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 statement (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 20, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “diffusing into or going into solution.” Examiner recommends correction to “diffusing into or going into a solution.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “frequency of that initially starts” in line 3. Examiner recommends correction to “frequency that initially starts.” Claim 20 is similarly objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “to cause oxygen from the oxygen containing atmosphere to dissolved or diffuse” in lines 5 and 6. Examiner recommends correction to “to cause oxygen from the oxygen containing atmosphere to dissolve or diffuse”
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 2, 3, 5, and 20-22 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 2 recites the limitation “the chamber” in line 1. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “the plant growing chamber.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the surface” in line 2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a surface.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “frequency generally linearly increases” in line 3. “Generally linearly” is an indefinite term of degree as the disclosure lacks a definite standard for the meaning of the term in the context of the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the one or more nutrients” in line 6. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “the one or more plant nutrients.”
Dependent claims 21 and 22 fail to remedy the deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 35, 36, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leo (US 20240008419 A1).
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, 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 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 one or more 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 (¶ 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]”).
Regarding claim 35, Leo discloses the device of claim 1.
Leo discloses wherein the oxygenation subsystem is comprised of an electrolyzer having an anode and a cathode electrically charged during electrolysis, and electrolyte comprised of water received in the electrolyzer in which the anode and cathode are immersed from which oxygen gas separated from the electrolyte by one of the anode and cathode forms bubbles on one of the anode and the cathode that dissolve or diffuse into the electrolyte forming an electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid, and wherein the growing medium is comprised of the electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid (¶ 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”).
Regarding claim 36, Leo discloses the device of claim 35.
Leo discloses wherein one of the electrically charged anode and cathode separates oxygen gas from the electrolyte that is thereafter collected, and wherein electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid is comprised of the collected oxygen gas (¶ 0282; ¶ 0283).
Regarding claim 42, Leo discloses the device of claim 35.
Leo discloses wherein one of the electrically charged anode and cathode separates oxygen gas from the electrolyte that is thereafter collected, and wherein the collected oxygen gas is diffused or dissolved into the electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid forming an oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid containing an amount of oxygen therein that is greater than an amount of oxygen containing in the electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid (¶ 0282; ¶ 0283).
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 7-10, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Leo discloses the device of claim 1, however, Leo fails to specifically disclose wherein the growing atmosphere has a pressure of at least 150 kPa and contains at least 0.05% 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 at least 150 kPa and 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 discloses the device of claim 7, however, Leo fails to specifically disclose wherein the growing atmosphere has a pressure of between about 300 kPa and about 600 kPa and contains between 0.06% and 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 0.06% and 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 discloses the device of claim 1, including carbon dioxide supply to the growing assemblies (CO2 input 215; Fig. 1B) and a maturation stage while the plants are in the growing assemblies (¶ 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, Leo 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 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 10, Leo discloses the device of claim 1, including carbon dioxide supply to the growing assemblies (CO2 input 215; Fig. 1B) and a maturation stage while the plants are in the growing assemblies (¶ 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, Leo 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 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 23, Leo discloses the device of claim 7, however, Leo fails to specifically disclose wherein the growing medium comprises an oxygenated growing medium that contains at least 2 mg/L oxygen. 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 oxygenated growing medium of Leo with a concentration of 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 24, Leo discloses the device of claim 23.
Leo discloses wherein the oxygen is comprised of oxygen bubbles dissolved in the growing medium (¶ 0282; ¶ 0283; Fig. 1B shows liquid inputs 114, 214 comprising oxygenated water with oxygen bubbles feeding into growth medium).
Regarding claim 25, Leo discloses the device of claim 24.
Leo discloses wherein the oxygen bubbles comprised nanosized oxygen bubbles (¶ 0282).
Regarding claim 26, Leo 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 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 27, Leo 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).
However, the first embodiment of Leo (Fig. 1B) fails to specifically disclose an oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank containing oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid and a gaseous atmosphere containing oxygen.
The second embodiment of Leo (Fig. 9) teaches 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]”).
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 the first embodiment of Leo to include an oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank containing oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid and a gaseous atmosphere containing oxygen, as taught by the solution tank oxygenation of the second embodiment of Leo. The tank oxygenation system would ensure proper oxygenation of the liquid while providing additional control over the addition and mixing of nutrients, which would improve overall growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 28, Leo 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 dissolved 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 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).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pauls et al. (US 20180113104 A1), hereinafter Pauls.
Regarding claim 2, Leo discloses the device of claim 1, however, Leo fails to specifically disclose wherein the growing atmosphere in the chamber has a pressure of at least 300 Kpa and further comprising a barrier disposed between the growing atmosphere and the growing medium, the barrier is gas impermeable to prevent gas in the growing atmosphere from diffusing into or going into solution in the growing medium. 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 at least 300 Kpa 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).
Pauls is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches a barrier disposed between the growing atmosphere and the growing medium, the barrier is gas impermeable to prevent gas in the growing atmosphere from diffusing into or going into 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 to include a barrier disposed between the growing atmosphere and the growing medium, the barrier is gas impermeable to prevent gas in the growing atmosphere from diffusing into or going into 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 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 the surface of the growing medium (Pauls; ¶ 0043).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Verbiest et al. (US 20230363327 A1), hereinafter Verbiest.
Regarding claim 4, Leo discloses the device of claim 1, however, Leo 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 of 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.
Verbiest is in the field of plant growth systems and 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 of 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 (¶ 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 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 of 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, 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 5, Leo in view of Verbiest discloses the device of claim 4, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the acoustic stimulator is configured to acoustically stimulate the at least one plant while it is growing in the growing chamber with acoustical energy where the frequency generally linearly increases over time from at least 1000 Hz to about 6000 Hz for a period of about 10 minutes, ceases stimulating the at least one plant with acoustical energy for a predetermined period of time, and thereafter repeating the acoustically stimulation of the at least one plant while it is growing in the growing chamber with acoustical energy where the frequency generally linearly increases over time from at least 1000 Hz to about 6000 Hz for another period of about 10 minutes (Verbiest; ¶ 0026; ¶ 0028; Fig. 3A depicts periods of stimulation including 10 minutes).
The modified reference, however, fails to specifically disclose a frequency of that initially starts at about 500 Hz. 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 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 6, Leo in view of Verbiest discloses the device of claim 4, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the growing atmosphere has a pressure of between about 300 kPa and about 600 kPa and contains between 0.06% and 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 0.06% and 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.
Claims 11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Saito et al. (US 20230309458 A1), hereinafter Saito.
Regarding claim 11, Leo discloses the device of claim 1, however, Leo fails to specifically disclose wherein 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, a fertilizer comprised of one or more plant nutrients and at least one surfactant, and wherein the growing atmosphere contains droplets of the fertilizer from the atomizer that are taken up by stomata of foliage of the at least one plant to fertilize the at least one plant.
Saito is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches wherein 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, a fertilizer comprised of one or more plant nutrients and at least one surfactant, and wherein the growing atmosphere contains droplets of the fertilizer from the atomizer that are taken up by stomata of foliage of the at least one plant to fertilize the at least one plant (¶ 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 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, a fertilizer comprised of one or more plant nutrients and at least one surfactant, and wherein the growing atmosphere contains droplets of the fertilizer from the atomizer that are taken up by stomata of foliage of the at least one plant to fertilize the at least one plant, as taught by the atomizer 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.
Regarding claim 14, Leo in view of 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 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 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. 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 in order to ensure proper delivery in the atmosphere. 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 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 18, Leo in view of Saito discloses the device of claim 17, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the fertilizer droplets are nanosized (Saito; ¶ 0154, lines 1-5, “The amount of dispersion of the plant-vitalizing agent is preferably a dispersion amount for 0.1 ng to 100 ng of active component per 1 cm2 leaf surface, and more preferably a dispersion amount for 1 ng to 20 ng of active component per 1 cm2 of leaf surface”).
Regarding claim 19, Leo in view of Saito discloses the device of claim 18, 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. 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 in order to ensure proper delivery in the atmosphere. 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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of 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 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.
Masuda is in the field of plant growth systems and teaches wherein the atomizer comprises a charged atomizer or an electrostatic atomizer (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 Saito 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.
Regarding claim 13, Leo in view of Saito and Masuda discloses the device of claim 12, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the fertilizer droplets are nanosized (Saito; ¶ 0154, lines 1-5).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of Saito (US 20230309458 A1), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Verbiest (US 20230363327 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Leo in view of 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 of 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 nutrients in the fertilizer droplets by stomata of 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 of 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 nutrients in the fertilizer droplets by stomata of 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 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 of 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 nutrients in the fertilizer droplets by stomata of 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 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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1) in view of 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 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 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 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo (US 20240008419 A1), as applied to claim 27, in view of Lee (KR 20220139083 A).
Regarding claim 29, Leo discloses the device of claim 27, however, Leo fails to specifically disclose further comprising an atomizer that mixes the pressurized oxygen with the growing medium makeup liquid and discharges the mixture 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 in the form of droplets of 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 to include an atomizer that mixes the pressurized oxygen with the growing medium makeup liquid and discharges the mixture 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 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 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 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 discloses the device of claim 36, including the electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup (¶ 0282), however, Leo fails to specifically disclose wherein the collected oxygen comprises pressurized oxygen and the oxygenation subsystem further comprises an atomizer that mixes the pressurized oxygen with the electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid and discharges the mixture in the form of droplets of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid containing oxygen from the pressurized oxygen dissolved or diffused therein.
Lee teaches wherein the collected oxygen comprises pressurized oxygen and the oxygenation subsystem further comprises an atomizer that mixes the pressurized oxygen with the electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid and discharges the mixture in the form of droplets of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid containing oxygen from the pressurized oxygen dissolved or diffused therein (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 to include wherein the collected oxygen comprises pressurized oxygen and the oxygenation subsystem further comprises an atomizer that mixes the pressurized oxygen with the electrolyzer oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid and discharges the mixture in the form of droplets of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid containing oxygen from the pressurized oxygen dissolved or diffused therein, 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 Lee discloses the device of claim 37, including droplets of the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid discharged from the atomizer that forms a pool of the oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid (Lee; ultrasonic atomizer 170; Fig. 1; ¶ 0088).
However, the first embodiment of Leo (Fig. 1B) fails to specifically disclose an oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank in the collection tank, the collection tank holding a gaseous atmosphere comprised of oxygen gas, and wherein the growing medium is comprised of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid from the collection tank.
The second embodiment of Leo (Fig. 9) teaches an oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank in the collection tank, the collection tank holding a gaseous atmosphere comprised of oxygen gas, and wherein the growing medium is comprised of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid from the collection tank (¶ 0389).
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 the first embodiment of Leo in view of Lee to include an oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid collection tank in the collection tank, the collection tank holding a gaseous atmosphere comprised of oxygen gas, and wherein the growing medium is comprised of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid from the collection tank, as taught by the solution tank oxygenation of the second embodiment of Leo. The tank oxygenation system would ensure proper oxygenation of the liquid while providing additional control over the addition and mixing of nutrients, which would improve overall growth characteristics. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 39, Leo in view of Lee discloses the device of claim 38, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the growing medium comprised of oxygenated growing medium makeup liquid from the collection tank contains at least 2 mg/L oxygen. 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 oxygenated growing medium liquid of Leo in view of Lee with a concentration of at least 2 mg/L oxygen in order to improve growing conditions for the plants. Additionally, it has been held tha