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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2026, 05/20/2026, and 05/26/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 24, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an compound delivery device” in lines 3 and 4. Examiner recommends correction to “a compound delivery device.”
Claim 24 recites the limitation “wherein the superoxygenated growing medium supersaturated with sufficient oxygen to maintain the oxygenation level of the superoxygenated growing medium” in lines 1-3. Examiner recommends correction to “wherein the superoxygenated growing medium is configured to be supersaturated with sufficient oxygen to maintain the oxygenation level of the superoxygenated growing medium”
Claim 25 recites the limitation “weeksx” in line 4. Examiner recommends correction to “weeks.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 7, 35, 36, 43-45, and 48 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 4 recites the limitation “the acoustical energy” in line 3. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “acoustical energy.” Claim 7 is similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the sound pressure level” in lines 6 and 7. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a sound pressure level.”
Claim 35 recites the limitation “wherein during electrolysis oxygen gas is separated from the electrolyte, a first portion dissolves into the electrolyte to form a first oxygenated liquid, and a second portion is collected as free oxygen gas and dissolved into a growing medium makeup liquid to form a second oxygenated liquid having an oxygenation level greater than the first oxygenated liquid” in lines 8-12. This limitation renders the scope of the claim indefinite, as it includes recitations of positive method steps despite being of an apparatus claim. Examiner recommends revision to “wherein during electrolysis oxygen gas is configured to be separated from the electrolyte, a first portion is configured to be dissolved into the electrolyte to form a first oxygenated liquid, and a second portion is configured to be collected as free oxygen gas and dissolved into a growing medium makeup liquid to form a second oxygenated liquid having an oxygenation level greater than the first oxygenated liquid.” Claim 36 is similarly rejected.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “substantially completely immersed” in line 3. “Substantially” is an approximate term that renders the scope of the claim indefinite, as the disclosure does not provide an objective standard for what is covered by “substantially” in the context of the claims. Examiner recommends revision to “completely immersed.” Claim 48 is similarly rejected.
Dependent claims 43, 44, and 46 fail to remedy the deficiencies.
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.
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, 8-11, 13-17, 27, 28, 35, and 36, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer et al. (US 20230000027 A1, previously cited by Examiner 12/10/2025), hereinafter Schaefer, and Saito et al. (US 20230309458 A1), hereinafter Saito.
Regarding claim 1, Leo discloses a system for growing at least one plant having a root system and a shoot system comprised of foliage and stomata (farming superstructure system FSS, cannabis 107, 207; Fig. 1B), the plant growing system comprising:
a plant growing chamber comprised of a growing atmosphere, and a growing medium that is oxygenated (Fig. 1B shows EZ2 and EZ3 oxygenate growing mediums GM1 and GM2; ¶ 0282, “In embodiments, the oxygen emitter is an electrolytic cell configured to produce oxygenated water. In embodiments, oxygenated water produced by the electrolytic cell may have microbubbles and nanobubbles of oxygen suspended within it. In embodiments, the oxygen emitter is an electrolytic cell which generates microbubbles and nanobubbles of oxygen in a liquid, which bubbles are too small to break the surface tension of the liquid, resulting in a liquid that is supersaturated with oxygen. ‘Supersaturated’ means oxygen at a higher concentration than normal calculated oxygen solubility at a particular temperature and pressure. In embodiments, the very small oxygen bubbles remain suspended in the liquid, forming a solution supersaturated in oxygen. The use of supersaturated or oxygenated water for enhancing the growth of cannabis may be incorporated into the FSS. Electrolytic generation of microbubbles or nanobubbles of oxygen for increasing the oxygen content of flowing liquid may be incorporated into the FSS. In embodiments, the production of oxygen and hydrogen by the electrolysis of water may be used to enhance the efficiency of the FSS;” ¶ 0283, “In embodiments, an electrolytic cell is comprised of an anode and a cathode. A current is applied across an anode and a cathode of the electrolytic cell which are immersed in a liquid. Hydrogen gas is produced at the cathode and oxygen gas is produced at the anode. In embodiments, the electrolytic cell tends to deactivate and have a limited life if exposed to the positively charged ions, negatively charged ions, or undesirable compounds. Therefore, a sophisticated water treatment unit is needed for the electrolytic cell to work properly deactivate by unpredictable amounts of positively charged ions, remove negatively charged ions, or undesirable components. The roots of the cannabis in the lower section [106, 206] are healthier when contacted with an oxygenated liquid. Further, oxygenated and/or supersaturated water inhibits the growth of deleterious fungi on the fabric [104, 204]. In embodiments, the oxygen emitter may be a sparger for increasing the oxygen content of a liquid by sparging with air or oxygen. In embodiments, the oxygen emitter may be a microbubble generator that achieves a bubble size of about 0.10 millimeters to about 3 millimeters in diameter. In embodiments, the oxygen emitter may be a microbubble generator for producing microbubbles, ranging in size from 0.1 to 100 microns in diameter, by forcing air into the fluid at high pressure through an orifice”), the plant growing chamber configured to grow at least one plant therewithin, dispose the shoot system of the at least one plant in the growing atmosphere, and dispose the root system of the at least one plant in the oxygenated growing medium (growing assemblies 100, 200; Fig. 1B shows growing assemblies 100, 200 with an atmospheric section and growth mediums GM1, GM2, with the shoots of the plants 107, 207 exposed to the atmosphere and roots to the growth mediums);
a compound delivery subsystem configured for delivering compounds to the at least one plant disposed in the plant growing chamber (Fig. 1B shows compound delivery system bringing nutrients from reservoir 500 to growing assemblies 100, 200 through liquid input 114, 214); and
an oxygenation subsystem configured for oxygenating the growing medium and supplying the oxygenated growing medium to the plant growing chamber (¶ 0281, “A second oxygen emitter [EZ2] may be positioned on the first liquid supply conduit [113] in between the liquid supply header [300] and the first growing assembly [200]. The second oxygen emitter [EZ2] is configured to oxygenate a portion of the liquid that flows through the first liquid supply conduit [113]. The second oxygen emitter [EZ2] inputs signal [XEZ3] from a computer [COMP]. A third oxygen emitter [EZ3] may be positioned on the second liquid supply conduit [213] in between the liquid supply header [300] and the second growing assembly [200]. The third oxygen emitter [EZ3] is configured to oxygenate a portion of the liquid that flows through the second liquid supply conduit [213]. The third oxygen emitter [EZ3] inputs signal [XEZ3] from a computer [COMP]”).
Leo, however, fails to specifically disclose a gas-tightly sealed enclosure, a pressurized growing atmosphere having a pressure of at least 150 kPa and containing at least 0.05% carbon dioxide by volume received in the gas-tightly sealed enclosure, and a compound delivery subsystem comprised of one or more plant bioactive compounds and which is configured for delivering the one or more plant bioactive compounds to the foliage of at least one plant disposed in the plant growing chamber.
