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, convex and concave edges of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings show edges 3 and 4 merely as flat edges, not as concave or convex. 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.
Claims 1-4 are 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 1 is rejected for new matter in regards to the limitation “wherein the panel comprises at least two concave edges,” and “at least two convex edges respectively resting on the at least two concave edges of the panel of another hydroponic planting unit.” As discussed in the drawing objection above, the drawings do not depict any concave or convex edges. Further, the specification makes no mention of concave edges, and therefore these limitation do not have sufficient support and are considered new matter. Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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 1-4 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 is rejected for lack of clarity regarding the limitation “wherein the panel comprises at least two concave edges, respectively, along with extension axes intersecting each other and at least two convex edges respectively resting on the at least two concave edges of the panel of another hydroponic planting unit.” It is unclear if the extension axes are specifically extensions along an axis of the of the concave edges. “Extension axes” is not discussed in the specification or pointed to in the drawings and therefore it is unclear on which edges Applicant means to claim the extension axes. Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR-101866555-B1)
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a hydroponic planting unit, comprising
a panel with a predetermined shape (panels with predetermined shape, see figs 1-3),
a planting compartment for growing plants is provided in the panel (ports 120, see figs 1-5), and
wherein the panel comprises at least two concave edges (multiple 164, see fig 5), respectively, along with extension axes intersecting each other (see extension axes intersecting in annotated figure below) and at least two convex edges (multiple 162, see fig 5) respectively resting on the at least two concave edges of the panel of another hydroponic planting unit so that the panels of the hydroponic planting unit and the another hydroponic planting unit are the panels in conjunction with each other (concave and convex edges fit together to connect the panels, see figs 4-7, see also 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
328
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1
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) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR-101866555-B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGrath (US-10750674-B2).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the hydroponic planting unit of claim 1.
Park fails to disclose wherein the panel is a parallelogram or a regular hexagon.
McGrath teaches wherein the panel is a parallelogram or a regular hexagon (10, parallelogram shape, see fig 1).
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 panel of Park with the parallelogram shape of McGrath with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow for easier stacking and transport of the planting units, 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 3, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic planting unit of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the bottom of the panel is equipped with support legs, the length of the support legs is greater than the depth of the planting compartment.
McGrath teaches wherein the bottom of the panel is equipped with support legs (legs 31, see fig 1A), the length of the support legs is greater than the depth of the planting compartment (legs 31 longer than cups 20, see fig 1F).
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 panel of Park with the support legs of McGrath with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow more space for root growth and therefore improved nutrient uptake and optimized plant health.
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the hydroponic planting unit of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the wall of the planting compartment is provided with multiple hollow holes for facilitating the growth of plant roots.
McGrath teaches wherein the wall of the planting compartment is provided with multiple hollow holes for facilitating the growth of plant roots (cups 20, oblong side ports 24, see fig 1).
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 panel of Park with the root holes of McGrath with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow more space for root growth and therefore improved nutrient uptake and optimized plant health.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Park does not teach the claims as currently amended. The Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Applicant merely summarizes the invention of Park and does not provide specific reasoning as to how or why they believe Park does not teach the current claims. Applicant then appears to argue that Park does not teach the intersecting extension axes. The Office respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the 112(b) rejection above, “extension axes” is not discussed in the specification or pointed to in the drawings and therefore it is unclear on which edges Applicant means to claim the extension axes.
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 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
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642