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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, & 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claims 1, 5, & 8, “the top and bottom flanges” should be replaced with --the top and the bottom flanges--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one reciprocating mechanical key” in claim 7. This phrase is interpreted in light of the instant disclosure: “The mechanical keys 5 are disclosed as having an undulated pattern.” Shown in Fig. 1b.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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 recites the limitation "the fluid emitting irrigation pipe". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 requires “board” - it is unclear whether this is referencing the board established in claim 1, or adding a new one. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 7 requires flanges, but appears to be double including flanges already defined in claim 1. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 13 recites “a plurality of elongated wall panels” after having recited “modular wall system according to claim 1” - it is unclear whether the modular system is being positively claimed in lines 1-2, since this is fresh claim language directed to components that would have been imparted by the claim. Additionally, “formed by the use of” (line 1) is unclear. Is the system required or not? This rejection is similarly applied to claim 15.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-12, & 14 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 1 or claim 13, rejected above.
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 1-8, 10, 11, & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen (US 20120222352 A1) in view of Baker (US 20110258925 A1).
For Claim 1, Janssen discloses a modular wall system (growth device 1) comprising a plurality of elongated wall panels (defined below) disposed on one another (as seen in Fig. 14, a wall 27 with growth devices, as discussed starting in ¶0054), a plant bedding material tile (the plant growth medium within core part 3, ¶0033), a board (casing 2), and an irrigation pipe (14), wherein:
the elongated wall panels comprise a vertical wall, a top flange (top profile 31 + sealing profile 55) and a bottom flange (bottom profile 32, ¶0054);
the fluid emitting irrigation pipe is disposed on and/or couples to at least one of the top and bottom flanges of an elongated wall panel (the irrigation pipe 14 is coupled to the top and the bottom flange as discussed in ¶0057: “The water supply line 14 is pressed against the profile 29 with the aid of clips 43. The clips 43 can for instance be clamped on one side between the leg 45 and the wall 33 and on the other side between the second and third profile part 37, 38. As a result, the line 14 is well confined and still easily detachable, for instance for maintenance.”);
the board comprises at least one opening configured to receive a seed/plant cup (openings 10, as can be seen in Figs. 2-4, 8, 10, & 11), and wherein the board is coupled to at least one of
PNG
media_image1.png
814
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the flanges of the elongated wall panel, thereby forming a wall panel interior (panel 54 is formed by the assembly of the components, resulting in the assembled panel);
the plant bedding material tile is configured to be coupled to an interior vertical wall portion of the elongated wall panel and/or to an interior wall portion of the board (while the coupling is merely functionally required, the core part 3 could be comprised of adhesive, as discussed in claim 9, this could be used to affix the core to the inside of the casing/housing; and/or the casing/housing, fully assembled is coupled to each component therein, by the unitary nature of assembly); and
wherein once irrigated by a fluid supply provided by the fluid emitting irrigation pipe, a seed/plant disposed inside the plant bedding material tile is configured to grow roots into the plant bedding material tile and grow a canopy extending from an exterior of the board (as illustrated in Figs. 3, 8, and/or 10).
Janssen is silent to a seed/plant cup, the seed/plant cup is configured to be inserted from the outside through the at least one opening in the board to thereby be partially disposed inside a cup bedding material opening of the plant bedding material tile.
Baker, like prior art above, teaches a modular planter (title, disclosure) further comprising a seed/plant cup (plastic plant pot 62), the seed/plant cup is configured to be inserted from the outside through at least one opening (opening 22) in board (plate 18) to thereby be partially disposed inside a cup bedding material opening of the interior of the planter (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the plants disposed within the device of Janssen with an intermediate plant pot as taught by Baker, in order to make it easier to seed the plant, and then transport and install it securely in the device, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 2, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall system according to claim 1, wherein the board is an acoustic board1 (the following casing materials discussed in ¶0033 appear to be acoustic: foamglas, polyurethane (PUR), polyisocyanurate (PIR) plastic), or wherein the board is a non-acoustic board (the following casing material discussed in ¶0033 appears to be non-acoustic: polystyrene; see further discussion in, e.g. ¶0046).
For Claim 3, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall system of claim 1, and Janssen further discloses wherein the board has at least one sound attenuation through opening (any opposing pair of openings 10 and/or the through hole discussed in ¶0010 would function to attenuate sound, by at least passing the sound through medium core 3).
For Claim 4, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall system of claim 1, and Janssen further discloses wherein the board comprises a bore configured to couple the board to the elongated wall panel by means of a mechanical fastener (as discussed in ¶0042, the faceplate 18 is removable via mechanical fasteners, including screws, which would require a borehole).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the faceplate of Janssen in view of Baker with the bore and cooperating mechanical fastener as taught by Baker, in order to provide a device which is easy to maintain and repair, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 5, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall system of claim 1, and Baker further teaches wherein board is removably fixated between the top and bottom flanges of the elongated wall panel (as discussed in ¶0042, the faceplate 18 is removable via mechanical fasteners).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the faceplate of Janssen in view of Baker with the removability as taught by Baker, in order to provide a device which is easy to maintain and repair, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 6, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall system of claim 1, and Janssen further teaches wherein the modular wall system comprises at least two single-sided or2 double-sided elongated wall panels (as seen in Fig. 14: two double-sided panels, where one of the sides is accessible).
For Claim 7, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall system of claim 1, and Janssen further discloses wherein a flange of a first elongated wall panel is configured to be coupled to a flange of a second elongated wall panel by at least one reciprocating mechanical key (the profiles of 16:55, Fig. 14, and ¶0060 reciprocate in a manner functionally equivalent to the structure shown in the 112f interpretation above).
For Claim 8, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall system of claim 1, and Janssen further discloses wherein the top and bottom flange of the elongated wall panel comprise one or more weep holes (“at least one water supply opening 13,” is formed in the top end and “at least one water discharge opening 15” is formed in the bottom/opposing end 5, as illustrated in Fig. 2 and the accompanying description found in ¶0036).
For Claim 10, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall system of claim 1, and Janssen further teaches wherein the plant bedding material tile is configured to be coupled to the board (there is a flat space on the front face of the medium that is configured to be coupled to the rear face of the board) and/or3 to a plant bedding material casing.
For Claim 11, Janssen as view of Baker teaches the modular wall system according to claim 1, and Janssen further discloses wherein the elongated wall panels, partially or fully, are made of a bio-degradable material (“clay,” ¶0006).
For Claim 13, Janssen in view of Baker teaches a modular wall formed by the use of modular wall system according to claim 1, and Janssen further discloses wherein a plurality of elongated wall panels are arranged in a stacked relationship, one on top of the other (as seen in Fig. 3 or 14), between at least two vertically extending posts (the outside edges of panels 1/54).
For Claim 14, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall according to claim 13, and the resulting combination further teaches wherein the modular wall is formed by at least two single-sided or double-sided elongated wall panels (as seen in Fig. 14, Janssen: two double-sided panels, where one of the sides is accessible) and wherein at least one of the sides of the modular wall comprises a plurality of seed/plant cups (62, Baker, as modified above).
For Claim 15, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the elongated wall panel to form part of a modular wall system according to claim 1, and Janssen further discloses wherein the elongated wall panel is partially or fully, made of a bio-degradable material (“clay,” ¶0006).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen in view of Baker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frehaut (FR 2968890 A1).
For Claim 9, Janssen in view of Baker teaches the modular wall system of claim 1.
Janssen in view of Baker is silent to wherein the plant bedding material tile comprises at least one funnel, the at least one funnel being configured to be substantially vertically aligned with a respective cup bedding material opening in the plant bedding material tile.
Frehaut, like prior art above, teaches a vertical garden device (title, disclosure) comprising at least one funnel (6a), the at least one funnel being configured to be substantially vertically aligned with an interior of the plant bedding material tile (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the top of each panel in Janssen in view of Baker with the shape shown by Frehaut in order to modify the flow of water through the device so to allow the plant more time to soak it up, yielding predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen in view of Baker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Svensson et al. (US 20190357449 A1, “Svensson”).
For Claim 12, Janssen in view of Baker discloses the modular wall system according to claim 1.
Janssen in view of Baker is silent to wherein the board, partially or fully, is made of a bio-degradable material.
Svensson, like prior art above, teaches a plant growing device (title, disclosure) further comprising a biodegradable material ¶¶0021-22.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the board of Janssen in view of Baker with a biodegradable material as taught by Svensson, in order to lessen the environmental impact of the device and avoid the use of forever chemicals, etc., yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 20110225883 A1, US 20180077877 A1, US 20220039327 A9, CN 116138070 A, DE 102023003886 A1, US 4255896 A, US 20050265792 A1, US 20080000153 A1, EP 2210475 A2, GB 2486886 A, KR 20130027354 A, WO 2013144449 A1, US 20150013223 A1, EP 2904895 A1, FR 3120242 A1, and EP 4635291 A1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention.
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 For more acoustic boards, see, for non-limiting example: EP 2210475 A2, WO 2013144449 A1, and FR 3000872 A1.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
3 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.