Schaefer is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches a gas-tightly sealed enclosure, a pressurized growing atmosphere (¶ 0025, “In the exemplary embodiments, the control system 16 includes a pump 40 for changing and removing air from the chamber of the enclosure 12, a pressure sensor 42 for determining the air pressure in the chamber, and a controller 44 configured to control the overall pressure within the chamber, based at least in part on a sensed pressure provided by the pressure sensor 42. The control system 16 also includes a gas supply 46 for supplying one or more gases to the enclosure 12. In use, the controller 44 monitors the internal pressure within the chamber using the pressure sensor 42. If the internal pressure greater than a designated value [e.g. greater than 97 kPa], the controller 44 operates the pump 40 to decrease the overall pressure within the enclosure 12 until the designated pressure value is achieved. Alternatively, if the internal pressure is less than a designated value, the controller 44 operates the gas supply 46 to introduce air into the chamber and increase the overall pressure within the enclosure 12 until the designated pressure value is achieved”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo to include a gas-tightly sealed enclosure, a pressurized growing atmosphere, as taught by the gas tightly sealed enclosure of Schaefer. The gas tightly sealed enclosure would allow for selective atmospheric control, which would add adjustment for the user to improve overall growth characteristics within the chamber. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Saito is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches a compound delivery subsystem comprised of one or more plant bioactive compounds and which is configured for delivering the one or more plant bioactive compounds to the foliage of at least one plant disposed in the plant growing chamber (¶ 0056, “The plant-vitalizing agent may also contain components other than the exogenous elicitor and endogenous elicitor as active components, such as antiseptic agents, spreading agents, anti-settling agents, thickeners, fillers and solvents. Antiseptic agents include potassium sorbate, paraoxybenzoic acid esters, benzoin, sodium dehydroacetate, hinokitiol, phenoxyethanol, polyaminopropyl biguanide and polylysine. Spreading agents are viscous liquids composed mainly of surfactants, and they are not particularly restricted so long as they can be used as spreading agents for plant-vitalizing agents, examples including polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ethers, sorbitan fatty acid esters and polyoxyethylene hexitan fatty acid esters. Anti-settling agents include polyphosphoric acid and polyphosphoric acid salts, or polycarboxylic acid-type polymer surfactants. Thickeners include carboxymethyl cellulose [CMC], polyacrylamide, water-soluble polymers such as starch, or molasses, alcohol fermentation concentrate waste liquids and amino acid fermentation concentrate waste liquids. Fillers include lactose and starch. A solvent is used for the purpose of diluting the active component to a suitable liquid concentration, or to facilitate dispersion onto plants. Water is preferred as the solvent;” ¶ 0153, “Application of the plant-vitalizing agent to at least one plant selected from the group consisting of plants of the families Solanaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Poaceae and Fabaceae may be carried out by any method commonly used by those skilled in the art without any particular restriction on the dispersion method, examples including a method of direct dispersion onto the leaves or stems of the plant, a method of dispersion into culture medium or soil in which the plant is to be cultivated, or a method of mixing into fertilizer and then dispersion into culture medium or soil. For mixing into fertilizer, the type of fertilizer is not restricted and may be chemical fertilizer comprising nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potassium, or organic fertilizer containing oil residue, fish residue, bone powder, sea weed powder, amino acids, saccharides or vitamins. The dispersion method is preferably carried out by foliar application, as this will allow the elicitor activity to be effectively exhibited. Foliar application may be carried out by a method commonly known to those skilled in the art, using a mechanical power atomizer, shoulder atomizer, broadcaster, sprayer, manned or unmanned helicopter, duster or hand sprayer“).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Shaefer such that a compound delivery subsystem comprised of one or more plant bioactive compounds and which is configured for delivering the one or more plant bioactive compounds to the foliage of at least one plant disposed in the plant growing chamber, as taught by the atomizer and fertilizer system of Saito. The atomizer would aid in the distribution of fertilizer, which would improve overall plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the gas tightly sealed enclosure of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include a pressurized growing atmosphere having a pressure of at least 150 kPa and containing at least 0.05% carbon dioxide by volume in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, however, Leo fails to specifically disclose wherein the pressurized growing atmosphere has a pressure of between about 300 kPa and about 600 kPa and contains between about 0.06% and about 0.40% carbon dioxide by volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to provide the growing atmosphere of Leo with a pressure of between about 300 kPa and about 600 kPa and contains between about 0.06% and about 0.40% carbon dioxide by volume in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the growing atmosphere has a pressure no greater than 1000 kPa (Schaefer; ¶ 0025).
Regarding claim 10, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, including carbon dioxide supply to the growing assemblies (Leo; CO2 input 215; Fig. 1B) and a maturation stage while the plants are in the growing assemblies (Leo; ¶ 0311, lines 1-7, “In embodiments, the open-close ratio varies. The open-close ratio may vary throughout the life of the cannabis contained within the growing assemblies [100, 200]. The open-close ratio may vary throughout the stage of development of the cannabis contained within the growing assemblies [100, 200]. Stages of development of the cannabis include flowering, pollination, fertilization”), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the growing atmosphere consists essentially of carbon dioxide during a ripening or maturation stage of the at least one plant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the growing atmosphere of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito such that it consists essentially of carbon dioxide during a ripening or maturation stage of the at least one plant in order to improve plant characteristics. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the compound delivery subsystem comprises a plant feeding system comprised of an atomizer, the atomizer having a discharge nozzle (Saito; ¶ 0056, ¶ 0153) disposed in the pressurized growing atmosphere (Schaefer; ¶ 0025), and the one or more plant bioactive compounds comprising a fertilizer comprised of one or more plant nutrients and at least one surfactant (Saito; ¶ 0056, ¶ 0153), and wherein the pressurized growing atmosphere (Schaefer; ¶ 0025) contains droplets of the fertilizer discharged from the discharge nozzle that are taken up by stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant to fertilize the at least one plant (Saito; ¶ 0056, ¶ 0153).
Regarding claim 13, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 11, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the fertilizer droplets are nanosized (Saito; ¶ 0154, lines 1-5). The modified reference, however, fails to specifically disclose the nanosized fertilizer droplets having a size or diameter of between 1 nm and about 100 nm to facilitate uptake into the stomata of the foliage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the fertilizer droplets of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito such that the nanosized fertilizer droplets having a size or diameter of between 1 nm and about 100 nm to facilitate uptake into the stomata of the foliage in order to ensure proper delivery. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 11, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the at least one surfactant comprises one of a food grade surfactant and a food safe surfactant (Saito; ¶ 0056).
Regarding claim 15, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 14, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the at least one surfactant comprises at least one of polysorbate 20, sodium dodecyl sulfate, a monoglyceride, a diglyceride, sorbitan monostearate, a sucrose ester, GMS, a PGFA, or SSL (Saito; ¶ 0056).
Regarding claim 16, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 15, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the fertilizer droplets have a size or diameter of between 1 nm and about 100 nm to facilitate uptake into the stomata of the foliage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to provide the fertilizer droplets of Leo in view of Saito with have a size or diameter of between 1 nm and about 100 nm to facilitate uptake into the stomata of the foliage in order to ensure proper delivery. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 11, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the fertilizer is comprised of one or more nutrients comprising nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sulfur, manganese, copper, zinc, boron, molybdenum, and chlorine (Saito; ¶ 0153).
Regarding claim 27, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1.
Leo discloses wherein the oxygenation subsystem comprises a source of pressurized oxygen (oxygen emitter EZ1, EZ2, EZ3; Fig. 1B), a source of a growing medium makeup liquid comprised of water (reservoir 500; Fig. 1B), an oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank containing oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid and a gaseous atmosphere containing oxygen (¶ 0389, “The interior [19] of the solution tank [18] is equipped with an oxygen emitter [35] for oxygenating the water within. The oxygen emitter [35] is connected to the interior [19] of the solution tank [18] via an oxygen emitter connection [36] which protrudes the solution tank [18]. The solution tank [18] may be placed on a load cell [40] for measuring the mass of the tank. The solution tank [18] may be equipped with a mixer [38] for mixing water with macro-nutrients [601], micro-nutrients [701], and/or a pH adjustment solution [801]. The mixer [38] may be of an auger or blade type that is equipped with a motor [39]”).
Regarding claim 28, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito teaches the device of claim 27, however, Leo fails to specifically disclose wherein the oxygen-containing atmosphere in the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank has a pressure of at least 250 PSI and the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid in the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank has a temperature of between about 18°C and about 24°C for increasing the solubility of the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid to cause oxygen from the oxygen-containing atmosphere to dissolve or diffuse thereinto increasing the oxygenation thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to provide the atmosphere in the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito with a pressure of at least 250 PSI and a temperature of between about 18°C and about 24°C in order to improve oxygenation. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 35, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1.
Leo discloses wherein the oxygenation subsystem comprises an electrolyzer having an anode and a cathode immersed in an aqueous electrolyte, wherein during electrolysis oxygen gas is separated from the electrolyte, a first portion dissolves into the electrolyte to form a first oxygenated liquid, and a second portion is collected as free oxygen gas and dissolved into a growing medium makeup liquid to form a second oxygenated liquid, and wherein the oxygenated growing medium is comprised of the first and second oxygenated liquids (¶ 0282, ¶ 0283).
Although Leo discloses multiple oxygen emitters with multiple oxygenated liquids, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose a second oxygenated liquid having an oxygenation level greater than the first oxygenated liquid. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito such that a second oxygenated liquid having an oxygenation level greater than the first oxygenated liquid in order to improve oxygenation of the growth medium. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 36, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the oxygenation subsystem comprises an atomizer (Saito; ¶ 0153) and an electrolyzer having an anode and a cathode immersed in an aqueous electrolyte, wherein during electrolysis oxygen gas is separated from the electrolyte, a first portion of the separated oxygen gas dissolves or diffuses into the electrolyte to form a first oxygenated liquid, and a second portion of the separated oxygen gas is collected as free oxygen gas, pressurized, and mixed by the atomizer with the first oxygenated liquid, the atomizer discharging the mixture as droplets of a second oxygenated liquid, and the oxygenated growing medium comprised of the second oxygenated liquid (Leo; ¶ 0282; ¶ 0283).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), and Saito (US 20230309458 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pauls et al. (US 20180113104 A1), hereinafter Pauls.
Regarding claim 2, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, including a plant growing chamber, pressurized growing atmosphere, and oxygenated growing medium (Leo; Fig. 1B shows EZ2 and EZ3 oxygenate growing mediums GM1 and GM2; ¶ 0282), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the plant growing chamber further comprises a barrier disposed in the plant growing chamber between the pressurized growing atmosphere and the oxygenated growing medium, the barrier being gas impermeable to prevent gas in the pressurized growing atmosphere from diffusing into or going into a solution in the oxygenated growing medium.
Pauls is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches wherein the plant growing chamber further comprises a barrier disposed in the plant growing chamber between the pressurized growing atmosphere and the growing medium, the barrier being gas impermeable to prevent gas in the pressurized growing atmosphere from diffusing into or going into a solution in the growing medium (¶ 0043, “While the illustrated embodiment features a potted plant employing soil as the growing medium, the similar use of an air impermeable barrier between a vented root region and pressurized canopy region may be used regardless of whether the growth medium is soil, and regardless of whether the growth medium is contained within a pot. For example, the growth medium, whether soil or otherwise, could instead be contained solely by the secondary closure. That is, a plant could be planted inside a bag or other type of secondary enclosure that is later placed inside the chamber. Accordingly, the pot itself may be formed of air-impermeable, or at least CO2 impermeable material, and may form part of the secondary enclosure, for example being equipped with a lid or cover [e.g. air/CO2 impermeable film or membrane] to cover the soil in a position surrounding the plant stem”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito such that the plant growing chamber further comprises a barrier disposed in the plant growing chamber between the pressurized growing atmosphere and the growing medium, the barrier being gas impermeable to prevent gas in the pressurized growing atmosphere from diffusing into or going into a solution in the growing medium, as taught by the barrier of Pauls. The barrier would isolate the gas environment of the atmosphere from that of the growth medium, which would improve overall control over the gasses within the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Pauls discloses the device of claim 2, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the barrier is comprised of a gas impermeable membrane that floats on a surface of the growing medium (Pauls; ¶ 0043).
Claims 4-7, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), and Saito (US 20230309458 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Verbiest et al. (US 20230363327 A1), hereinafter Verbiest.
Regarding claim 4, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose further comprising further comprising an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant to enhance growth and increase yield of the at least one plant, wherein the acoustical energy comprises sound waves in an audible frequency range that stimulate physiological responses in the at least one plant that increase at least one of photosynthetic rate, metabolic rate, and compound uptake rate of the at least one plant.
Verbiest is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches further comprising an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant to enhance growth and increase yield of the at least one plant, wherein the acoustical energy comprises sound waves in an audible frequency range that stimulate physiological responses in the at least one plant that increase at least one of photosynthetic rate, metabolic rate, and compound uptake rate of the at least one plant (¶ 0026, “In embodiments, the acoustic excitation radiation may comprise radiation having a frequency of at least 1 kHz, such as at least 5 kHz, especially at least 10 kHz, such as at least 20 kHz, especially at least 30 kHz;” ¶ 0028, “In further embodiments, the acoustic excitation radiation frequency and/or acoustic excitation radiation amplitude may be varied in time, especially while the emitted radiation spectra and variations therein are determined to infer properties of the vascular plant, especially of the vascular tissue, or to determine acoustic excitation radiation frequencies at which acoustic emission radiation emission is stimulated most by the acoustic excitation radiation. In further embodiments, excitation pulses [e.g. block pulses] of different duration and amplitudes may be applied, especially where the frequency content depends on the pulse width”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include further comprising an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant to enhance growth and increase yield of the at least one plant, wherein the acoustical energy comprises sound waves in an audible frequency range that stimulate physiological responses in the at least one plant that increase at least one of photosynthetic rate, metabolic rate, and compound uptake rate of the at least one plant, as taught by the acoustic stimulator of Verbiest. The acoustic stimulator would aid in determining physical vessel parameters of a vascular tissue in a vascular plant, which would improve data collection and overall visibility over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose further comprising an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant with acoustical energy to open stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant and increase stomatal aperture size, thereby facilitating uptake of the one or more compounds through the opened stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant
Verbiest teaches further comprising an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant with acoustical energy to open stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant and increase stomatal aperture size, thereby facilitating uptake of the one or more compounds through the opened stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant (¶ 0026; ¶ 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant with acoustical energy to open stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant and increase stomatal aperture size, thereby facilitating uptake of the one or more compounds through the opened stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant, as taught by the acoustic stimulator of Verbiest. The acoustic stimulator would aid in determining physical vessel parameters of a vascular tissue in a vascular plant, which would improve data collection and overall visibility over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Verbiest discloses the device of claim 5, and furthermore, the modified reference fails to specifically the compound delivery subsystem comprises an compound delivery device configured to discharge fertilizer droplets containing plant nutrients into the pressurized growing atmosphere onto the foliage (Saito; ¶ 0056), and the acoustic stimulator comprises a transducer configured to output acoustical energy in an audible frequency range at a sound pressure level that opens stomata concurrent with fertilizer droplet delivery (Verbiest; ¶ 0026; ¶ 0028; ¶ 0067).
Regarding claim 7, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Verbiest discloses the device of claim 6, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches a compound delivery device comprises an atomizer received in the plant growing chamber, the atomizer configured to discharge a mist comprised of nanosized plant-nutrient carrying droplets into the pressurized growing atmosphere, the mist carried by the pressurized growing atmosphere onto the foliage of the at least one plant, and wherein the sound pressure level of the acoustical energy is between about 70 decibels and about 110 decibels as measured at the foliage of the at least one plant (Saito; ¶ 0153).
Regarding claim 19, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 11, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose further comprising an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant with acoustical energy to open stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant and increase stomatal aperture size and facilitate uptake of the one or more plant nutrients through the opened stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant.
Verbiest teaches further comprising an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant with acoustical energy to open stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant and increase stomatal aperture size and facilitate uptake of the one or more plant nutrients through the opened stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant (¶ 0026; ¶ 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant with acoustical energy to open stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant and increase stomatal aperture size and facilitate uptake of the one or more plant nutrients through the opened stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant, as taught by the acoustic stimulator of Verbiest. The acoustic stimulator would aid in determining physical vessel parameters of a vascular tissue in a vascular plant, which would improve data collection and overall visibility over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 11, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose further comprising an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant while it is growing in the growing chamber with acoustical energy having a frequency that initially starts at about 500 Hz and increases over time to about 6000 Hz stimulating the at least one plant to increasingly open pores of stomata of foliage of the at least one plant as the frequency increases from about 500 Hz to about 6000 Hz facilitating stomatal uptake of the one or more plant nutrients by stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant.
Verbiest teaches an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant while it is growing in the growing chamber with acoustical energy having a frequency that initially starts at 1000 Hz and increases over time to about 6000 Hz stimulating the at least one plant to increasingly open pores of stomata of foliage of the at least one plant as the frequency increases from 1000 Hz to about 6000 Hz facilitating stomatal uptake of the one or more plant nutrients by stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant (¶ 0026; ¶ 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include a an acoustic stimulator configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant while it is growing in the growing chamber with acoustical energy having a frequency that initially starts at 1000 Hz and increases over time to about 6000 Hz stimulating the at least one plant to increasingly open pores of stomata of foliage of the at least one plant as the frequency increases from 1000 Hz to about 6000 Hz facilitating stomatal uptake of the one or more plant nutrients by stomata of the foliage of the at least one plant, as taught by the acoustic stimulator of Verbiest. The acoustic stimulator would aid in determining physical vessel parameters of a vascular tissue in a vascular plant, which would improve data collection and overall visibility over the system. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to provide the acoustic stimulator of Leo in view of Verbiest with a frequency of that initially starts at about 500 Hz in order to expand the range of operation. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Verbiest discloses the device of claim 20, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the fertilizer droplets are nanosized (Saito; ¶ 0154, lines 1-5).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), and Saito (US 20230309458 A1), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Masuda et al. (WO 2012111732 A1), hereinafter Masuda.
Regarding claim 12, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 11, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the atomizer comprises a charged atomizer or an electrostatic atomizer configured to electrostatically charge the fertilizer droplets to attract them to the foliage.
Masuda is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches wherein the atomizer comprises a charged atomizer or an electrostatic atomizer configured to electrostatically charge the fertilizer droplets to attract them to the foliage (page 21, lines 16-18, “In the above embodiment, the fine particle generating unit includes an electrostatic atomization unit 20 that generates nanometer-sized fine particles [charged fine particle water] containing radicals by electrostatic atomization”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito such that the atomizer comprises a charged atomizer or an electrostatic atomizer configured to electrostatically charge the fertilizer droplets to attract them to the foliage, as taught by the atomizer of Masuda. The charged particles would suppress the growth of fungi, which would improve plant growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 11, including the fertilizer droplets are nanosized to facilitate uptake into the stomata of the foliage (Saito; ¶ 0154, lines 1-5), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the atomizer comprises a charged nebulizer or an electrostatic nebulizer configured to electrostatically charge the fertilizer droplets to attract them to the foliage.
