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 .
Drawings
The drawings, specifically figures 22 and 25, are objected to for excessive shading, see MPEP 1.84(m). New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because some of the drawings are shaded in black and grey, which reduces legibility. According to MPEP CFR 1.84(m), shading is only acceptable if it does not reduce legibility. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because reference character 105, pertaining to the root chamber, is circled and it is unclear what exactly this character is referencing and how the circle is applicable. The specification describes the root chamber as the bottom of the film structure and therefore the drawing is confusing and unclear. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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 envelope and x-shaped configuration of claims 8-9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Based on the limited description in the specification of the x-shaped configuration and how it is accomplished, it is unclear which of the drawings 22-25 is meant to depict this x-shaped configuration. See also 112(b) rejection below regarding the envelope. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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 multiple modular units of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The specification does not clearly describe how the film system can be folded into a modular unit. The drawings also do not depict either it being folded into a modular unit or multiple units interconnected together. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 is confusingly written, suggested amended wording is “said hydroponic garden comprising the flexible, thin film, a root chamber or a nutrient reservoir and a plant placed into a grow spot hole.”
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 1-6, 8-9 and 12 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 1 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “wherein the flexible, thin film has a re-configurable shape and has no rigid external or internal structure.” The drawings shown the film only after it has already been folded and welded with weld lines 108, see figs 22-23. It appears then, that while it could be folded further, it is not completely reconfigurable as stated in the claim. Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 2 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “wherein the flexible, thin film can be folded into a square configuration.” “Can be” is an indefinite term as it is not clear whether or not this limitation is required by the claim. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 6 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “wherein the flexible, thin film is configured to be folded into a modular unit, allowing multiple units to be interconnected to form a scalable hydroponic system for cultivating plants of varying sizes or types.” As discussed in the drawing objection above, it is unclear how the thin film can be folded into a modular unit, and how multiple units could be interconnected together. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 8 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “further comprising folding a middle of an envelope of the flexible, thin film by pulling open upper pieces of the flexible, thin film from a center of the flexible, thin film and drawing the upper pieces outward into an X-shaped configuration.” It is unclear what the “envelope” is in regards to the thin film hydroponic system. Is the envelope the film system once it has been first folded and weld lines 108 created? Further, as discussed in the drawing objection above, the creation of the X-shaped configuration is unclear and not well shown or described. Claim 9 is likewise rejected. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the symmetrical X-shaped configuration" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 introduces the X-shaped configuration, however claim 9 is dependent on claim 7. Additionally, there is no previous mention of the X-shaped configuration being symmetrical. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the elastic element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of the elastic element in any of the claims. Further, the description in the specification regarding the elastic element pertains to an aspect of the invention not claimed in this application. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adelberg (US-20160120133-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Adelberg discloses a thin-film hydroponic system that enables plant cultivation comprising:
a root chamber and/or a nutrient reservoir (liquid impermeable base 28, see para 0050-0051 and figs 1-6);
a flexible, thin film that is folded and structured to be folded so as to hold vegetation in a grow hole, without the use of soil (see figs 1-6, flexible material, para 0050, polyethylene para 0056);
wherein the flexible, thin film has a re-configurable shape and has no rigid external or internal structure (see change of shape figs 1-6, see also 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 2, Adelberg discloses wherein the flexible, thin film can be folded into a square configuration (fold lines, see figs 1 and 5, see also 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 7, Adelberg discloses a method of creating a hydroponic garden from the thin-film hydroponic system by folding a flexible, thin film into a stable shape for cultivating plants (see figs 1-6, flexible material and fold lines);
said hydroponic garden comprising a plant placed into a grow spot hole (plants in grow spot holes 310, see figs 5-6 and 10), the flexible, thin film (flexible material, para 0050, polyethylene para 0056), and a root chamber or a nutrient reservoir (base 28, liquid impermeable, see para 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 10, Adelberg discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising selecting a thermoplastic material for the flexible, thin film from the group consisting of: a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (high density polyethylene, see para 0056), a linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE); and a low-density polyethylene (LDPE).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelberg (US-20160120133-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mookherjee (US-5136805-A).
Regarding claim 3, Adelberg discloses the thin-film hydroponic system of claim 1.
Adelberg fails to disclose wherein the flexible, thin film is clear.
Mookherjee teaches wherein the flexible, thin film is clear (transparent flexible polyethylene, see summary of invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the film to be clear as taught by Mookherjee with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure light reaches the plants and growth can be monitored without opening the garden and disrupting the plants.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelberg (US-20160120133-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Sanders (US-4392327-A).
Regarding claim 3, Adelberg discloses the thin-film hydroponic system of claim 1.
Adelberg fails to disclose wherein the flexible, thin film includes a first side that is black.
Sanders teaches wherein the flexible, thin film includes a first side that is black (see col 3, lines 35-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the film to be black on the first side as taught by Sanders with a reasonable expectation of success as this will help with temperature control within the hydroponic garden.
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the thin-film hydroponic system of claim 4, and Sanders further teaches wherein the flexible, thin film includes a second side that is white (see col 3, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 11, Adelberg discloses the thin-film hydroponic system of claim 10.
Adelberg fails to disclose wherein said selection is based on being able to provide enough resistance to acidic hydroponic nutrients with a dangerous pH level based upon the plant that is being cultivated, or wherein said selection is based on having a high enough tolerance against UV radiation exposure based upon the plant being cultivated.
Sanders teaches wherein said selection is based on being able to provide enough resistance to acidic hydroponic nutrients with a dangerous pH level based upon the plant that is being cultivated, or wherein said selection is based on having a high enough tolerance against UV radiation exposure based upon the plant being cultivated (polyethylene for excluding light, see col 3, lines 35-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the method with the material selection being based on light tolerance properties as taught by Sanders with a reasonable expectation of success as polyethylene’s light exclusion properties will ensure plants are not over heated or over illuminated and help prevent algae growth within the hydroponic garden.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelberg (US-20160120133-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanimura (US-5155935-A).
Regarding claim 6, Adelberg discloses the thin-film hydroponic system of claim 1.
Adelberg fails to disclose wherein the flexible, thin film is configured to be folded into a modular unit, allowing multiple units to be interconnected to form a scalable hydroponic system for cultivating plants of varying sizes or types.
Tanimura teaches wherein the flexible, thin film is configured to be folded into a modular unit, allowing multiple units to be interconnected to form a scalable hydroponic system for cultivating plants of varying sizes or types (modular units connected, see figs 1-2, see also 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the modular units of Tanimura with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for increased crop growth and yield in a small planting area and for cultivation of more types or ages of plants with differing needs.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelberg (US-20160120133-A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Castaldini (US-20180317408-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Adelberg discloses the thin-film hydroponic system of claim 1.
Adelberg fails to disclose wherein the elastic element is configured to dynamically adjust its tension and aperture size in response to the growth of the vegetative root bodies, thereby accommodating varying root system sizes and growth stages without requiring replacement or manual adjustment of the elastic element.
Castaldini teaches wherein the elastic element is configured to dynamically adjust its tension and aperture size in response to the growth of the vegetative root bodies (elastic deformation of the teeth to accommodate plant and root growth, see para 0014-0015 and 0031), thereby accommodating varying root system sizes and growth stages without requiring replacement or manual adjustment of the elastic element (elastic deformation of the teeth to accommodate plant and root growth, see para 0014-0015 and 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the method with the elastic plant holder of Castaldini with a reasonable expectation of success as this allows for full plant life cycle cultivation in one holder without changes as the plant grows, providing a more environmentally friendly growing process, and allows for cultivation of a variety of species of plant, without needed multiple sizes of holder in stock.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art noted in the References Cited document is relevant as it pertains to similar systems for plant cultivation. Specifically, Castleberry discloses a foldable plant holder and Farchione discloses a polyethylene plant pot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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 at (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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642