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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the second action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 7 states “which is supplemented to the hydroponic culture medium tank (421) by means of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium storage device (43)”, this means is mentioned in paragraph 10 of the specification but does not appear to go into further details on the structure of the means. The examiner is interpreting this limitation as the tank stores a quantity of the medium and can have the medium transferred from the tank to the storage device.
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, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamy (PGPub #2021/0368691) in view of Pavel (EP #837968), and Oka et al. (US #6,088,958).
Regarding claim 1, Bellamy teaches a Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium, comprising: a plant fertilizer (Paragraphs 24, and 117); and a plant growth-promoting additive (Paragraphs 24, and 117); wherein the plant growth-promoting additive is selected from the group consisting of: vitamin B complex, seaweed essence, amino acid, microorganism (Paragraphs 24, and 117), and a combination thereof; but Bellamy does not explicitly teach that the plant is Houttuynia cordata, and that an electronic conductivity of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 0.4ms/cm and 2.0ms/cm.
However, Pavel does teach that the plant is Houttuynia cordata (Column 7, lines 5-10, and Column 8, lines 16-17). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plant be Houttuynia cordata because Bellamy and Pavel are both indoor plant growing systems. The motivation for having the plant be Houttuynia cordata is that Houttuynia cordata is a commonly eaten plant that also can be difficult to fully remove from an area when it is done being cultivated which makes it more beneficial to grow it in an indoor container as it prevents it from spreading outside the desired growing area. But Pavel does not explicitly teach that an electronic conductivity of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 0.4ms/cm and 2.0ms/cm.
However, Oka does teach that an electronic conductivity of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 0.4ms/cm and 2.0ms/cm (Column 10, line 51-Column 11, line 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrical conductivity of the medium be between 0.4ms/cm to 2.0ms/cm because Bellamy and Oka are both indoor plant growing systems with a liquid medium. The motivation for having the electrical conductivity of the medium be between 0.4ms/cm to 2.0ms/cm is that it helps to have the growth medium be conducive to growing plants in an aqueous environment.
Regarding claim 7, Bellamy teaches a Houttuynia cordata hydroponic planting system comprising: a cultivating carrier (Paragraphs 16, and 17), comprising a case (Paragraphs 16, and 17, the exterior walls of the greenhouse form the case) and an accommodation room wrapped around by the case (Paragraphs 16, and 17, the interior of the greenhouse forms the room), a translucent portion being disposed on the case (Paragraphs 16, and 17, the walls and roof of a greenhouse are inherently translucent), in order for sunlight to go through the translucent portion to shine into the accommodation room for shining upon a plant (Paragraphs 16, and 17, the walls and roof of a greenhouse are inherently translucent which allows the sun to shine through which is how the green house is kept warm and the plants can grow); a hydroponic module (50, and Paragraph 117), disposed in the accommodation room of the cultivating carrier (Paragraphs 16, 17, and 117), and comprising at least one hydroponic culture medium tank for planting the plant (50, and 52 as seen in figure 2, and Paragraph 117); and a plant hydroponic culture medium storage device (12), connecting with the hydroponic module (12, 30, and 50 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraphs 117, and 118), wherein the plant hydroponic culture medium storage device provides a plant hydroponic culture medium (Paragraphs 117, and 118), which is supplemented to the hydroponic culture medium tank by means of the hydroponic culture medium storage device (12, 30, and 50 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraphs 117, and 118), the plant hydroponic culture medium comprising a plant fertilizer (Paragraphs 24, and 117) and a plant growth-promoting additive (Paragraphs 24, and 117), wherein the Houttuynia cordata growth-promoting additive is selected from the groups consisting of: vitamin B complex, seaweed essence, amino acid, microorganism (Paragraphs 24, and 117), and a combination thereof; But Bellamy does not teach that the plant is Houttuynia cordata; and that an electronic conductivity of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 0.4ms/cm and 2.0ms/cm.
However, Pavel does teach that the plant is Houttuynia cordata (Column 7, lines 5-10, and Column 8, lines 16-17). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plant be Houttuynia cordata because Bellamy and Pavel are both indoor plant growing systems. The motivation for having the plant be Houttuynia cordata is that Houttuynia cordata is a commonly eaten plant that also can be difficult to fully remove from an area when it is done being cultivated which makes it more beneficial to grow it in an indoor container as it prevents it from spreading outside the desired growing area. But Pavel does not explicitly teach that an electronic conductivity of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 0.4ms/cm and 2.0ms/cm.
However, Oka does teach that an electronic conductivity of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 0.4ms/cm and 2.0ms/cm (Column 10, line 51-Column 11, line 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrical conductivity of the medium be between 0.4ms/cm to 2.0ms/cm because Bellamy and Oka are both indoor plant growing systems with a liquid medium. The motivation for having the electrical conductivity of the medium be between 0.4ms/cm to 2.0ms/cm is that it helps to have the growth medium be conducive to growing plants in an aqueous environment.
Claims 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamy (PGPub #2021/0368691) as modified by Pavel (EP #837968), and Oka et al. (US #6,088,958) as applied to claims 1, and 7 above, and further in view of Vergeldt et al. (PGPub #2023/0380359).
Regarding claim 2, Bellamy as modified by Pavel and Oka teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium according to claim 1, but Bellamy does not explicitly teach that a pH value of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 5.5 and 7.0. However, Vergeldt does teach that a pH value of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 5.5 and 7.0 (Paragraph 38). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pH value be between 5.5 and 7 because Bellamy and Vergeldt are both hydroponic plant growing systems. The motivation for having the pH value be between 5.5 and 7 is that it helps to keep the liquid fairly neutral which can help to promote plant growth.
Regarding claim 8, Bellamy as modified by Pavel and Oka teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic planting system according to claim 7, but Bellamy does not explicitly teach that a pH value of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 5.5 and 7.0. However, Vergeldt does teach that a pH value of the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium is between 5.5 and 7.0 (Paragraph 38). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pH value be between 5.5 and 7 because Bellamy and Vergeldt are both hydroponic plant growing systems. The motivation for having the pH value be between 5.5 and 7 is that it helps to keep the liquid fairly neutral which can help to promote plant growth.
Claims 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamy (PGPub #2021/0368691) as modified by Pavel (EP #837968), and Oka et al. (US #6,088,958) as applied to claims 1, and 7 above, and further in view of McKnight et al. (US #11,981,611).
Regarding claim 3, Bellamy as modified by Pavel and Oka teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium according to claim 1, but does not teach that the microorganism is selected from the group consisting of: Azotobacter, lactic acid bacteria, phosphate solubilizer, yeast, potassium solubilizer, Bacillus subtilis, and a combination thereof. However, McKnight does teach that the microorganism is selected from the group consisting of: Azotobacter (Column 90, lines 27-36, and Column 91, lines 8-22), lactic acid bacteria, phosphate solubilizer, yeast, potassium solubilizer, Bacillus subtilis, and a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the microorganism be Azotobacter because Bellamy and McKnight are both liquid fertilizer systems that have microorganisms. The motivation for having the microorganism be Azotobacter is that it can help to inhibit nitrificiation of the system and can help improve plant growth.
Regarding claim 9, Bellamy as modified by Pavel and Oka teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic planting system according to claim 7, but does not teach that the microorganism is selected from the group consisting of: Azotobacter, lactic acid bacteria, phosphate solubilizer, yeast, potassium solubilizer, Bacillus subtilis, and a combination thereof. However, McKnight does teach that the microorganism is selected from the group consisting of: Azotobacter (Column 90, lines 27-36, and Column 91, lines 8-22), lactic acid bacteria, phosphate solubilizer, yeast, potassium solubilizer, Bacillus subtilis, and a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the microorganism be Azotobacter because Bellamy and McKnight are both liquid fertilizer systems that have microorganisms. The motivation for having the microorganism be Azotobacter is that it can help to inhibit nitrificiation of the system and can help improve plant growth.
Claims 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamy (PGPub #2021/0368691) as modified by Pavel (EP #837968), and Oka et al. (US #6,088,958) as applied to claims 1, and 7 above, and further in view of Suntych (PGPub #2018/0000028).
Regarding claim 4, Bellamy as modified by Pavel and Oka teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium according to claim 1, but does not teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts, which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf, juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. However, Suntych does teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts (Paragraphs 49, and 60), which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf (Paragraph 60, Camphor oil is made from camphor leaf), juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the medium have a camphor leaf extract because Bellamy and Suntych are both soilless plant growing systems that add additives to the growing medium. The motivation for having the medium have a camphor leaf extract is that it helps to inhibit microbial growth in the medium to help the plants grow.
Regarding claim 10, Bellamy as modified by Pavel and Oka teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic planting system according to claim 7, but does not teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts, which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf, juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. However, Suntych does teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts (Paragraphs 49, and 60), which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf (Paragraph 60, Camphor oil is made from camphor leaf), juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the medium have a camphor leaf extract because Bellamy and Suntych are both soilless plant growing systems that add additives to the growing medium. The motivation for having the medium have a camphor leaf extract is that it helps to inhibit microbial growth in the medium to help the plants grow.
Claims 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamy (PGPub #2021/0368691) as modified by Pavel (EP #837968), Oka et al. (US #6,088,958), and Vergeldt et al. (PGPub #2023/0380359) as applied to claims 2, and 8 above, and further in view of Suntych (PGPub #2018/0000028).
Regarding claim 5, Bellamy as modified by Pavel, Oka, and Vergeldt teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium according to claim 2, but does not teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts, which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf, juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. However, Suntych does teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts (Paragraphs 49, and 60), which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf (Paragraph 60, Camphor oil is made from camphor leaf), juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the medium have a camphor leaf extract because Bellamy and Suntych are both soilless plant growing systems that add additives to the growing medium. The motivation for having the medium have a camphor leaf extract is that it helps to inhibit microbial growth in the medium to help the plants grow.
Regarding claim 11, Bellamy as modified by Pavel, Oka, and Vergeldt teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic planting system according to claim 8, but does not teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts, which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf, juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. However, Suntych does teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts (Paragraphs 49, and 60), which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf (Paragraph 60, Camphor oil is made from camphor leaf), juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the medium have a camphor leaf extract because Bellamy and Suntych are both soilless plant growing systems that add additives to the growing medium. The motivation for having the medium have a camphor leaf extract is that it helps to inhibit microbial growth in the medium to help the plants grow.
Claims 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamy (PGPub #2021/0368691) as modified by Pavel (EP #837968), Oka et al. (US #6,088,958), and McKnight et al. (US #11,981,611) as applied to claims 3, and 9 above, and further in view of Suntych (PGPub #2018/0000028).
Regarding claim 6, Bellamy as modified by Pavel, Oka, and McKnight teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium according to claim 3, but does not teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts, which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf, juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. However, Suntych does teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts (Paragraphs 49, and 60), which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf (Paragraph 60, Camphor oil is made from camphor leaf), juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the medium have a camphor leaf extract because Bellamy and Suntych are both soilless plant growing systems that add additives to the growing medium. The motivation for having the medium have a camphor leaf extract is that it helps to inhibit microbial growth in the medium to help the plants grow.
Regarding claim 12, Bellamy as modified by Pavel, Oka, and McKnight teaches the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic planting system according to claim 9, but does not teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts, which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf, juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. However, Suntych does teach that the Houttuynia cordata hydroponic culture medium further comprises natural plant extracts (Paragraphs 49, and 60), which are extracted from one of the groups consisting of: Houttuynia cordata leaf, camphor leaf (Paragraph 60, Camphor oil is made from camphor leaf), juniper leaf, xiaonan (Incense Cedar) leaf, and a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the medium have a camphor leaf extract because Bellamy and Suntych are both soilless plant growing systems that add additives to the growing medium. The motivation for having the medium have a camphor leaf extract is that it helps to inhibit microbial growth in the medium to help the plants grow.
Response to Arguments
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to combine Bellamy, Pavel, and Oka to teach the independent claims. All three of these prior arts are plant growing systems that use a nutrient fluid to provide the nutrients to the plants. The examiner does acknowledge that there are differences between the plant growing systems of the arts, however the examiner believes that given the scope in which the modifying references are used to modify Bellamy, that it is not improper to make the combination. Pavel is used to simply show that hydroponic style plant growing systems can be used to grow Houttuynia cordata and does not require or utilize any further structure or elements of the system of Pavel, and additionally the examiner notes that since the claims are drawn to a culture medium and planting system rather than the plant itself, so the specific species of plant is largely a functional limitation that Bellamy is capable of teaching without a modifying reference because the system of Bellamy is capable of supporting and growing Houttuynia cordata. Oka is just used to specify that the electrical conductivity of the nutrient solution, that is a shared feature between Bellamy and Oka, is within a desired range. As both systems use the nutrient solution to provide nutrients to the base and roots of a plant it would be obvious to modify Bellamy with Oka due to the similarities between the arts.
Additionally, the applicant is arguing that there are differences between the application and the structure and functionality of the prior arts, which the examiner does agree with, however the claims as currently written do not require these differences, and the applicant could include these structural differences in the claims to help overcome the prior arts.
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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647