Masuda teaches the atomizer comprises a charged nebulizer or an electrostatic nebulizer configured to electrostatically charge the fertilizer droplets to attract them to the foliage (page 21, lines 16-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito such that the atomizer comprises a charged nebulizer or an electrostatic nebulizer configured to electrostatically charge the fertilizer droplets to attract them to the foliage, as taught by the atomizer of Masuda. The charged particles would suppress the growth of fungi, which would improve plant growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 23-26, 46, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), and Saito (US 20230309458 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 7, and further in view of Won (KR 200347644 Y1).
Regarding claim 23, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 7, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the oxygenated growing medium is a superoxygenated growing medium supersaturated with sufficient oxygen to maintain an oxygenation level of at least 2 mg/L oxygen in the oxygenated growing medium for at least two weeks.
Won is in the field of plant cultivation and teaches wherein the oxygenated growing medium is a superoxygenated growing medium supersaturated with sufficient oxygen (¶ 12, “The present invention relates to a bean sprout grower for cultivating soybean sprouts or mung bean sprouts, and more specifically, to a bean sprout grower using supersaturated dissolved oxygen water that creates supersaturated dissolved oxygen water by injecting high concentration oxygen into water drained from a bean sprout grower to create supersaturated dissolved oxygen water, and then circulates this supersaturated dissolved oxygen water back into the bean sprout grower to sterilize or inhibit the activity of microorganisms contained in the grower water, thereby enabling the recycling of the grower water, as well as preventing root rot and improving the productivity of bean sprouts by sufficiently supplying oxygen necessary for the respiration of bean sprouts”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the first embodiment of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include the oxygenated growing medium is a superoxygenated growing medium supersaturated with sufficient oxygen, as taught by the oxygenated growing medium of Won. The superoxygenated growing medium would improve the productivity of plant growth, which would improve overall growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won to include sufficient oxygen to maintain an oxygenation level of at least 2 mg/L oxygen in the oxygenated growing medium for at least two weeks, in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 24, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won discloses the device of claim 23, including wherein the superoxygenated growing medium supersaturated with sufficient oxygen to maintain the oxygenation level of the superoxygenated growing medium (Won; ¶ 12), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose maintain the oxygenation level of the superoxygenated growing medium so it is at least 4 mg/L oxygen for at least two weeks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won to maintain the oxygenation level of the superoxygenated growing medium so it is at least 4 mg/L oxygen for at least two weeks, in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 25, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won discloses the device of claim 23, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the superoxygenated growing medium (Won; ¶ 12) is comprised of nanosized oxygen bubbles (Leo; ¶ 0282), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose nanosized oxygen bubbles stably maintained within the superoxygenated growing medium for the at least two weeks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won to include nanosized oxygen bubbles stably maintained within the superoxygenated growing medium for the at least two weeks, in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 26, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won discloses the device of claim 25, however, Leo fails to specifically disclose wherein the nanosized oxygen bubbles have a diameter of between 1 nm and about 150 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won such that the nanosized oxygen bubbles have a diameter of between 1 nm and about 150 nm in order to ensure efficient oxygen delivery to the medium. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 45, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the oxygenated hydroponic growing medium and the root system of the at least one plant is substantially completely immersed in the superoxygenated aqueous hydroponic growing medium (Schaefer; ¶ 0023, “The SHACA room 10 includes a plant support structure 22 [hereinafter, the “support structure 22”] disposed within the chamber of the enclosure 12. The support structure 22 is adapted for supporting a flowering plant, or a plurality of flowering plants, as shown and designated at 24 in FIGS. 1-4. The support structure 22 may include a table, rack, shelf, or combinations thereof, for example to support growing containers [e.g. pots, trays, troughs, etc.], drying containers [e.g. baskets, perforated bins, etc.], hangers, and the like. For example, in the exemplary embodiments shown in FIGS. 1-2, the support structure 22 is implemented as a tray or trough to support a growth media 26 [e.g. soil, water, etc.] in which the roots of the plants 24 are disposed. In these embodiments, the growth media 26 may be supplied to the support structure 22 from a media supply 28 [e.g. a tank, hose, reservoir, etc.], for example via hose or tubing 30. As such, the support structure 22 may comprise, or be adapted for use with, a growth support or nutrient management system 32, such as a hydroponic, aeroponic, and/or irrigation system. In other embodiments, such as those exemplified by the SHACA room 10 shown in FIG. 4, the support structure 22 comprises a series of drying racks comprising vents or outlets 34 coupled to a blower 36 of an air circulation system 38, as described in further detail below”) (Leo; Fig. 1B shows EZ2 and EZ3 oxygenate growing mediums GM1 and GM2; ¶ 0282, ¶ 0283). The modified reference, however, fails to specifically disclose a superoxygenated aqueous growing medium supersaturated with oxygen.
Won teaches a superoxygenated aqueous growing medium supersaturated with oxygen (¶ 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the first embodiment of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include a superoxygenated aqueous growing medium supersaturated with oxygen, as taught by the oxygenated growing medium of Won. The superoxygenated growing medium would improve the productivity of plant growth, which would improve overall growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 46, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won discloses the device of claim 45, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the superoxygenated aqueous hydroponic growing medium is oxygenated sufficiently to maintain an oxygenation level of at least 2 mg/L for at least two weeks.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won such that the superoxygenated aqueous hydroponic growing medium is oxygenated sufficiently to maintain an oxygenation level of at least 2 mg/L for at least two weeks, in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), Saito (US 20230309458 A1), and Verbiest (US 20230363327 A1), as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Masuda (WO 2012111732 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Verbiest discloses the device of claim 21, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the fertilizer droplets are electrostatically charged.
Masuda teaches wherein the fertilizer droplets are electrostatically charged (page 21, lines 16-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Verbiest such that the atomizer comprises a charged atomizer or an electrostatic atomizer, as taught by the atomizer of Masuda. The charged particles would suppress the growth of fungi, which would improve plant growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 29-32 and 37-39, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), and Saito (US 20230309458 A1), as applied to claim 27, in view of Lee (KR 20220139083 A).
Regarding claim 29, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 27, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose further comprising an atomizer that mixes the pressurized oxygen with the growing medium makeup liquid and discharges the mixture into the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank in the form of droplets of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid containing oxygen dissolved or diffused therein during mixing.
Lee is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches further comprising an atomizer that mixes the pressurized oxygen with the growing medium makeup liquid and discharges the mixture into the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank in the form of droplets of the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid containing oxygen dissolved or diffused therein during mixing (ultrasonic atomizer 170; Fig. 1; ¶ 0088, “Meanwhile, the ultrasonic sprayer and bubble supply device [170] supplies bubbles to increase the dissolved oxygen of the water contained in the fresh water tank [171], and operates the vibrator to finely disperse the water contained in the fresh water tank [171] into a mist form, and sprays the water contained in the fresh water tank [171] into a mist form around the hydroponic body [110]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include an atomizer that mixes the pressurized oxygen with the growing medium makeup liquid and discharges the mixture into the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank in the form of droplets of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid containing oxygen dissolved or diffused therein during mixing, as taught by the atomizer of Lee. The atomizer would improve oxygen delivery, which would improve overall plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee discloses the device of claim 29, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the droplets discharged from the atomizer comprise at least one oxygen bubble diffused or dissolved therein (Lee; ultrasonic atomizer 170; Fig. 1; ¶ 0088).
Regarding claim 31, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee discloses the device of claim 30.
Leo discloses wherein the at least one oxygen bubble diffused or dissolved in the droplets comprises a nanosized oxygen bubble (¶ 0282).
Regarding claim 32, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee discloses the device of claim 31, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the droplets discharged from the atomizer comprise nanosized droplets. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Lee such that the droplets discharged from the atomizer comprise nanosized droplets in order to improve oxygen delivery to the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 37, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 1, including the electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup (¶ 0282), wherein the oxygenation subsystem comprises a source of pressurized oxygen gas, a source of an aqueous growing medium makeup liquid (Leo; oxygen emitter EZ1, EZ2, EZ3, reservoir 500; Fig. 1B), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose an atomizer configured to mix the pressurized oxygen gas with the aqueous growing medium makeup liquid and discharge the mixture as droplets of oxygenated aqueous growing medium makeup liquid.
Lee teaches an atomizer configured to mix the pressurized oxygen gas with the aqueous growing medium makeup liquid and discharge the mixture as droplets of oxygenated aqueous growing medium makeup liquid (ultrasonic atomizer 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include an atomizer configured to mix the pressurized oxygen gas with the aqueous growing medium makeup liquid and discharge the mixture as droplets of oxygenated aqueous growing medium makeup liquid, as taught by the atomizer of Lee. The atomizer would improve oxygen delivery, which would improve overall plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 38, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee discloses the device of claim 37, including wherein the oxygenation subsystem further comprises a collection tank (Leo; ¶ 0389) that receives droplets discharged from the atomizer, the droplets forming a pool of oxygenated aqueous growing medium makeup liquid (Lee; ultrasonic atomizer 170; Fig. 1; ¶ 0088) in the collection tank, the collection tank holding a gaseous atmosphere comprised of oxygen gas (Leo; ¶ 0389).
Regarding claim 39, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee discloses the device of claim 38, Leo discloses wherein the oxygenation subsystem further comprises an electrolyzer configured to generate oxygen gas that comprises the source of pressurized oxygen gas (¶ 0282; ¶ 0283).
Regarding claim 43, Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito discloses the device of claim 35, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the oxygenation subsystem further comprises an atomizer that diffuses or dissolves the collected oxygen gas into the first oxygenated liquid and discharges droplets comprising the second oxygenated liquid, and wherein the oxygenated growing medium is comprised of the second oxygenated liquid.
Lee teaches wherein the oxygenation subsystem further comprises an atomizer that diffuses or dissolves the collected oxygen gas into the first oxygenated liquid and discharges droplets comprising the second oxygenated liquid, and wherein the oxygenated growing medium is comprised of the second oxygenated liquid (ultrasonic atomizer 170; Fig. 1; ¶ 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include wherein the oxygenation subsystem further comprises an atomizer that diffuses or dissolves the collected oxygen gas into the first oxygenated liquid and discharges droplets comprising the second oxygenated liquid, and wherein the oxygenated growing medium is comprised of the second oxygenated liquid, as taught by the atomizer of Lee. The atomizer would improve oxygen delivery, which would improve overall plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), Saito (US 20230309458 A1), and Lee (KR 20220139083 A), as applied to claim 39, and further in view of Won (KR 200347644 Y1).
Regarding claim 40, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee discloses the device of claim 39, including nanosized oxygen bubbles (Leo; ¶ 0282), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the oxygenated growing medium is a superoxygenated growing medium supersaturated with oxygen, the superoxygenated growing medium containing sufficient oxygen to maintain an oxygenation level of at least 2 mg/L oxygen for at least one month.
Won teaches wherein the oxygenated growing medium is a superoxygenated growing medium supersaturated with oxygen, the superoxygenated growing medium containing sufficient oxygen (¶ 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the first embodiment of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee to include wherein the oxygenated growing medium is a superoxygenated growing medium supersaturated with oxygen, the superoxygenated growing medium containing sufficient oxygen, as taught by the oxygenated growing medium of Won. The superoxygenated growing medium would improve the productivity of plant growth, which would improve overall growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, Lee, and Won to include sufficient oxygen to maintain an oxygenation level of at least 2 mg/L oxygen for at least one month, in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 41, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, Lee, and Won discloses the device of claim 40, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the nanosized oxygen bubbles have a diameter of between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, Lee, and Won such that the nanosized oxygen bubbles have a diameter of between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers, in order to ensure efficient oxygen delivery to the medium. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), Saito (US 20230309458 A1), and Lee (KR 20220139083 A) as applied to claim 32, and further in view of Masuda (WO 2012111732 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee discloses the device of claim 32, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the atomizer comprises a charged atomizer or an electrostatic atomizer.
Masuda teaches wherein the atomizer comprises a charged atomizer or an electrostatic atomizer (page 21, lines 16-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee such that the atomizer comprises a charged atomizer or an electrostatic atomizer, as taught by the atomizer of Masuda. The charged particles would suppress the growth of fungi, which would improve plant growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), Saito (US 20230309458 A1), Lee (KR 20220139083 A), and Masuda (WO 2012111732 A1), as applied to claim 33, and further in view of Wilkins (WO 2015123725 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, Lee, and Masuda discloses the device of claim 33, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the atomizer comprises a nebulizer.
Wilkins is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches wherein the atomizer comprises a nebulizer (page 6, lines 31-35, “Embodiments of the system use ultrasonic nebulisation for mist generation. For example, piezoelectric ultrasonic nebulisers may be used. Ultrasonic nebulisation has a sterilising effect on the water. The combination of vibration pressure gradient stresses and increases oxygen concentration making an environment unfavourable for pythium colonization”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, Lee, and Masuda such that the atomizer comprises a nebulizer, as taught by the nebulizer of Wilkins. The nebulizer would produce a sterilizing effect on the water, which would improve plant growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), Saito (US 20230309458 A1), and Lee (KR 20220139083 A), as applied to claim 43, and further in view of Wilkins (WO 2015123725 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee, discloses the device of claim 43, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the atomizer comprises a nebulizer.
Wilkins is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches wherein the atomizer comprises a nebulizer (page 6, lines 31-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Lee such that the atomizer comprises a nebulizer, as taught by the nebulizer of Wilkins. The nebulizer would produce a sterilizing effect on the water, which would improve plant growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 47 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Schaefer (US 20230000027 A1), Saito (US 20230309458 A1), and Won (KR 200347644 Y1).
Regarding claim 47, Leo discloses a system for growing at least one plant having a root system and a shoot system comprised of foliage and stomata (farming superstructure system FSS, cannabis 107, 207; Fig. 1B), the plant growing system comprising: the plant growing chamber configured to grow at least one plant therewithin, dispose the shoot system of the at least one plant in the growing atmosphere, and dispose the root system of the at least one plant in the oxygenated growing medium (Fig. 1B shows EZ2 and EZ3 oxygenate growing mediums GM1 and GM2; growing assemblies 100, 200; Fig. 1B shows growing assemblies 100, 200 with an atmospheric section and growth mediums GM1, GM2, with the shoots of the plants 107, 207 exposed to the atmosphere and roots to the growth mediums; ¶ 0282, ¶ 0283).
Leo, however, fails to specifically disclose a gas-tightly sealed enclosure, a pressurized growing atmosphere having a pressure of at least 150 kPa and containing at least 0.05% carbon dioxide by volume received in the gas-tightly sealed enclosure, and a superoxygenated aqueous growing medium that is supersaturated with at least 2 mg/L oxygen, a fertilizer delivery subsystem comprised of a liquid fertilizer that contains one or more plant nutrients, and an atomizer having a discharge nozzle configured to discharge droplets of the liquid fertilizer into the pressurized growing atmosphere onto the foliage of the at least one plant for stomatal uptake thereby; and an oxygenation subsystem configured for supersaturating the superoxygenated aqueous growing medium so it contains at least 2 mg/L of oxygen.
Schaefer teaches a gas-tightly sealed enclosure, a pressurized growing atmosphere (¶ 0025);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo to include a gas-tightly sealed enclosure, a pressurized growing atmosphere, as taught by the gas tightly sealed enclosure of Schaefer. The gas tightly sealed enclosure would allow for selective atmospheric control, which would add adjustment for the user to improve overall growth characteristics within the chamber. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Saito teaches a fertilizer delivery subsystem comprised of a liquid fertilizer that contains one or more plant nutrients, and an atomizer having a discharge nozzle configured to discharge droplets of the liquid fertilizer into the pressurized growing atmosphere onto the foliage of the at least one plant for stomatal uptake thereby (¶ 0056);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Shaefer to include a fertilizer delivery subsystem comprised of a liquid fertilizer that contains one or more plant nutrients, and an atomizer having a discharge nozzle configured to discharge droplets of the liquid fertilizer into the pressurized growing atmosphere onto the foliage of the at least one plant for stomatal uptake thereby, as taught by the atomizer and fertilizer system of Saito. The atomizer would aid in the distribution of fertilizer, which would improve overall plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Won teaches a superoxygenated aqueous growing medium supersaturated with oxygen and an oxygenation subsystem configured for supersaturating the superoxygenated aqueous growing medium (¶ 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the first embodiment of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include teaches a superoxygenated aqueous growing medium supersaturated with oxygen and an oxygenation subsystem configured for supersaturating the superoxygenated aqueous growing medium, as taught by the oxygenated growing medium of Won. The superoxygenated growing medium would improve the productivity of plant growth, which would improve overall growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the gas tightly sealed enclosure of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won to include a pressurized growing atmosphere having a pressure of at least 150 kPa and containing at least 0.05% carbon dioxide by volume received in the gas-tightly sealed enclosure in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won such that the growth medium is supersaturated with at least 2 mg/L oxygen, in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 48, Leo discloses a system for growing at least one plant having a root system and a shoot system comprised of foliage and stomata (farming superstructure system FSS, cannabis 107, 207; Fig. 1B), the plant growing system comprising: the plant growing chamber configured to grow at least one plant therewithin, dispose the shoot system of the at least one plant in the growing atmosphere, and dispose the root system of the at least one plant in the oxygenated growing medium (Fig. 1B shows EZ2 and EZ3 oxygenate growing mediums GM1 and GM2; growing assemblies 100, 200; Fig. 1B shows growing assemblies 100, 200 with an atmospheric section and growth mediums GM1, GM2, with the shoots of the plants 107, 207 exposed to the atmosphere and roots to the growth mediums; ¶ 0282, ¶ 0283).
