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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the internal liquid conduit formed in the corresponding beam and passing lengthwise through the corresponding beam of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Based on the figures, it appears that the internal liquid conduit is in the space between the beam and the connector, not within the beam itself. No new matter should be entered.
Additionally, the end caps mentioned in claim 20 are not given a reference number, nor pointed to in the drawings, and must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected for new matter in regards to the limitation “a connector providing a bottom of the grow wall, the connector comprising a unitary member with a longitudinal length with opposing parallel beams across a top of the connector.” The specification does not provide any support for the connector being a unitary member, nor does it make any mention of similar terms such as single, singular, or integral. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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) 8-9 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US-11464180-B2) in view of Gasmer (US-20170142912-A1) and Gordon (US-20090300984-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses a grow wall (15) for an aeroponics plant growth system, including a liquid 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 unitary 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 the connector providing inflow, with each of the beams of the connector including an internal liquid conduit formed in the corresponding beam and passing lengthwise through the corresponding beam; and wherein the liquid conduits additionally include connections for provision of liquids to an interior of the rectangular volume, the connections extending from the internal liquid conduits through the connector to the interior of the rectangular volume, and wherein the beams have an upper surface with an inclination towards to the trough, the upper surface of each beam sloping downwardly from an outer portion of the beam toward the open bottomed trough.
Gasmer teaches the connector providing inflow (inflow via conduits, see fig 3a and 5) 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), the connections extending from the internal liquid conduits through the connector to the interior of the rectangular volume (connections seen in fig 3 pass through the connector bottom of wall panel 234 into interior volume seen in fig 5).
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 inflow at the connector, the lengthwise conduit and interior connection conduits of Gasmer with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the fluid is efficiently and effectively conveyed to the plants within the growth system.
Gordon teaches a combination inflow and outflow system (inflow via liquid supply conduit 5 and outflow via drainage holes 11), with each of the beams of the connector (1) including an internal liquid conduit (5) formed in the corresponding beam (8) and passing lengthwise through the corresponding beam (conduit 5 passing between connector 1 and beam 8, see figs 1-2 and 4); and wherein the beams have an upper surface with an inclination towards to the trough (beams 8 have a downward inclination to the trough bottom, see figs 1-2 and 5), the upper surface of each beam sloping downwardly from an outer portion of the beam toward the open bottomed trough (beams 8 have a downward inclination to the trough bottom, see figs 1-2 and 5).
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 two opposing beams of the system of Martin each with conduits passing lengthwise in each beam of the connector and the inclined upper surface as taught by Gordon 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 9, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8, and Gordon 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 (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.
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).
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8, and Martin further teaches wherein the open bottomed trough forms a drain for the grow wall (trough bottom of 40, with opening for drain channel 43, see figs 3-5 and 8).
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8. The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the opening is extending substantially along the longitudinal length of the connector. 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 drainage opening to extend substantially along the longitudinal length of the connector with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide faster and more complete drainage, ensuring there is no standing water left in the system, which can result in root rot or mold, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8. The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the opening substantially along the longitudinal length of the connector except for end caps of the trough. 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 drainage opening to extend substantially along the longitudinal length of the connector except for end caps with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide faster and more complete drainage, ensuring there is no standing water left in the system, which can result in root rot or mold, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 21, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8, and Martin as modified by Gordon above further teaches wherein the open bottomed trough (trough bottom 40 of Martin, with opening for drain channel 43, see figs 3-5 and 8) is positioned between the internal liquid conduits of the opposing parallel beams (drain channel 43 of Martin is positioned in the center of the connector, and in between the opposing side beams 41 and 42, which are modified above by Gordon to have internal liquid conduits).
Regarding claim 22, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8, and Martin further teaches and outflow connector (connector with drainage channel 43) configured to drain liquid from the grow wall through the open bottomed trough.
The modified reference fails to teach the connector is a bottom liquid in- flow/outflow connector configured to both provide liquid to the interior of the rectangular volume through the connections and drain liquid from the grow wall through the open bottomed trough.
Gasmer teaches a liquid in-flow system (connector 235, see figs 5, 7 and para 0050, connected to lengthwise conduit, see fig 3A), configured to both provide liquid to the interior of the rectangular volume through the connections (connections seen in fig 3 pass through the connector bottom of wall panel 234 into interior volume seen in fig 5).
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.
Gordon teaches is a combination bottom liquid in- flow/outflow connector configured to both provide liquid to the interior and drain liquid from the grow wall through the open bottomed trough (inflow via liquid supply conduit 5 and outflow via drainage holes 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 system with a connector that can provide both in-flow and outflow with a reasonable expectation of success as this dual-purpose configuration will provide a more space efficient and concise system that allows for optimal water delivery to plants to ensure plants are adequately hydrated for optimal growth and provides efficient drainage to prevent damage or disease caused by excess standing water.
Regarding claim 23, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8, and Gasmer further teaches herein the connections for provision of liquids to the interior of the rectangular volume comprise a plurality of connections spaced along the longitudinal length of the connector (multiple conduits/connections for provision of liquids to the inside, see figs 3a, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 24, the modified reference teaches the grow wall of claim 8, and Martin further discloses wherein each of the wall faces includes a plurality of openings configured to receive plant receptacles (openings 30 for plug holders, see figs 1-3 and 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Applicant’s arguments regarding the conduits passing through the beams are moot as a new reference has been brought in to teach these amended limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights