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 .
Election/Restrictions
No claims have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 13 May 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 18 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are sufficiently related. Upon further review, this is found persuasive because the process limitations are dependent from an apparatus claim.
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, 5, & 16-20 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.
Claims 4-5 both require “pF 1” - there is no mention of this standard in the instant specification to enlighten a person having ordinary skill as to what metric is being used.
RE Claims 16-20, the claims are detailed in laying out the process by which the growth medium is obtained. These specific steps are inappropriate for an apparatus claim, as method steps do not properly limit apparatus claims. Thus, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Kalwa et al. (EP 3143870 A1, “Kalwa”).
For Claim 1, Kalwa discloses a hydroponic growing medium (title, disclosure) comprising:
a three-dimensional self-supporting substrate having a dry bulk density of about 1.8 lb/ft3 (28.83 kg/m3) to 10 lb/ft3 (160.185 kg/m3) (“The apparent density of the present wood fiber mat is… 100-140 kg/m3,” page 5, lines 4-5, hereinafter referred to as “page(s):line(s)”) and including at least about 2 to 10 weight % of a man-made fiber portion (5-20% by weight binder, 6:3-5 & 7:9-10, which overlaps and anticipates 5-10 by weight %) and at least about 90 to 98 weight % of a natural fiber portion having wood fiber (wood fiber may comprise 60-90% by weight, 5:1-2), based on the total weight of the hydroponic growing medium.
For Claim 9, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 1, and Kalwa further discloses wherein the three-dimensional self-supporting substrate forms a slab (wood fiber mat, 2:1).
For Claim 10, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 9, and Kalwa further discloses wherein the slab includes at least one recess (hole 11:5).
For Claim 12, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 1, and Kalwa further discloses wherein the slab has a dry bulk density of about 1.8 lb/ft3 (28.83 kg/m3) to about 5 lb/ft3 (80.09 kg/m3) (wood fiber mat has a density of 70-170 kg/m3, 5:4-5).
For Claim 15, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 1, and Kalwa further discloses wherein the hydroponic growing medium is sterile (5:4-9).
For Claim 16, hydroponic growing medium according to claim 1, and Kalwa further discloses prepared by a process1 comprising: combining a loose metered volume of the man-made fiber portion with the natural fiber portion and reducing the fiber to a predetermined thickness to form a compressed matrix, exposing the compressed matrix to elevated temperatures to melt at least a portion of the fiber, and applying pressure to the compressed matrix to generate the three-dimensional structure of the hydroponic growing medium (“The step of compacting is carried out at temperatures between 120 ° C and 220 ° C,” page 6, lines 22-25).
For Claim 17, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 16, and Kalwa further teaches wherein the process further includes inserting the hydroponic growing medium in a plastic bag having one or more apertures (the device of Kalwa is pressed into shape as discussed in page 6, meeting the product-by-process limitation).
For Claim 18, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 16, and Kalwa further discloses wherein the process further includes a sterilization (as discussed on page 4) and/or2 stabilization step.
For Claim 19, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium of claim 16, and Kalwa further discloses wherein the compressed matrix has about 2.5 to 3.5 times the original bulk density of the loose metered volume of the fiber (the weighed material is then compressed).
For Claim 20, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium of claim 16, and Kalwa further discloses wherein the compressed matrix has a thickness which is about 100 to 500% of the original thickness of the loose metered volume (the weighed material is then compressed).
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.
Claims 4, 5, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa as applied to claim 1 above.
For Claim 4, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 1.
Kalwa is silent to wherein the hydroponic growing medium has volumetric water content at pF 1 of about 25 to 70 %.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the growing medium of Kalwa with a volumetric water content pF of about 25-70%, in order to best support root viability and overall health of the plant, and since 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.
For Claim 5, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 1.
Kalwa is silent to wherein the hydroponic growing medium has volumetric water oxygen at pF 1 of about 50 to 80 %.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the growing medium of Kalwa with a volumetric water oxygen content pF of about 50-80%, in order to best support root oxygen absorption and overall health of the plant, and since 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.
For Claim 11, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 10.
Kalwa is silent to wherein the at least one recess has about 5 - 20 cm in diameter and a depth of about 5 - 10 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to change the dimensions of the recess such that the recess is in the range of about 5 - 20 cm in diameter and a depth of about 5 - 10 cm, in order to accommodate typical plant dimensions, and since 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramsey (US 20080034653 A1).
For Claim 2, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium of claim 1.
Kalwa is silent to wherein the hydroponic growing medium has total porosity of about 90 to 99 volume %.
Ramsey, like prior art above, teaches a growing medium ¶0008 has total porosity of about 90 volume % (porosity is between 80 and 90 %, such that the overlap of “about 90%” and 90% overlaps and anticipates the claim, discussed in ¶0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide Kalwa with a total porosity of about 90 volume % as taught by since increased porosity in a substrate provides better gas exchange for roots, an advantage realized by Ramsey, ¶0005.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lovelace et al. (WO 2009078827 A1, “Lovelace”).
For Claim 3, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium of claim 1.
Kalwa is silent to wherein the hydroponic growing medium has about 30 to 60 percent of air space.
Lovelace, like prior art above, teaches a growth medium (title, disclosure) further comprising about 30 to 60 percent of air space (about 35% air space, which meets and anticipates the claimed range: ¶0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the growth medium of Kalwa with about 35% air space as taught by Lovelace, in order to provide conditions that are desirable for plant growth, as recognized by Lovelace (page 6, ¶0049).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yen (US 3900378 A).
For Claim 6, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 1.
Kalwa is silent to wherein the total water holding capacity of the hydroponic growing medium is about 40 to 80 wt. %.
Yen, like prior art above, teaches a growth medium (title, disclosure) further comprising total water holding capacity of the hydroponic growing medium is about 40 to 80 wt. % (Exa. # 21 has 22-36% water capacity, Exa. #39 has 17-97% water capacity, as discussed in Cols. 9-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the total water holding capacity of the medium of Kalwa to be between 17-36% as taught by Yen, anticipating the claimed range of 40-80%, in order to sufficiently retain moisture in agricultural applications, noted by Yen Col. 6, lines 32-36.
Claims 7, 8, 13, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masson (EP 1457107 A1).
For Claim 7, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 1.
Kalwa is silent to wherein the man-made fiber portion includes at least one kind of bicomponent fiber.
Masson, like prior art above, teaches a plant growth medium (Abstract), comprising man-made fiber portion includes at least one kind of bicomponent fiber (adhesive means may comprise one or more synthetic fibers, the synthetic fiber(s) may comprise a biocomponent fiber, Col. 3, ¶0022-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to replace the adhesive of Kalwa with one containing a biocomponent fiber as taught by Masson, since it is a simple substitution which facilitates the formation of the formed shape of the growth medium, as recognized by Masson (Col. 3, ¶0022).
For Claim 8, Kalwa in view of Masson teaches the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 7, and Masson further teaches wherein the bicomponent fiber includes an outer shell having a first material and a core having a second material, the first material having a lower melting temperature than the second material (the synthetic fibers comprise biocomponent fibers having a polyethylene sheath and polyester core, the sheath having a melting point of 127 °C and the core having a much higher melting point. ¶0024).
For Claim 13, Kalwa discloses the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 1, and Kalwa further discloses wherein the three-dimensional self-supporting substrate forms a propagation material (Figs. 1A-1C).
Kalwa is silent to cube.
Masson, like prior art above, teaches a plant growth medium (Abstract) forming a propagation cube (cuboid growing block 10, Fig. 1, Col. 6, ¶0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the shape of Kalwa with a cube as taught by Masson, since this is an obvious shape option which can easily be manufactured and has dimensions which are conducive to support a growing plant, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 14, Kalwa in view of Masson teaches the hydroponic growing medium according to claim 13, and the resulting device further teaches wherein the propagation cube (from Masson) has a dry bulk density of about 3.6 lb/ft3 (57.6 kg/m3) to about 10 lb/ft3 (160.185 kg/m3) (Kalwa: 70-170 kg / m3, 5:4-5).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: the steps of the process do not appear to properly limit the scope of the apparatus claimed. The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 162 USPQ 221, 223. This assertion covers claims 16-20.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
Prosecution Insights