Leo, however, fails to specifically disclose a gas-tightly sealed enclosure, a pressurized growing atmosphere having a pressure of between about 300 kPa and about 600 kPa and containing between about 0.06% and about 0.40% carbon dioxide by volume received in the gas-tightly sealed enclosure, and a superoxygenated aqueous growing medium that is supersaturated with sufficient oxygen to maintain an oxygenation level of at least 2 mg/L oxygen for at least two weeks, and substantially completely immerse the root system of the at least one plant in the oxygenated growing medium; a fertilizer delivery subsystem comprised of a liquid fertilizer that contains one or more plant nutrients and at least one surfactant, and an atomizer disposed in the plant growing chamber and having a discharge nozzle configured to discharge a mist of the liquid fertilizer comprised of nanosized fertilizer droplets into the pressurized growing atmosphere carried by the pressurized growing atmosphere onto the foliage of the at least one plant for stomatal uptake thereby; and n oxygenation subsystem configured for supersaturating the superoxygenated aqueous growing medium with enough oxygen to maintain at least 2 mg/L of oxygen in the superoxygenated growing medium for at least two weeks.
Schaefer teaches a gas-tightly sealed enclosure, a pressurized growing atmosphere (¶ 0025); and substantially completely immerse the root system of the at least one plant in the oxygenated growing medium (¶ 0023);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo to include a gas-tightly sealed enclosure, a pressurized growing atmosphere, as taught by the gas tightly sealed enclosure of Schaefer. The gas tightly sealed enclosure would allow for selective atmospheric control, which would add adjustment for the user to improve overall growth characteristics within the chamber. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Saito teaches a fertilizer delivery subsystem comprised of a liquid fertilizer that contains one or more plant nutrients and at least one surfactant, and an atomizer disposed in the plant growing chamber and having a discharge nozzle configured to discharge a mist of the liquid fertilizer comprised of nanosized fertilizer droplets into the pressurized growing atmosphere carried by the pressurized growing atmosphere onto the foliage of the at least one plant for stomatal uptake thereby (¶ 0056);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Shaefer to include a fertilizer delivery subsystem comprised of a liquid fertilizer that contains one or more plant nutrients and at least one surfactant, and an atomizer disposed in the plant growing chamber and having a discharge nozzle configured to discharge a mist of the liquid fertilizer comprised of nanosized fertilizer droplets into the pressurized growing atmosphere carried by the pressurized growing atmosphere onto the foliage of the at least one plant for stomatal uptake thereby, as taught by the atomizer and fertilizer system of Saito. The atomizer would aid in the distribution of fertilizer, which would improve overall plant growth. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Won teaches a superoxygenated aqueous growing medium supersaturated with oxygen and an oxygenation subsystem configured for supersaturating the superoxygenated aqueous growing medium (¶ 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant cultivation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the first embodiment of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito to include teaches a superoxygenated aqueous growing medium supersaturated with oxygen and an oxygenation subsystem configured for supersaturating the superoxygenated aqueous growing medium, as taught by the oxygenated growing medium of Won. The superoxygenated growing medium would improve the productivity of plant growth, which would improve overall growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the gas tightly sealed enclosure of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won to include a pressurized growing atmosphere having a pressure of between about 300 kPa and about 600 kPa and containing between about 0.06% and about 0.40% carbon dioxide by volume received in the gas-tightly sealed enclosure in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Leo in view of Schaefer, Saito, and Won such that the growth medium is supersaturated with sufficient oxygen to maintain an oxygenation level of at least 2 mg/L oxygen for at least two weeks, in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 6 that “Leo’s inline oxygen emitter does not meet that limitation as properly construed in light of the specification (see, e.g., paragraphs [0411]–[0435] and FIG. 2A, describing a discrete oxygenating subsystem (34) that produces hyperoxygenated growing medium and supplies it via a separate conduit (132) to the chamber),” the Examiner submits that Leo discloses an oxygenating subsystem in Fig. 1B which shows EZ2 and EZ3 oxygenate growing mediums GM1 and GM2, as well as in ¶ 0282 and ¶ 0283.
Regarding the argument on page 7 that “Leo nowhere discloses collecting free oxygen gas separately from the electrolyte and dissolving that collected free oxygen gas into a separate growing medium makeup liquid to form a second oxygenated liquid. To the contrary, the entire point of Leo’s nanobubble disclosure is that the bubbles are ‘too small to break the surface tension of the liquid’ (¶ [0282]) — i.e., they do not form a free oxygen gas phase that could be collected. The Examiner’s assertion that Leo discloses oxygen gas ‘that is thereafter collected’ (Office Action, p. 6) mischaracterizes Leo. Anticipation requires that the prior art disclose each element expressly or inherently; the bare possibility that one might modify Leo to collect evolved gas is insufficient for anticipation,” the Examiner submits that Leo discloses the oxygenating subsystem of claim 35, as ¶ 0282 and ¶ 0283 describe where oxygen gas is separated, dissolved to form a first oxygenated liquid, as well as free oxygen gas and dissolved into a growing medium makeup liquid.
Regarding the argument on pages 8 and 9 that “it does not teach or even suggest substituting the growing atmosphere with substantially pure carbon dioxide during ripening or maturation. The Examiner has not identified anything in Leo suggesting that the growing atmosphere should consist essentially of carbon dioxide during any particular plant stage,” the Examiner submits that Leo discloses a carbon dioxide atmosphere as Fig. 1B shows CO2 input 215. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the growing atmosphere of Leo in view of Schaefer and Saito, which already comprises carbon dioxide, such that it consists essentially of carbon dioxide during a ripening or maturation stage of the at least one plant in order to improve plant characteristics. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, the existing carbon dioxide is the result effective variable.
Regarding the argument on page 9 that “Leo’s references to oxygen ‘bubble size of about 0.10 millimeters to about 3 millimeters’ and ‘microbubbles, ranging in size from 0.1 to 100 microns in diameter’ (Leo ¶ [0283]) describe macroscopic and microscale bubbles, not nanoscale bubbles in the 1–150 nm range. The claimed range does not overlap with Leo’s disclosed range, and ‘discovering optimum workable ranges’ cannot fill that gap. See In re Patel, 566 F. App’x 1005, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Aller analysis is inapplicable where claimed range does not overlap with the prior-art disclosure),” the Examiner maintains the application of In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 for claim 24, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in Leo pertaining to the bubble size. Additionally, Leo discloses ranging in size from 0.1 to 100 microns in diameter, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding the argument on page 10 that “a person of ordinary skill would have had no reason to install a gas-impermeable barrier between Leo’s open growing atmosphere and Leo’s lower-section liquid pathway. Without a sealed pressurized atmosphere, there is no gas pressure differential against which the Pauls barrier would act, and no recognized problem in Leo that the Pauls barrier would solve. The Examiner’s proposed combination thus rests on impermissible hindsight reconstruction,” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation to combine exists in Pauls, as Pauls teaches a barrier that isolates the gas environment of the atmosphere from that of the growth medium, which improves gas control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas barrier of Pauls to the device of the modified Leo. Furthermore, 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).
Regarding the argument on page 11 that “Pauls teaches away from the claimed invention. The architecture of Pauls is the antithesis of an oxygenated-medium plant production system. Pauls describes its essential method as: ‘(c) using incoming air entering the interior space at the second region thereof to maintain said second region in a pressurized state; (d) venting the first region to a location outside the chamber, wherein pressurization of the second region relative to the vented first region prevents leakage or escape of air from the first region into the second region.’ Pauls, claim 12; see also Pauls ¶¶ [0022]–[0023] (independent method aspect); Pauls ¶ [0036] (vent line discharges to ambient environment). The Examiner relies on Pauls ¶ [0043] for the limitation of a ‘barrier disposed between the growing atmosphere and the growing medium’ recited in claim 2. But Pauls’s entire teaching is that the root region must be vented to ambient — precisely so that root respiration CO2 does not contaminate the gas-exchange measurements in the canopy region. A person of ordinary skill following Pauls would vent the root region to ambient, which would actively destroy the claimed oxygenated growing medium configuration and dissipate the oxygen nanobubbles that are central to the claimed invention. A reference teaches away when, properly read, it would discourage one of skill from following the path taken by the applicant or would lead in a divergent direction. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The proposed combination would also render Pauls unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Pauls’s entire purpose is gas-exchange measurement, which requires the vented-root / pressurized-canopy differential to isolate canopy gases. Leo is a cannabis cultivation system, not a measurement apparatus. Importing only Pauls’s barrier into Leo (without also importing the venting infrastructure that is essential to Pauls’s analytical operation) strips Pauls of its functional context; importing the venting infrastructure (as Pauls expressly requires) would prevent Leo from operating as an oxygenated-medium cultivation system. Where a proposed modification would render the prior-art reference inoperable for its intended purpose, the modification is improper. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984); MPEP § 2143.01(V). Finally, the proposed combination lacks any reasonable expectation of success. Pauls’s barrier — implemented as a flexible plastic bag (Pauls, ¶¶ [0040]–[0042]) — is configured for a measurement chamber operating at a near-ambient pressure differential just sufficient to ensure airflow from the canopy region into the vented root region. A person of ordinary skill modifying Leo to add Pauls’s flexible plastic bag in a system that, per claim 1 as amended, contains a pressurized growing atmosphere of at least 150 kPa, would have no reasonable expectation that Pauls’s thin flexible plastic bag (designed to flex with variation in plant shape) would withstand 1.5–6 atmospheres of pressure differential. See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. de C.V., 865 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017),” the Examiner maintains that only the barrier of Pauls is being provided to the modified Leo, not the full structure of the entire device of Pauls. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the barrier of Pauls would destroy the functionality of the device of the modified Leo, and the assertion that the proposed combination would also render Pauls unsatisfactory for its intended purpose is irrelevant, as Pauls is not modified with the device of Leo. Instead, Pauls teaches a barrier disposed in the plant growing chamber between the pressurized growing atmosphere and the growing medium, the barrier being gas impermeable to prevent gas in the pressurized growing atmosphere from diffusing into or going into a solution in the growing medium, which would have been obvious to provide to the modified Leo as demonstrated above.
Regarding the argument on page 13 that “Verbiest is silent on stomata, on stomatal aperture size, on fertilizer delivery, on photosynthetic or metabolic rate, and on compound uptake rate. Verbiest therefore does not teach the functional limitations now recited in claims 4 and 5, and does not teach the concurrent-fertilizer-droplet-delivery limitation recited in claim 6,” the Examiner submits that Saito is relied upon to teach the fertilizer delivery, and Verbiest teaches an audible frequency range as disclosed, with effects of stomata, stomatal aperture size, and photosynthetic or metabolic rate being functions of the structure taught by the modified reference.
Regarding the argument on page 13 that “the Examiner’s articulated motivation for the combination — that Verbiest’s acoustic stimulator ‘would aid in determining physical vessel parameters of a vascular tissue in a vascular plant, which would improve data collection and overall visibility over the system’ (Office Action, pp. 14–15) — is materially disconnected from the operation of Leo’s cannabis production system. Leo is silent on the diagnostic characterization of vascular tissue and has no system-level need for vascular diagnostics. A person of ordinary skill seeking to operate Leo’s cannabis cultivation system would not look to Verbiest’s vascular diagnostic apparatus, and the Examiner’s articulated rationale fails to bridge the functional gap between Leo and Verbiest,” and on pages 13 and 14 that “Verbiest is, on closer inspection, structurally and functionally far removed from any plant cultivation system. First, Verbiest’s acoustic radiation device is mounted directly on a single plant stem or branch (‘stem mount configured for attaching the acoustic radiation device to a plant stem or a plant branch’); see Verbiest, ¶ [0091]. Second, Verbiest operates principally in the ultrasonic range — 1–250 kHz, especially 10–200 kHz — and Verbiest expressly characterizes its excitation radiation as ‘ultrasound excitation radiation’ with frequencies ‘higher than the upper audible limit of human hearing.’ Verbiest, ¶¶ [0026], [0028]–[0029], [0082]–[0084]. Third, Verbiest’s actual experiments are performed on excised, cut, and air-dried stem segments — confirming that Verbiest is a laboratory analytical method, not a cultivation feature. See Verbiest, ¶¶ [0141]–[0143] (“leafy shoot samples … were cut keeping the leaves intact and immediately kept in tap water to prevent embolism … 60–70 mm long trimmed (without leaf-petioles) stem segment was cut … left on the bench for air-drying, resulting in an accelerated drought stress”). Fourth, Verbiest is used for plant breeding selection. See Verbiest, ¶ [0127] (‘selecting one or more vascular plants of the plurality of vascular plants for breeding based on the physical vessel parameters’). Verbiest nowhere describes opening stomata, increasing stomatal aperture, facilitating stomatal uptake of fertilizer droplets, or any biological stimulation of plant growth. The Examiner’s stated rationale that Verbiest’s acoustic stimulator ‘would aid in determining physical vessel parameters of a vascular tissue in a vascular plant, which would improve data collection and overall visibility over the system’ is conclusory and divorced from any operational need in Leo. Leo describes an automated, computer-controlled cannabis cogeneration farm; nothing in Leo identifies vascular-tissue-elasticity diagnostics as a need or even a desideratum. A person of ordinary skill reading Leo and Verbiest in 2024 would have no rational reason to bolt a stem-mounted ultrasonic xylem diagnostic onto Leo’s open-architecture growing assemblies. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting a motivation rationale that lacked a rational underpinning tied to the references). The only reason the Examiner reached Verbiest is by using the claims as a roadmap — quintessential impermissible hindsight. See Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 783 F.3d 853, 859 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is also no reasonable expectation of success. Verbiest’s frequencies (1–250 kHz, principally ultrasonic) are not the audible-range, stomatal-opening frequencies recited in amended claims 4 and 6 (‘audible frequency range’). The acoustic stimulation mechanism in Verbiest — exciting resonance modes of xylem vessels in cut stem segments to characterize vessel elasticity and dimension — is fundamentally different from the mechanism recited in amended claim 5 (acoustically opening stomata of the foliage and increasing stomatal aperture size). A person of ordinary skill would have no reasonable expectation that Verbiest’s vascular-diagnostic ultrasound, applied to a single stem via a stem clamp, would translate into a transducer that opens stomata at audible frequencies and sound-pressure levels described in the application. Verbiest and the claims describe technically incommensurable systems. See Honeywell, 865 F.3d at 1354; Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016),” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation to combine exists in Verbiest, as Verbiest teaches an acoustic stimulator as claimed, which aids in determining physical vessel parameters of a vascular tissue in a vascular plant (Abstract), thereby improving data collection and overall visibility over the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the acoustic stimulator of Verbiest to the device of the modified Leo. Furthermore, 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).
Regarding the argument on pages 15 and 16 that “Saito does not disclose an atomizer having a discharge nozzle disposed in a pressurized growing atmosphere within a gas-tightly sealed enclosure. Saito’s reference to ‘spreading agents’ comprising surfactants (Saito, ¶ [0056]) is generic and does not teach the specific functional limitation now recited in claim 11 — namely, that the surfactant decreases the surface tension of the fertilizer droplets so as to cause the plant nutrients to be drawn into the stomata by wicking action. Wicking-action uptake of liquid fertilizer through plant stomata is neither described nor suggested by Saito,” the Examiner submits that Saito is not relied upon to teach a pressurized growing atmosphere within a gas-tightly sealed enclosure. Instead, Saito teaches the claimed surfactants in ¶ 0056, with decreasing surface tension of the fertilizer droplets being functional of the taught surfactants.
