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 .
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/502,692, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Accordingly, claims 3 and 8-9 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application. Application No. 18/502,692 fails to disclose applying a chemical cleaner while subjecting growth trays to ultrasonic energy as required by claim 3. Additionally, application No. 18/502,692 fails to teach the mechanical components of the dielectric apparatus and the power limitations of the microwave as required by claims 8-9.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: “675”, “680”, and “930”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “715”, “1330”, “1335”, “1340”, “1345”, “1350”, and “1502”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millar (US 20180362265 A1) in view of Olsen (US 20210009296 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Millar teaches a method of sterilizing growth trays to kill pathogens comprising (cleaning a tray within an assembly line grow pod with a sanitizer component, abstract): washing said growth trays with water at least once (rinsing system use clean water to remove remaining material, paragraph [0045]); applying at least one chemical cleaner to the trays (sanitizer component uses chemicals to clean and sanitize the cart, paragraph [0045]); drying the trays to a desired percent moisture (heaters and/or blowers are used to dry the tray, paragraph [0045]), but does not teach heating the trays using a dielectric apparatus that kills at least one pathogen. However, Olsen teaches using heating the trays using a dielectric apparatus that kills at least one pathogen (cleaning and disinfection plastic materials using microwave radiation, abstract).
Millar and Olsen are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of sterilizing plastic trays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the growth tray sterilizing method taught by Millar with the microwave application taught by Olsen because Olsen teaches the combination of microwave and chemical cleaning methods achieves at least 99.99% killing of microorganisms (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Millar and Olsen teaches wherein said washing is performed using a power or high-pressure washer (sanitizer component further includes at least one of a high pressure jet sprayer, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Millar and Olsen teaches wherein the dielectric apparatus is a microwave (cleaning and disinfection plastic materials using microwave radiation, abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Millar and Olsen teaches wherein the dielectric apparatus comprised a microwave having at least four emitters (microwave radiation is formed by 6-36 magnetrons, paragraph [0052], Olsen) and an output frequency of approximately 2450 MHz (standard microwave frequency is 2.45 GHz, paragraph [0069], Olsen). While the combination of Millar and Olsen does not explicitly teach wherein the dielectric apparatus has a power of approximately 10kW, Olsen teaches wherein each magnetron has an effect of 0.5 to 5 kW (paragraph [0070]). Therefore, because Olsen teaches a plurality of magnetrons (6-36 magnetrons, paragraph [0052]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the power the dielectric apparatus to approximately 10 kW to produce the require sterilizing effect through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A)).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millar and Olsen in view of Simmons (US 5637307 A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Millar and Olsen teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein applying at least one chemical cleaner is performed while also subjecting the growth trays to ultrasonic energy. However, Simmons teaches wherein applying at least one chemical cleaner is performed while also subjecting the growth trays to ultrasonic energy (immersion in aqueous solution and exposing the bioburden on the instruments to ultrasonic agitation, abstract).
Millar and Olsen are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Simmons is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in field of chemical sterilization methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the growth tray sterilization method taught by Millar and Olsen with the combination of a chemical sterilizer with ultrasonic energy as taught by Simmons because Simmons teaches the combination advantageously penetrates the bacterial walls to kill the microorganisms (column 9 lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Simmons teaches wherein said applying at least one chemical cleaner comprises: rinsing the trays with a quaternary ammonium sanitizer spray (spray germicides for sanitizing, column 3 line 18, method consists of applying a thin layer of liquid germicidal composition, column 3 lines 22-23, and well known germicidal additive is ammonium compound, column 3 lines 34-35, Simmons), and then submerging the trays in quaternary ammonium solution (cleaning instruments by immersion in aqueous solution, column 11 lines 56-57, Simmons). While the combination of Millar. Olsen, and Simmons does not explicitly teach wherein the trays are submerged for less than 1 minute, Simmons teaches the immersion has the requisite characteristics of time to effectively remove remaining organic material (column 11 lines 57-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the submersion time to less than one minute to achieve the desired sterilization effect through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A)). Additionally, while the combination of Millar. Olsen, and Simmons does not explicitly teach a concentration of 300 ppm quaternary ammonium, differences in concentration generally will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the concentration of the quaternary ammonium to achieve the desired sterilization effect (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A)).
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millar and Olsen in view of Nunn (WO 2018136046 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Millar and Olsen teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the desired percent moisture is less than 30% by weight. However, Nunn teaches wherein the desired percent moisture is less than 30% by weight (ideal moisture content is approximately 14% by weight, page 37 paragraph 1).
Millar and Olsen are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Nunn is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of drying sterilization methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the growth tray sterilization method taught by Millar and Olsen with the moisture content taught by Nunn because Nunn teaches maintaining a desired moisture content prevents the destruction of the target object to sterilized (page 37 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Nunn teaches wherein drying the trays is performed with at least one fan and is used to achieve a moisture content range from 5 to 15% (ideal moisture content is approximately 14% by weight, page 37 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Millar and Olsen fails to teach wherein the dielectric apparatus comprises a conveyor belt, a drying tunnel, a controlling system; wherein the conveyor belt is located inside the drying tunnel and the controlling system is attached to the drying tunnel; wherein the drying tunnel has emitters. However, Nunn teaches wherein the dielectric apparatus comprises a conveyor belt (disinfection station using one or more conveyor belts, page 4 paragraph 9), a drying tunnel (crying carried out in the drying chamber, page 28 paragraph 5), a controlling system (centralized computer control, page 40 heading); wherein the conveyor belt is located inside the drying tunnel (conveyor belt located in an enclosure, page 47 paragraph 4) and the controlling system is attached to the drying tunnel (centralized computer control can be used to control conveyor belts, radiation, and temperature); wherein the drying tunnel has emitters (sterilization chamber has radiation source, page 42 paragraph 2).
Millar, Olsen, and Nunn are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the growth tray sterilization method with the conveyor belt structure taught by Nunn because Nunn teaches such a conveyor constructure allows for all aspects of the material to be exposed to the radiation for better quality control (page 5 paragraph 2).
Claims 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millar and Olsen in view of Hawley-Weld (WO 2023004200 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Millar and Olsen teach all aspect of the current invention except wherein the growth tray has a top surface and a bottom surface with a plurality of openings completely through the top surface and the bottom surface. However, Hawley-Weld teaches wherein the growth tray has a top surface and a bottom surface (horticultural raft having a top side and a bottom side, paragraph [0036]) with a plurality of openings completely through the top surface and the bottom surface (Figure 1G plurality of cell cavities “115”).
Millar and Olsen are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Hawley-Weld is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of hydroponic apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the hydroponic tray sterilizing method as taught by Millar and Olsen with the horticultural raft taught by Hawley-Weld because Hawley-Weld teaches such horticultural rafts have improved durability (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the plurality of openings is configured to hold soil and germinate seeds in said soil (cell cavity to hold plant growth medium, paragraph [0040], and allow germinants in the growing medium, paragraph [0008], Hawley-Weld), the plurality of openings comprise at least three regions: a top region having a top opening sufficient for sprouting plants to grow through the top surface and sidewalls having a tapered shape to a more narrow transition region (Figure 1G top cavity “150” transitions to middle portion “154P”, and top cavity has not partition above the cell, paragraph [0047], Hawley-Weld); the transition region having sidewalls that further taper to a more narrow end region (Figure 1H middle cavity “154” further tapers until bottom cavity “158”, Hawley-Weld); and an end region having straight sidewalls with a bottom opening for plant roots to grow through (Figure 1H bottom cavity “158” with straight side walls and opening “119”, Hawley-Weld) the bottom surface and contact an aqueous solution that the growth tray is configured to float on (lower portion contain higher density of plant roots and is saturated with and submerged in nutrient solution, paragraph [0061], Hawley-Weld).
Regarding claim 12, while the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of openings has an oval shape on the top surface and a round shape on the bottom surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve an oval shaped top surface and a round shape of the bottom surface based on the user’s preference as it is a mere change of shape (See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B)).
Regarding claim 13, while the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld does not explicitly teach wherein the oval shape on the top surface has as its longest axis a diameter of 18-20 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired diameter based on the user’s preference as it is a mere change of shape (See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B)).
Regarding claim 14, while the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld does not explicitly teach wherein the round shape on the bottom surface has a diameter of 8-10 mm, Hawley-Weld teaches wherein the diameter of the cavity opening may be between 0.20 inch to approximately 0.375 inch). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust bottom surface diameter to be 8-10mm to achieve the desired growing environment through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A)).
Regarding claim 15, while the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld does not explicitly teach wherein the sidewalls of the top region have a taper angle of 2-4 degrees relative to a vertical plane drawn through the center of the openings, Hawley-Weld teaches that the tapering specification of the cell walls may be selected to facilitate more efficient use of the growing medium and support uniformity of the root zone (paragraph [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the taper angle to be between 2-5 degrees to achieve the desired growing environment through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A))
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld teaches wherein the top region has a concaved shape bottom leading into the transition region (circular junction, paragraph [0068], and Figure 1G decreasing taper of walls from top cavity “150” to middle portion “154P” creates concave shape, Hawley-Weld).
Regarding claim 17, while the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld does not explicitly teach wherein the sidewalls of the transition region have a taper angle of 26-28 degrees relative to a vertical plane drawn through the center of the openings, Hawley-Weld teaches wherein the transition region has a taper angle of 0 degrees to 80 degrees relative to vertical (paragraph [0073]). In the case of overlapping ranges, there exists a case of prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired tray taper through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II (A)).
Regarding claim 18, while the combination of Millar and Olsen does not teach wherein the growth tray is made of expanded polystyrene (EPS), Hawley-Weld teaches expanded polystyrene is a conventional material for the construction of growth trays (paragraph [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art change the material of growth tray as taught by Millar and Olsen with the EPS as taught by Hawley-Weld with a reasonable expectation of success through a simple substitution of parts (See MPEP 2143 I (B)). Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld teaches wherein the top surface includes a border around the edge that is free of openings, wherein the border has a size at least as wide as the longest axis of the oval shaped openings (Figure 1A shaped rim “120” that extends along the perimeter of the raft body atop the sidewalls “105”, Hawley-Weld).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld teaches wherein the boarder comprises a plurality of tabs that are configured to allow growth trays to be stacked on each other without the bottom surface of a top growth tray touching the top surface of a bottom growth tray stacked on top of it (Figure 1L nesting feature “138A” and Figure 1G risers “126” and “139”, and surface profile provides for effective stacking, paragraph [0046]) .
Regarding claim 21, while the combination of Millar and Olsen does not explicitly teach wherein the growth tray is a rectangular shape that is 450-550 mm wide, 700-800 mm long and 50-60 mm thick, Hawley-Weld teaches wherein the raft body may have a width from 10 to 48 inch, a length from 20 to 96 inches, and a height from 2 to 6 inches (paragraph [0036]). In the case of overlapping ranges, a case of prima facie obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired tray dimensions through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II (A)). Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above.
Regarding claim 22, while the combination of Millar and Olsen does not explicitly teach es wherein each growth tray includes from 400-450 openings. Hawley-Weld teaches wherein each horticultural raft can include 18-2000 cells (paragraph [0038]). In the case of overlapping ranges, a case of prima facie obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired amount of tray openings through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I-II (A)). Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above.
Regarding claim 23, while the combination of Millar, Olsen, and Hawley-Weld does not explicitly teach wherein each openings has a volume of 8-10 mL, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired cell volume based on the user’s preference as it is a mere change of shape (See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights