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 .
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.
Claim(s) 8, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US-11464180-B2) in view of Sinanan (US-5852895-A) and Gasmer (US-20170142912-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses a grow wall (15) for an aeroponics plant growth system, including a liquid in-flow, outflow connector (40), comprising:
the grow wall (frame 1, see figs 1 and 18) provided by a chassis outlining a hollow rectangular shape and wall faces (15, see figs 1 and 18) mounted on opposing sides of the chassis, with the chassis and wall face substantially enclosing a rectangular volume (see figs 1 and 18);
a connector comprising a member with a longitudinal length with opposing parallel beams (40 with opposing 41, 42, see figs 3-5 and 8) across the top of the connector, and providing a bottom of the grow wall, the connector comprising a member with a longitudinal length (sidewalls 41 and 42),
and an open bottomed trough separating the beams (trough bottom of 40, with opening for drain channel 43, see figs 3-5 and 8).
Martin fails to disclose with each of the beams of the connector including liquid conduits passing lengthwise through the beams; and wherein the liquid conduits additionally include connections for provision of liquids to an interior of the rectangular volume, wherein the beams have an upper surface with an inclination towards the trough.
Gasmer teaches the connector having a liquid conduit passing lengthwise (see lengthwise conduit in fig 3A), and wherein the liquid conduits additionally include connections for provision of liquids to an interior of the rectangular volume (connector 235, see figs 5, 7 and para 0050, connected to lengthwise conduit, see fig 3A).
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 system of Martin with the lengthwise conduit and interior connection conduits of Gasmer with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the fluid is effectively conveyed to the plants within the growth system.
Sinanan teaches with each of the beams of the connector including liquid conduits passing lengthwise through the beams (hoses 65 in each top beam 63, see figs 6-8 and col 4, lines 56-64), wherein the beams have an upper surface with an inclination towards the trough (top surface 63 of beams is inclined inward and downwards towards the trough, see figs 6-8).
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 system of Martin with conduits passing lengthwise in each beam of the connector and the inclined upper surface as taught by Sinanan with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure there is adequate fluid for all the plants to promote growth and development and the inclined surface will ensure any extra fluid on the top beams will run off into the trough and drain to prevent unwanted moisture buildup.
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising an inflow connector coupled to at least one of the liquid conduits.
Gasmer teaches further comprising an inflow connector coupled to at least one of the liquid conduits (supply connector 235, see figs 5, 7 and para 0050).
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 system with the inflow connectors of Gasmer with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the fluid is effectively conveyed to the plants within the growth system.
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 16, and Martin as modified by Gasmer further teaches further comprising an outflow connector coupled to at least one of the liquid conduits (Martin discloses a drainage aperture and tubing, modified by the outflow connector tubing at bottom of hanging wall, see fig 3A, of Gasmer teaches this limitation).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US-11464180-B2) in view of Sinanan (US-5852895-A) and Gasmer (US-20170142912-A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gordon (US-20090300984-A1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8, and Sinanan further teaches wherein the conduits pass from a connection on one lengthwise side of the beams to a connection on another lengthwise side of the beams (conduits 65, connected to supply or fertilizer, see col 4, lines 56-64, therefore inherently have a connection on both sides).
However, if for any reason Applicant disagrees that Sinanan teaches connections on both sides, the Gordon teaches wherein the conduits pass from a connection on one lengthwise side of the beams to a connection on another lengthwise side of the beams (male and female connectors on each side, see fig 4, para 0030-0033).
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 system with the connections on both ends with the conduits passing lengthwise between the connections as taught by Gordon with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the fluid is conveyed efficiently throughout the conduits and effectively delivered to the plants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s explanation and further definition of “open bottomed trough” has been noted.
Upon further review, the limitation “wherein the beams have an upper surface with an inclination towards the trough” is now rejected in view of Sinanan as seen above, as such this action has been made nonfinal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642