Regarding the argument on page 16 that “Saito’s open-air foliar broadcast techniques (mechanical atomizers, manned or unmanned helicopters, dusters, hand sprayers) are wholly incompatible with the architecture and intended operation of Leo’s fan-ventilated, fabric-partitioned, root-fed growing assemblies. A modification that would redirect nutrient delivery from Leo’s lower-section liquid pathway to a foliar spray system would fundamentally change Leo’s principle of operation, which is impermissible,” and on page 17 that “The Examiner’s proposed modification of Leo per Saito would impermissibly change Leo’s principle of operation. Leo’s compound-delivery architecture is fundamentally root-feeding, through liquid input 114/214 into the lower-section below the fabric partition (104, 204). See Leo, ¶¶ [0276]–[0278]. The fabric partition is itself a defining feature of Leo’s architecture — it divides each growing assembly into an upper-section containing the foliage and a lower-section in which the roots are immersed and to which the liquid is delivered. Leo, ¶¶ [0269]–[0277]. Leo further teaches a cyclic open/close watering regime — e.g., 5 seconds on / 600 seconds off — and expressly explains that the cycle is designed ‘to prevent the roots of the cannabis from receiving too much mist or spray.’ Leo, ¶ [0307]. To ‘modify Leo such that the compound delivery subsystem comprises a plant feeding system comprised of an atomizer disposed in the growing atmosphere having a discharge nozzle in the growing atmosphere, The combination also lacks any reasonable expectation of success. Saito’s ‘atomizers’ are field-scale — manned/unmanned helicopters, watering cans, hand sprayers, dusters, and broadcasters used in open-air application across 100 m2 plots. Saito, ¶¶ [0153], [0183]–[0202]. There is no reasonable expectation that scaling these open-field broadcast methods down into the interior of Leo’s closed growing assembly — itself ventilated by fans blowing air containing dust, dirt, and pollen (Leo, ¶¶ [0269]–[0271]) — would yield the claimed functional result of stomatal uptake of nanosized fertilizer droplets via surfactant-mediated wicking action. Saito does not address droplet-size, droplet-trajectory, or air-current dynamics that would be required for stomatal uptake inside a closed cultivation chamber, much less a hyperbaric one,” the Examiner maintains that only the atomizer and fertilizer delivery system of Saito is being provided to the modified Leo, not the full structure of the entire device of Saito. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the atomizer and fertilizer delivery system of Saito would destroy the functionality of the device of the modified Leo, or change its principle of operation. Furthermore, the size or scale of the atomizer is not something that is claimed or relied upon in Saito for any teaching.
Regarding the argument on page 20 that “the Examiner’s stated motivation for incorporating Masuda — that ‘[t]he charged particles would suppress the growth of fungi’ — is directed to fungicidal effect, which is independent of the claim limitation requiring electrostatic charging of fertilizer droplets to draw them to the foliage. The proposed motivation does not actually direct one of skill to the claimed configuration; it merely suggests a parallel use of electrostatics for a different purpose,” and on pages 19 and 20 that “There is no reasonable expectation that combining Masuda with Saito and Leo would produce the claimed fertilizer atomizer of claim 12. Masuda’s electrostatic atomization mechanism is designed to generate OH radicals and ozone — chemical species that, when applied to an aqueous fertilizer containing organic nutrients and a surfactant, would oxidize the nutrients and the surfactant. A person of ordinary skill would have no reasonable expectation that Masuda’s radical-generating electrostatic atomization could be repurposed to deliver intact fertilizer droplets onto plant foliage. The Examiner’s articulated motivation — ‘The charged particles would suppress the growth of fungi, which would improve plant growth characteristics’ (Office Action at 19) — is functionally disconnected from the claim limitations: claim 12 requires the electrostatic charging of fertilizer droplets to attract them to the foliage, not fungal suppression. The Examiner’s stated reason for combining Masuda does not actually motivate the combination as a fertilizer-delivery system; it merely identifies a parallel use of electrostatics for a different purpose,” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation to combine exists in Masuda, as Masuda teaches a charged atomizer as claimed, with fungal growth suppression being a motivation disclosed in Masuda, and which would provide an added benefit to the existing device of the modified Leo. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the charged atomizer of Masuda to the device of the modified Leo.
Regarding the argument on page 22 that “Lee does not disclose discharging the atomized droplets into an oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank as recited; Lee discharges the mist into the open growing environment surrounding the hydroponic body,” the Examiner submits that Lee teaches discharging the atomized droplets into an oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank in ¶ 0088 as demonstrated in the above rejection.
Regarding the argument on page 22 that “Lee does not disclose a source of pressurized oxygen gas; Lee’s ultrasonic sprayer-and-bubble-supply device supplies ambient air bubbles to increase the dissolved oxygen in a freshwater tank, not pressurized oxygen gas as such,” the Examiner submits that Leo is relied upon to disclose these features.
Regarding the argument on page 25 that “The proposed combination would also impermissibly change Leo’s principle of operation. Leo’s humidity control unit (TCU) operates at 5–100% humidity (preferably 25–75% or 40–60%) using an integrated air-heater / fan / condensate-collection scheme. Leo, ¶¶ [0339]–[0350]. Leo’s root-zone watering is metered cyclically (e.g., 5 seconds on / 600 seconds off), and Leo expressly explains that the cyclic regime is designed ‘to prevent the roots of the cannabis from receiving too much mist or spray.’ Leo, ¶ [0307]. Introducing Lee’s ultrasonic-sprayer continuous-humidification scheme inside Leo’s growing assembly would conflict with Leo’s carefully controlled humidity scheme and Leo’s expressly cyclic anti-over-misting water regime. The combination is structurally and operationally incompatible. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813. There is also no reasonable expectation of success. Lee’s ultrasonic transducer disk is designed to operate at near-ambient pressure on a small free-water surface inside a freshwater tank for an indoor ornamental-plant appliance. There is no reasonable expectation that Lee’s ornamental-plant humidifier would operate inside a hyperbaric growing chamber pressurized to at least 150 kPa (and, per amended independent claim 48, to 300–600 kPa). Lee gives no teaching of how its ultrasonic sprayer would respond to elevated ambient pressure, much less how it would generate the claimed nanosized droplets containing pressurized oxygen mixed with the growing medium makeup liquid,” the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation to combine exists in Lee, as Lee teaches an atomizer as claimed, which improves oxygen delivery, thereby improving overall plant growth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the atomizer of Lee to the device of the modified Leo.
Regarding the argument on pages 26 and 27 that “Wilkins is not a hyperbaric cultivation system. Wilkins is a decorative aeroponic ‘green wall’ — a thin, vertical, decorative plant-display module for offices, homes, and hospitality and corporate-industry green-wall applications. See Wilkins, Summary (‘vertical plant cultivation system’ with ‘shell having an external surface, a vertically extending internal chamber, and plant support apertures extending through external surface to the internal chamber’); page 8 (list of applications including ‘green walls for the hospitality industry,’ ‘green walls for the corporate industry,’ and “single sided edible green walls for the domestic market’). Wilkins’s ‘mist generator’ is a piezoelectric ultrasonic nebulizer that floats in a shallow open water reservoir at the base of the vertical plant-display chamber. Wilkins, page 6 (‘The mist generators 140 are configured to float in the water in the reservoir 130 so that the apparatus is supported in the water at the desired submersion in the water’). The benefit Wilkins claims for its nebulizer is sterilization against pythium colonization (‘Ultrasonic nebulisation has a sterilising effect on the water. The combination of vibration pressure gradient stresses and increases oxygen concentration making an environment unfavourable for pythium colonisation’). Id. Wilkins lacks every key feature of the claim chain other than the bare term ‘nebulizer.’ Wilkins has no electrolyzer, no source of pressurized oxygen gas, no two-stage architecture, no collection tank that receives atomizer-discharged droplets to form a pool of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid, no gaseous atmosphere of oxygen gas held over the pool, and no first-and-second-oxygenated-liquid mixing. Wilkins simply atomizes ambient-air-bubbled freshwater reservoir water into mist that travels upward through the green-wall chamber to wet plant roots growing from the chamber’s perforated exterior. Importing Wilkins’s floating green-wall nebulizer into Leo’s cogeneration cannabis farm — and into the additional combination with Lee’s indoor ornamental-hydroponic air purifier and Masuda’s helicopter-mounted radical fungicide — is hindsight in its purest form. Moreover, Wilkins’s floating mist generator with flotation-ring buoyancy device is expressly designed to reduce the need to maintain a specific water level (Wilkins, page 6: ‘This has an advantage of reducing the need to maintain a specific water level for effective operation of the mist generator’); removing Wilkins’s mist generator from its reservoir-and-flotation configuration to install it as part of a pressurized two-stage electrolyzer/atomizer scheme would destroy the very flotation-based ease-of-water-level-maintenance feature that Wilkins identifies as its key contribution. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902,” the Examiner recognizes that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, all references, including Wilkins, are in the common field of plant cultivation systems. Therefore, Wilkins is analogous art. Furthermore, 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).
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but either contain conclusory statements, repeated arguments, or 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Vandecruys, US 20180206422 A1, discusses an industrial plant growing facility and methods of use.
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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights