Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the substrate container that includes an additional substrate with a crop must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to the specification at pg. 12 [0051] lines 1-2, it appears “around 30%” the incorrect symbol for degrees have been used and should be “around 30°”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 1, last line should read “substrate for the green roof system” so the claim language is consistent and other dependent claims depending from claim 1. 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 1-7 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.
In regards to claims 1 and 4, the scope of the claims is unclear because a waterproof layer, by definition, prevents water to pass through it and if holes are added, then the layers are no longer considered waterproof because water is able to flow through the layer. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite due to the fact that a waterproof layer has holes therein. The claim will be examined as a layer containing holes therein.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "with respect to the horizontal plane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim will be examined as “a horizontal plane” until further clarification is provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3, & 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVos (2010/0126066) in view of Ferrante et al. (2011/0146199).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood, DeVos discloses a modular green roof system comprising separate modules, wherein each module comprises:
A waterproof upper layer (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 38) comprising a plurality of through holes (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 26), an intermediate absorption layer (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 18) located at the bottom of the waterproof upper layer (as seen in fig. 3); and a lower waterproof layer (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 40) located at the bottom of the intermediate absorption layer (as seen in fig. 3);
and in that the dew water deposited on the waterproof upper layer 38 during use is filtered towards the intermediate absorption layer 18 through the holes of the upper layer, the water being retained in said second absorption layer 18, between the waterproof upper layer 38 and the waterproof lower layer 40; and wherein the intermediate absorption layer 18 is configured as a growing substrate for the green roof system (as seen in fig. 1 and 3).
DeVos does teach of low spots (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 36) which help promote rainwater to flow through the waterproof upper layer and channels (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 34) that allow the flow of water underneath the green module; however, these spots are created from pins rather than having a valley shape (pg. 4, col 1, [0046] lines 5-7). The examiner wants to note that functions of various layers may be merged into a single layer (pg. 2 col 2 [0028] lines 19-20).
DeVos does not disclose wherein each module has a shape comprising valleys and hips to evacuate excess water by inclination along the valleys. Ferrante teaches that a roof module as designed (as seen in fig. 1 & 2, pg. 1 [0017] lines 3-4) has lower channels of a valley to help evacuate excess water by inclination along the roof (as seen in fig. 5). The examiner also wants to note that these features of valleys and hips are well known in the art to navigate excess water down a roof. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the design choice of Ferrante into DeVos’s design to control the excess water through the channels of the tile on the waterproof upper layer and during use is filtered through the intermediate and retained.
In regards to claim 2, as best understood, DeVos in view of Ferrante discloses wherein the waterproof upper layer 38 is inclined with respect to a horizontal plane (as seen in Devos’s fig. 3). Ferrante also teaches that it is known to place the modules on a sloped surface, which is on an incline to a horizontal, in order to shed water off of a roof (as seen in Ferrante’s Fig. 5 & 6).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the waterproof upper layer 38 be on an incline with respect to a horizontal plane in order to act as a stormwater management of excess water.
In regards to claim 3, as best understood, DeVos in view of Ferrante discloses wherein the intermediate absorption layer 18 is essentially formed by expanded shale media mix or growing medium (as seen in DeVo’s fig. 3, pg. 3 col. 2 [0036] lines 7-9).
A person of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that shale is a growth substrate as supported by the definition of shale in this context as stated by Google.
In regards to claim 5, as best understood, DeVos in view of Ferrante discloses a substrate container that includes an additional substrate (as seen in DeVo’s fig. 4, reference element 32), however, DeVos in view of Ferrante does not specifically disclose that the plant is a crop but a species of Sedum (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 28).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the type of seed grown such that crops are grown like tomatoes, cucumbers, or other vegetables to reduce reliance on grocery stores, grow pesticide-free vegetables, or personal health benefits.
In regards to claim 6, as best understood, DeVos in view of Ferrante discloses the claimed invention where the outer layer (as seen in DeVos’s fig. 3, reference element 12) is made of fiberglass or thermoplastic material (TPO), (pg. 3 col 1 [0032] lines 6-11).
In regards to claim 7, as best understood, DeVos in view of Ferrante discloses the claimed invention, however, DeVos does not specifically teach the claimed material for the waterproof lower layer. Ferrante further teaches wherein the waterproof lower layer is composed of rubber (pg. 1 col 2, [0017] line 20).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the choice of design to a sheet of rubber due to its waterproof properties, accessibility, and durability.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVos (2010/0126066) in view of Ferrante et al (2011/0146199) and in further view of Sichello (20100095586).
In regards to claim 4, as best understood, DeVos in view of Ferrante discloses the claimed invention by comprising an upper 38, intermediate 18, and lower layer 40. However, DeVos in view of Ferrante does not disclose that the openings 26 have a through hole that passes through the waterproof upper layer 38 through the absorption intermediate 18 and waterproof lower layer 40, wherein said openings are configured as a drainage element. As previously explained in claim 1, DeVos does disclose a drainage element but it is created from a pin instead of a through hole.
Sichello teaches that the face plate which includes a cover and cover openings (as seen in fig. 8 & 9, reference element 59) and containers (as seen in fig. 5, reference element 42) that have openings (as seen in fig. 5, reference element 43) on the bottom that passes through the growing substrate (as seen in fig. 2) and the back plate has back plate openings (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 24) on the horizontal surface. (as seen in fig. 3, pg. 2 col. 1 [0037] lines 3-5). A through hole only continued from the upper to the intermediate layers (as seen in fig. 9).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the design choice of design of the bottom layer to have a continuation of a through hole starting from the upper layer and ending to the lower layer configured as a drainage element due to a person of ordinary skill would measure the top layer to see how much drainage is occurring (pg. 2 col 2 [0045] lines 3-4), the intermediate absorption layer (pg. 2 col 2 [0041] lines 7-9) and the lower layer (pg. 2 col 1 [0037] lines 4-5) and modify to have a through hole starting from waterproof upper layer, intermediate absorption layer, and waterproof lower layer based on drainage requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARRETT C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7.30am-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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/GARRETT CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights