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 01/13/2026, the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1, 7-11 were amended, and Claim 2 was canceled. Claims 1 and 3-15 are presented for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claims 9-14, the limitation “otherwise” in line 2 is unclear because the previously stated soilless growing media is being compared to a different soilless growing media that isn’t being claimed and required.
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, 3-6, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westlind (US 20200329654 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Westlind teaches a soilless growing media (130) comprising a blend of a quantity of a natural material and a quantity of a fiberglass material ([0085]), wherein a ratio of the natural material to the fiberglass material ([0085] as the combination of the natural material and the fiberglass will have a ratio).
However, Westlind is silent wherein the ratio of the natural material to the fiberglass material is in a range of 1:4 to 4:1 by volume.
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 ratio of the natural material and the fiberglass material of Westlind to include a range of 1:4 to 4:1 by volume based on the user’s preference of water absorption and durability in the growing media as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, and further teaches a ratio of the natural material to the fiberglass material ([0085] as the combination of the natural material and the fiberglass will have a ratio).
However, Westlind is silent about wherein the ratio of the natural material to the fiberglass material is about 7:3 by volume.
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 ratio of the natural material and the fiberglass material of Westlind to be about 7:3 by volume based on the user’s preference of water absorption and durability in the growing media as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, and further teaches a ratio of the natural material to the fiberglass material ([0085] as the combination of the natural material and the fiberglass will have a ratio).
However, Westlind is silent about the ratio of the natural material to the fiberglass material is about 1:1 by volume.
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 ratio of the natural material and the fiberglass material of Westlind to be about 1:1 by volume based on the user’s preference of water absorption and durability in the growing media as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the natural material is peat ([0085]).
Regarding claim 6, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the natural material is coconut coir ([0085]).
Regarding claim 8, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, but is silent wherein an average diameter of the fibers of the fiberglass material is in a range of 1 µm to 5 µm.
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 fiberglass of Westlind to have wherein an average diameter of the fibers of the fiberglass material is in a range of 1 µm to 5 µm based on the user’s preference of resistance to compression of the media as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, and Westlind further teaches wherein the soilless growing media is able to hold an increased amount of available water as compared to an otherwise identical soilless growing media comprising only the natural material ([0085] and [0087] as the media is capable of holding an increased amount of available water as the material of the growth media is absorbent and fiberglass is known to be used for its capillary action to wick water).
However, Westlind is silent about over a pressure ranging from 1 kPa to 10 kPa.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include over a pressure ranging from 1 kPa to 10 kPa into the soilless growing media of Westlind in order for the user to monitor water retention as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media exhibits an increased hydraulic conductivity as compared to an otherwise identical soilless growing media comprising only the natural material ([0085-0087] as fiberglass is known to have a higher hydraulic conductivity than natural material such as coconut coir or peat).
However, Westlind is silent about over a pressure ranging from 10 kPa to 40 kPa.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include over a pressure ranging from 10 kPa to 40 kPa into the soilless growing media of Westlind in order for the user to monitor water retention as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media exhibits a decreased amount of unavailable water, as compared to an otherwise identical soilless growing media comprising only the natural material ([0085-0087] as the growing media will exhibit a decreased amount of unavailable water as the fiberglass will hold the water for the plant).
However, Westlind is silent about over a pressure ranging from ≥ 10 kPa.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include over a pressure ranging from ≥ 10 kPa into the soilless growing media of Westlind in order for the user to monitor water retention as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media exhibits a decreased dry bulk density, as compared to an otherwise identical soilless growing media comprising only the natural material ([0085-0087] as adding water will decrease the dry bulk density and the soilless growing media with fiberglass will hold more water than only the soilless growing media comprising only the natural material).
Regarding claim 13, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media exhibits a decreased wet bulk density, as compared to an otherwise identical soilless growing media comprising only the natural material ([0085-0087] as the wet bulk density will decrease when the amount of water is reduced).
Regarding claim 14, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media exhibits improved wettability, as compared to an otherwise identical soilless growing media comprising only the natural material ([0085-0087] as it is known that fiberglass can improve wettability).
Regarding claim 15, Westlind teaches a soilless growing media comprising about peat ([0085]) and fiberglass ([0085]), wherein the soilless growing media is able to hold more available water, as compared to an otherwise identical soilless growing media comprising only the peat ([0085] and [0087] as the media is capable of holding an increased amount of available water as the material of the soilless growing media is absorbent and fiberglass is known to be used for its capillary action to wick water).
However, Westlind is silent wherein the soilless growing media comprising 50% by volume of peat and about 50% by volume of fiberglass and wherein the soilless growing media is able to hold from about 15% to about 45% more available water.
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 soilless growing media of Westlind to include 50% by volume of peat and about 50% by volume of fiberglass and wherein the soilless growing media is able to hold from about 15% to about 45% more available water in order to provide a more absorbent media to improve the health of the plant as it is well known in the art and allow the user to monitor water retention as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westlind as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ROBERT (EP 0442811 B1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Westlind teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, but is silent about wherein the fiberglass material is in a form of a plurality of discrete nodules of glass lacking a silicone emulsion.
Robert teaches wherein the fiberglass material is in a form of a plurality of discrete nodules of glass (see machine translation “Glass wool felts, used as substrates, the density of which is usually between 20 and 50 kg / m .sup.3 may, according to the invention, lead to substrates formed at from nodules”).
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 fiberglass of Westlind to include a plurality of discrete nodules of glass as taught by Robert in order to provide less resistance to compression (see machine translation “The fibers in the nodules offer less resistance to compression.” of Robert).
The combination of Westlind as modified by Robert does not explicitly state wherein the fiberglass material is lacking a silicone emulsion.
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 fiberglass of Westlind as modified by Robert to lack a silicone emulsion in order to prevent contamination, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “However, Westlind does not disclose that both components are required to achieve its objectives. Id. Furthermore, there is no disclosure in Westlind of controlling the ratio of one component to another component in its growth media.” and
“As noted in MPEP §2144.05(II), in order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of "routine optimization," the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. Here, the Examiner's reliance on routine optimization is unsupported by Westlind.
The examiner respectively disagrees. Westlind discloses that both components are required as [0085] of Westlind specifically states “a combination thereof.” and so Westlind teaches both the natural material (e.g., coco coir, peat moss) and a fiberglass material. Also, since there is a combination between the natural material and fiberglass material, there will be a ratio as stated above. Therefore, Examiner’s reliance of routine optimization is supported by Westlind as Westlind does teach a ratio between the natural material and a fiberglass material.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “controlling the ratio”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “Westlind does not recognize that the ratio of the natural material to the fiberglass material is a result-effective variable. While Westlind discloses that is is possible to use a combination of a natural component and a fiberglass component in a growth media, Westlind does not teach or suggest that such a combination is necessary or that any benefit will result therefrom. Cf. Westlind: paragraph [0085]. For example, Westlind does not disclose or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that modifying a ratio of a natural component to a fiberglass component would result in any change to "water absorption and durability in the growing media," as suggested by the Examiner.” and
“There is no teaching or suggestion in Westland that controlling a ratio between a natural component and a fiberglass component is useful in any way, let alone to achieve the the various positive outcomes (i.e., benefits) described in the instant application.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Westlind still teaches the limitation of using both the natural material and the fiberglass material as Westlind states “a combination thereof.” in [0085]. The argument stating “Westlind does not teach or suggest that such a combination is necessary” is not persuasive as Westlind still teaches the claimed language. The Examiner would also like to state the use of “a combination thereof.” in [0085] is indeed necessary when the user requires a combination of natural material and fiberglass.
Also, Westlind does not necessarily need to disclose how “modifying a ratio of a natural component to a fiberglass component would result in any change to "water absorption and durability in the growing media,"” as argued above as it is well known that the ratio between the natural material and the fiberglass will have an impact on water absorption and durability of the growing media as the natural material will improve absorption and the fiberglass will wick water and improve the durability of the soilless growing media.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “controlling a ratio”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “It is also noted that Westlind is directed to hydroponic growth applications, while the instant application (including the experiments and data presented therein) are directed to potted growth applications. This is further evidence that Westlind would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the ratio of natural material to fiberglass material in the growth media to be a parameter of any importance. The only suggestion to modify a ratio between a natural component and a fiberglass component in a growth media comes from the instant application; the use of which would constitute impermissible hindsight. Thus, the Examiner has failed to establish a primafacie case of obvious with respect to claim 1.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Westlind still teaches the claimed limitations. In response to Applicant's argument that Westlind is directed to hydroponic growth applications, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
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