the plurality of layers of the at least one of the side walls.
In claim 8, lines 1-3, regarding the limitation “wherein an inner protective layer configured to be inward facing and in contact with the plant growing medium further comprises aerogel”, the Examiner interprets “inward facing” to refer to facing inwardly relative to the modular gardening box as a whole.
In claim 10, lines 2-3, regarding the limitation “a conductive substrate sandwiched between the heating element and an outer surface of the inner protective layer”, the Examiner interprets “outer surface” to refer to a surface that is outer relative to the plurality of layers of the at least one of the side walls.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-10 and 84-89 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.
Claim 1, lines 7-8, recites the limitation, “a heating element disposed in at least one of the side walls and configured to be in direct with the plant growing medium”. Claim 1, line 11-12, further recites, “wherein the heating element is disposed at an outer surface of an inner coating of the at least one of the at least one side walls”. It is unclear how the heating element is able to be disposed “in” a side wall while also being “in direct with the plant growing medium” and being disposed “at an outer surface of an inner coating”. It appears that if the heating element were disposed “in” a side wall, it would be covered by other layers of the side wall, such that it could not directly contact the plant growing medium. For at least these reasons, it is unclear how the heating element is arranged relative to other elements of the system, including other layers of the at least one side wall, and the claim is thus rendered indefinite. Claims 2-10 and 84-89 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 1, lines, 11-12, recites the limitation, “wherein the heating element is disposed at an outer surface of an inner coating of the at least one side walls”. However, claim 1, lines 9-10, previously recites, “a thermal barrier layer coated on opposite sides, each side by a protective layer of quick curing material”. It is unclear whether the “inner coating” recited in line 12 refers to the protective layer coated on opposite sides of the thermal barrier, or to a different element. For at least these reasons, it is unclear how many layers are included in the side walls of the modular gardening box and how said layers are arranged, and the claim is thus rendered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the “inner coating” to refer to an innermost of the protective layers.
Claim 8, line 1, recites the limitation, “an inner protective layer”. However, claim 1, lines 9-10, recites the limitation, “a thermal barrier layer coated on opposite sides, each side by a protective layer”. It is unclear whether the “inner protective layer” refers to one of the protective layers coated on opposite sides of the thermal barrier, or to a different element. For at least these reasons, it is unclear how many layers are included in the side walls of the modular gardening box and how said layers are arranged, and the claim is thus rendered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the “inner protective layer” to refer to an innermost of the protective layers.
Claim 9, lines 1-2, recites the limitation, “wherein the heating element is disposed between the aerogel and the inner protective layer”. However, claim 8, lines 1-3, recites, “wherein an inner protective layer…further comprises aerogel”. Since the aerogel is described as being part of the inner protective layer, it is unclear how the heating element is able to be disposed between the inner protective layer and itself. Furthermore, claim 1, lines 7-8, recites wherein a heating element is “configured to be in direct with the plant growing medium”, and claim 1, lines 11-12, recites, “wherein the heating element is disposed at an outer surface of an inner coating of the at least one of the side walls”. It is unclear how the heating element is able to be in direct contact with the plant growing medium and at an outer surface of an inner coating while also being disposed between two layers. For at least these reasons, it is unclear how the layers of the of the side walls are arranged, and the claim is thus rendered indefinite. Claim 10, lines 1-3, recites the limitation, “wherein the inner protective layer further comprises a conductive substrate sandwiched between the heating element and an outer surface of the inner protective layer”. Since the conductive substrate is described as being a part of the inner protective layer, it is unclear how the conductive substrate is able to be sandwiched between the heating element and itself. For at least these reasons, it is unclear how the layers of the of the side walls are arranged, and the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
Claim 86, line 6, recites the limitation, “a soil moisture profile”. However, claim 86, line 13, also recites the limitation, “a soil moisture profile”. It is unclear whether each limitation refers to a same soil moisture profile or to different soil moisture profiles. It is further unclear how the controller would be able to compare “a soil moisture profile…to the soil moisture profile” as is described in claim 86, lines 12-15. For at least these reasons, it is unclear how the controller operates, and the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
Claim 89, lines 7-8, recites the limitation, “such that the sealing members press against the wall”. However, claim 1, line 2, recites, “four side walls”. It is unclear whether the “the wall” refers to a particular one of the four side walls, to any one of the four side walls, to each of the four side walls, or to a different element altogether. For at least these reasons, it is unclear how the port member is arranged relative to other elements of the apparatus, and the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Kochman Fig. 5, Plan View (Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne discloses a modular gardening box (title; abstract) comprising:
a plant growing volume (interior of container 1, delineated by walls 2 and plate 6) defined by four side walls (lateral walls 2), wherein the plant growing volume is configured to hold a plant growing medium (fig. 2, interior of container capable of holding plant growing medium);
a wicking bed (drainage chamber 9) disposed below the plant growing volume comprising a liquid reservoir (interior of drainage chamber 9 holding water 10; fig. 2), wherein the plant growing medium is moisturized by liquids in the liquid reservoir by wicking (moisturized via wicks 15; col 2, lines 64-72); and,
a heating element (perforated plate 6 comprising resistance 16) disposed in at least one of the side walls and configured to be in direct with the plant growing medium (fig. 2-3; col 2, line 73-col 3, line 5).
Delogne does not appear to specifically disclose wherein:
the side walls comprise a thermal barrier layer coated on opposite sides, each side by a protective layer of quick curing material, and the protective layer is heat resistant, wherein the heating element is disposed at an outer surface of an inner coating of the at least one of the side walls, such that the protective layer thermally separates the thermal barrier layer from thermal energy generated by the heating element.
However, Kochman is in the field of heated plant cultivation apparatuses (title; abstract) and teaches wherein:
the side walls comprise a thermal barrier layer (wall of plastic plant growth container 1) coated on opposite sides, each side by a protective layer of material (coated by heating element holding means 12 and insulation medium 10, which provide physical protection; see annotated fig. 1), and the protective layer is heat resistant (heat element holding means 12 and insulation medium 10 are at least to some degree resistant to heat), wherein the heating element (heating element panel 11) is disposed at an outer surface of an inner coating of the at least one of the side walls (annotated fig. 1), such that the protective layer (heating element holding means 12) thermally separates the thermal barrier layer from thermal energy generated by the heating element (annotated fig. 1, heating element holding means 12 separates wall of plastic plant growth container 1 from heating element panel 11).
The Examiner notes that Delogne as modified by Kochman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the protective layer is of a quick curing material; however, Kochman does disclose wherein heating element holding means 12 comprises, for example, “polymer film” (para [0028]) and wherein insulation medium 10 comprises, for example, “metallized polymer film” (para [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the disclosed polymer films of a quick curing material as such materials are well understood in the art, and one would be motivated to reduce manufacturing times required to construct the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with side walls and heating element of Delogne to incorporate the teachings of a thermal barrier layer and protective coatings as taught by Kochman with a reasonable expectation of success to insulate the gardening box such that heat is better retained and not wasted (para [0029]).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phelps et al. (CA 2665314 A1), hereinafter Phelps.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the protective layer comprises aromatic polyurea.
However, Phelps is in the field of protective linings (abstract) and teaches wherein the protective layer (second elastomeric polyurea/urethane hybrid layer 18) comprises aromatic polyurea (para [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with protective layer of Delogne as modified to have made the protective layer of aromatic polyurea as taught by Phelps with a reasonable expectation of success to improve durability and strength of the side walls of the gardening box (see Phelps, para [0016]). Furthermore, no criticality appears to be disclosed regarding the material choice of aromatic polyurea, as the specification notes that materials other than aromatic polyurea may be used to form the protective layer (see Specification, para [0083]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the protective layer comprises polyurethane.
However, Phelps is in the field of protective linings (abstract) and teaches wherein the protective layer (second elastomeric polyurea/urethane hybrid layer 18) comprises polyurethane (para [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with protective layer of Delogne as modified to have made the protective layer of polyurethane with a reasonable expectation of success to improve durability and strength of the side walls of the gardening box (see Phelps, para [0016]). Furthermore, no criticality appears to be disclosed regarding the material choice of polyurethane, as the specification notes that materials other than polyurethane may be used to form the protective layer (see Specification, para [0083]).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the protective layer comprises a material hardness between shore durometer between 25D and 60D.
However, Phelps is in the field of protective linings (abstract) and teaches wherein the protective layer (second elastomeric polyurea/urethane hybrid layer 18) comprises a material hardness between shore durometer between 25D and 60D (para [0051], elastomeric aromatic polyurea/urethane hybrid layer 18 has Shore D hardness less than 65; see Table 2, second elastomeric polyurea/urethane hybrid is disclosed as having a hardness of 45 D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular planting box with protective layer of Delogne as modified to have made the protective layer with a hardness between 25D and 60D as taught by Phelps with a reasonable expectation of success to have made the side walls of the gardening box durable such that the gardening box can better withstand damage (para [0016]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the quick curing material cures within 10 seconds after application.
However, Phelps is in the field of protective linings (abstract) and teaches wherein the quick curing material (material of second elastomeric polyurea/urethane hybrid layer 18) cures within 10 seconds after application (para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with protective layer of quick curing material of Delogne as modified to have made the quick curing material configured to cure within 10 seconds as taught by Phelps with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce manufacturing times required for the gardening box.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paul (WO 2012/000063 A1), hereinafter Paul.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the thermal barrier layer comprises expanded polystyrene.
However, Paul is in the field of plant cultivation (title; abstract) and discloses wherein the thermal barrier layer (expanded polystyrene sheet 24) comprises expanded polystyrene (page 8/29, lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular planting box with thermal barrier layer of Delogne as modified to have made the thermal barrier layer of expanded polystyrene as taught by Paul with a reasonable expectation of success to provide insulative structural support to the planting box while keeping the planting box lightweight for easier transportation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (CN 111296131 A), hereinafter Lu.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the heating element comprises a graphene heat trace.
However, Lu is in the field of cultivation apparatuses (title) and teaches wherein the heating element (graphene heating film 16) comprises a graphene heat trace (fig. 4; page 19/20, under “Example 2”, “graphene heating film is electrified for heating”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with heating element of Delogne as modified to have made the heating element a graphene heat trace as taught by Lu with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize materials well understood in the art to effectively heat the gardening box (page 15/20, second paragraph). Furthermore, no criticality appears to be disclosed regarding the material choice of graphene, as the specification notes that materials other than graphene may be used to form the heating element (see Specification, para [0082]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (CN 109328745 A), hereinafter Ma.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein an inner protective layer configured to be inward facing and in contact with the plant growing medium further comprises aerogel.
However, Ma is in the field of plant cultivation (title) and teaches wherein an inner protective layer (aerogel felt 3) configured to be inward facing and in contact with the plant growing medium (fig. 2) further comprises aerogel (page 13/15, seventh paragraph, “providing the double-layer heat insulation layer combined of aerogel felt groove”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with protective layer of Delogne as modified to incorporate the aerogel layer as taught by Ma with a reasonable expectation of success to better insulate the gardening box such that the temperature of the plant and plant growing medium are less affected by external environmental temperatures (page 13/15, seventh paragraph). Furthermore, no criticality appears to be disclosed regarding the material choice of aerogel, as the specification notes that materials other than aerogel may be used to form the protective layer (see Specification, para [0081]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, and Ma et al. (CN 109328745 A), hereinafter Ma, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bowles (US 11,388,862 B2), hereinafter Bowles.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 8, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the heating element is disposed between the aerogel and the inner protective layer.
However, Bowles is in the field of plant cultivation (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the heating element (thermoelectric device 65) is disposed between the aerogel (first thermal insulation 76a) and the inner protective layer (peripheral sidewalls 114; fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with heating element, aerogel layer, and protective layer of Delogne as modified to have arranged the heating element between the aerogel and the inner protective layer as taught by Bowles with a reasonable expectation of success to protect the heating element from moisture or other environmental factors.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the heating element between the aerogel and the inner protective layer, with the motivation of insulating plant roots and other parts from direct contact with the heating element, 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 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the inner protective layer (from Bowles, peripheral sidewalls 114) further comprises a conductive substrate (from Bowles, thermal conduction plate 70) sandwiched between the heating element (from Bowles, thermoelectric device 65) and an outer surface of the inner protective layer (from Bowles, peripheral sidewalls 114; fig. 6).
Claim(s) 84 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pierce (US 2016/0081283 A1), hereinafter Pierce.
Regarding claim 84, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising:
a connection pipe fluidly connected to the liquid reservoir; and,
a flow inducing feature fluidly connected to through the liquid reservoir the connection pipe, wherein the flow inducing feature is disposed vertically above the liquid reservoir and is exposed to an external environment and ambient air, such that a pressure differential between the ambient air and the liquid reservoir induces an airflow between the external environment and the liquid reservoir.
However, Pierce is in the field of plant cultivation (title; abstract) and teaches further comprising:
a connection pipe (hose fitting 55) fluidly connected to the liquid reservoir (segregated cells 72 containing liquid; fig. 3); and,
a flow inducing feature (direct supply tube 88) fluidly connected to through the liquid reservoir the connection pipe (fig. 3), wherein the flow inducing feature is disposed vertically above the liquid reservoir (fig. 3) and is exposed to an external environment and ambient air (fig. 3), such that a pressure differential between the ambient air and the liquid reservoir induces an airflow between the external environment and the liquid reservoir (fig. 3, direct supply tube 88 is capable of inducing airflow between external environment and cells 72 via pressure differential).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with liquid reservoir of Delogne as modified to incorporate the connection pipe and flow inducing feature as taught by Pierce with a reasonable expectation of success to allow gas and liquid exchange between an external environment and the reservoir, thereby allowing fresh air and water to be more easily circulated into the system.
Claim(s) 85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 111670723 A), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 85, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising:
a box cover comprising a protective cover and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to automatically activate the protective cover such that, in an activated mode, the protective cover sealingly encloses the plant growing volume.
However, Liu is in the field of plant cultivation (title) and teaches further comprising:
a box cover (shown in fig. 6) comprising a protective cover (cover body 13) and a controller (central controller 113), wherein the controller is configured to automatically activate the protective cover such that, in an activated mode, the protective cover sealingly encloses the plant growing volume (cultivating groove 12; page 19/22, fourth paragraph, “Then the central controller 113 controls the first cylinder 15 to shrink so that the first cylinder 15 is in the contracted state. At this time, the cover body 13 tightly matched with the cultivating groove 12, collecting box 11 on the through hole is covered by the cover body 13. a plurality of cultivation groove 12 are sealed, so that the plurality of cultivation groove 12 are in isolated state with the inner cavity of the collecting box 11”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box of Delogne as modified to incorporate the box cover as taught by Liu with a reasonable expectation of success to protect plants from damage from wildlife or unwanted human interaction.
Claim(s) 86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poolar (US 2011/0271590 A1), hereinafter Poolar.
Regarding claim 86, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising:
a fill level sensor of the liquid reservoir configured to measure a fill level of liquid in the liquid reservoir;
a moisture sensor configured to measure a moisture level of the plant growing medium;
a data store comprising a soil profile comprising a soil moisture profile comprising a minimum fill level of the liquid reservoir and a rate of change of the moisture level of the plant growing medium as a function of the moisture level and the fill level of the liquid reservoir; and,
a controller operably coupled to the fill level sensor and the moisture sensor, wherein
the controller regulates a moisture level of the plant growing medium by comparing a soil moisture profile comprising a level measurement of the fill level sensor and a rate of change of the moisture level of the plant growing medium to the soil moisture profile, such that the controller generates a signal as a function of the level measurement and the minimum fill level specified in the soil profile.
However, Poolar is in the field of plant cultivation (title; abstract) and teaches further comprising:
a fill level sensor (water level sensor 72) of the liquid reservoir (water reservoir 16) configured to measure a fill level of liquid in the liquid reservoir (para [0037]);
a moisture sensor (humidity sensor 82) configured to measure a moisture level of the plant growing medium (soil 30; para [0038]);
a data store (control module 22) comprising a soil profile comprising a soil moisture profile (“plant profiles” para [0038]) comprising a minimum fill level of the liquid reservoir and a rate of change of the moisture level of the plant growing medium as a function of the moisture level and the fill level of the liquid reservoir (para [0037]-[0038] and [0043]); and,
a controller (timing controller 88) operably coupled to the fill level sensor and the moisture sensor (para [0038] and [0043]), wherein
the controller regulates a moisture level of the plant growing medium by comparing a soil moisture profile comprising a level measurement of the fill level sensor and a rate of change of the moisture level of the plant growing medium to the soil moisture profile, such that the controller generates a signal as a function of the level measurement and the minimum fill level specified in the soil profile (para [0037]-[0038] and [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with liquid reservoir of Delogne as modified to incorporate the fill level sensor, moisture sensor, data store, and controller as taught by Poolar with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for more precise and more automated control over watering of plants within the gardening box (para [0037]-[0038] and [0043]).
Claim(s) 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mikkelson (US 10,577,755 B1), hereinafter Mikkelson.
Regarding claim 87, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising:
a data store comprising a soil profile comprising a temperature threshold matrix;
a plurality of temperature sensors, wherein the plurality of temperature sensors are distributed throughout the plant growing medium; and,
a controller operably coupled to the plurality of temperature sensors, wherein the controller controls a temperature of the plant growing medium by (a) generating a 3D temperature matrix of the plant growing medium, and (b) comparing the 3D temperature matrix to the temperature threshold matrix of the soil profile, and (c) generating a temperature control signal as a function of a compare result.
However, Mikkelson is in the field of plant cultivation (title; abstract) and teaches further comprising:
a data store (“memory”, col 11, line 27) comprising a soil profile comprising a temperature threshold matrix (“desired soil profile temperatures”, col 8, lines 17-18);
a plurality of temperature sensors (environmental sensors 303; col 7, lines 54-67, sensors 303 may detect soil temperatures), wherein the plurality of temperature sensors are distributed throughout the plant growing medium (col 7, lines 54-67, sensors 303 are “in-ground wireless sensors” and may be distributed throughout different zones and at different depths); and,
a controller (control unit 325) operably coupled to the plurality of temperature sensors (col 8, lines 1-6), wherein the controller controls a temperature of the plant growing medium by (a) generating a 3D temperature matrix of the plant growing medium, and (b) comparing the 3D temperature matrix to the temperature threshold matrix of the soil profile, and (c) generating a temperature control signal as a function of a compare result (col 8, lines 1-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box of Delogne as modified to incorporate the data store, plurality of temperature sensors, and controller as taught by Mikkelson with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for more precise and more automated control over watering of plants within the gardening box (col 8, lines 1-22).
Claim(s) 88 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benfey et al. (EP 3380831 B1), hereinafter Benfey.
Regarding claim 88, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising:
a data store comprising a soil profile comprising a target range of electrical potential as a function of a predetermined rate of ions flow;
a grounding system comprising a potential sensor disposed within the plant growing medium, an electrical ground, and a low power charge application device; and,
a controller operably coupled to the grounding system, wherein the controller is configured to actively control an impedance of the plant growing medium, wherein the controller controls the impedance of the plant growing medium from the low power charge application device to the electrical ground by:
(a) monitor an electrical potential in the plant growing medium with measurements from the potential sensor,
(b) compare the electrical potential to a target range of electrical potential as a function of a predetermined rate of ions flow specified in the soil profile, and,
(c) generate a signal to control the low power charge application device to adjust a current flow within the plant growing medium.
However, Benfey is in the field of plant cultivation (title) and teaches further comprising:
a data store (computer readable medium/memory 408) comprising a soil profile (“baseline signal response”, para [0041]) comprising a target range of electrical potential as a function of a predetermined rate of ions flow (para [0047]);
a grounding system (shown in fig. 4A) comprising a potential sensor (first conductor plate 452) disposed within the plant growing medium (fig. 4A), an electrical ground (electrode 138 coupled to ground, fig. 4A), and a low power charge application device (power supply 402); and,
a controller (microprocessor 416) operably coupled to the grounding system (fig. 4A), wherein the controller is configured to actively control an impedance (impedance 410) of the plant growing medium, wherein the controller controls the impedance of the plant growing medium from the low power charge application device to the electrical ground by:
(a) monitor an electrical potential in the plant growing medium with measurements from the potential sensor (para [0023], “at least one of the plurality of conductor plates 126 is a part of a root sensor that is configured to detect a change in impedance…”, wherein conductor plate 126 is analogous to first conductor plate 452),
(b) compare the electrical potential to a target range of electrical potential as a function of a predetermined rate of ions flow specified in the soil profile (para [0041]), and,
(c) generate a signal to control the low power charge application device to adjust a current flow within the plant growing medium (para [0113]-[0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box of Delogne as modified to incorporate the data store, grounding system, and controller as taught by Benfey with a reasonable expectation of success to better monitor the growth and condition of plants within the gardening box over time (para [0001]).
Claim(s) 89 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Delogne (US 3,676,953 A), hereinafter Delogne, in view of Kochman (US 2017/0202158 A1), hereinafter Kochman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Main (US 2021/0015056 A1), hereinafter Main, and Theilen (US 2008/0030021 A1), hereinafter Theilen.
PNG
media_image2.png
574
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. Theilen Fig. 2, Cross-Sectional View (Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 89, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112 issues identified above, Delogne as modified discloses the modular gardening box of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising a port member configured as a bulkhead, comprising:
an inner module and an outer module, wherein each of the inner module and the outer module comprises a sealing member and at least one one-way engagement feature, wherein: once the engagement features of the inner module and the outer module are registered and engaged with each other in one direction, movement of the inner module and the outer module in an opposite direction is prevented, such that the sealing members press against the wall to prevent leaking.
However, Main is in the field of plant cultivation (title; abstract) and teaches further comprising a port member (bulkhead fitting 116) configured as a bulkhead (fig. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with reservoir of Delogne as modified to incorporate the port member as taught by Main with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for easy refilling of the reservoir (para [0079]).
Additionally, Theilen is in the field of plant fluid supply (title) and teaches the port member (bulkhead fitting 10) configured as a bulkhead (fig. 3) comprising:
an inner module and an outer module (see annotated fig. 2), wherein each of the inner module and the outer module comprises a sealing member (inner module comprises seal washer 50, outer module comprises O-ring 28) and at least one one-way engagement feature (each of inner module and outer module comprises screw threads), wherein: once the engagement features of the inner module and the outer module are registered and engaged with each other in one direction, movement of the inner module and the outer module in an opposite direction is prevented, such that the sealing members press against the wall to prevent leaking (see annotated fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modular gardening box with reservoir and port of Delogne as modified to incorporate the inner module and outer module as taught by Theilen with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an effective seal around the perimeter of the port, thereby reducing liquid leakage and waste (para [0007]).
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647