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 .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 eventually be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 15-28 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Specifically, the claims appear to has issues with regards to terms that have been previously introduced; what article and/or possessive/identifying adjective have been utilized, please thoroughly review for grammatical issues.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first end" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 15 recites term “far” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “far” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the term far and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite. Claims 16-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 15 recites the limitations of "array of growing boxes" “array of horizontal trellising wires” or more simply “an array” repeatedly throughout the claim without articles or further identifying language. This creates a clarity issue; are these same feature or discrete of that similar feature recited earlier in the claim(s). Claims 16-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said array located behind said array" in lines 12-13. Which renders the claim indefinite because, it is not apparent how the same array is located behind itself or which array is being referred to. Claims 16-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said first section of said relisting wires" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 16-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein said first section" in line 16. Which renders the claim indefinite because, it is not clear which first section is being referred to. Claims 16-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "section" in line 20. Which renders the claim indefinite because, it is not clear which section is being referred to. Claims 16-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said array and said leading plants are configured to be consequentially removed, thereby enabling said array to be advanced forwards to previous position of said array, to advance an array to previous position of said array, to advance a array to previous position of a array, and to add a new array, thereby enabling succession of arrays," in lines 22-28. Which renders the claim indefinite because, it is not clear which array is being advanced or moved to a previous position; it could be any one of the arrays previously recited. the array of growing boxes, the array of trellising wires, the array located behind the array, etc., as such the claim has been rendered indefinite. Claims 16-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 18 recites the limitation of "said story" throughout the claim, the story limitation was previously recited within claim 15. This creates a clarity issue; is the same feature or discrete of that similar feature recited earlier in the claim(s).
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the first end" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 26-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 25 recites term “far” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “far” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the term far and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite. Claims 26-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "said first array of growing boxes" in section d. (iii). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 26-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the beginning of said first section" in section d. (iv). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 26-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Claim 26 recites the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 25 recites the limitations of "a multi-story horizontal trellising system, characterized by one or more vertically erected stories; each story comprises an array of growing boxes located at the first end of an array of horizontal trellising wires; said trellising wires having a first end, located adjacent to said array of growing boxes and an opposite end, located far from said growing boxes; along said trellising wires there are provided two sections, a first section begun at said first end of the said trellising wire; and a second section, terminated at said opposite end of the said trellising wire" among others which is structure that was previously recited within claim 15 from which 25 depends. Claims 26-28 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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.
Re claim 21, For the electromagnetic radiation… transmitted by means of one or more sources:
The claim limitation uses the term means for performing the claimed function of transmitting electromagnetic radiation
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “is transmitted” and “of”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of transmitting electromagnetic radiation
As such, the claim limitation “electromagnetic radiation… transmitted by means of one or more sources” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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 15-20 & 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda, U.S. Patent No. 9,357,716 A; herein Tak.
Re claim 15, as best understood, Tak discloses a multi-story horizontal trellising system (MSHTS) characterized by
one or more vertically erected stories (fig. 1-4 and col 3; 17-26, the two stories formed of the upper and lower trellis arms);
each story comprises one or more arrays of growing boxes (fig. 1-6 & col 3; 9-14, the rectangular sections for supporting the growing primocane planted in the ground that exists between the sets of cross members) located at a first end of an array of horizontal trellising wires (fig. 2-6, each primocane is shown to extend from left to right, following such logic a first end being the leftmost section of guide wires; 24, 26); said trellising wires having the first end, located adjacent to said one or more arrays of growing boxes (fig. 1-6 & col 3; 9-14, each primocane is shown to extend from left to right at a specific distance from the attachment to the leftmost trellis arm) and an opposite end, located a distance from said growing boxes (fig. 1-6 & col 3; 9-14, the rightmost portion of the guide wire attached to the separate trellis arm located a lateral distance from the initial leftmost primocane growth); along said trellising wires there are provided two sections, a first section begun at said first end of the said trellising wire; and a second section, terminated at said opposite end of the said trellising wire (fig. 1-6, the upper and lower pairs of guide wires; 24, 26 are attached at a respective first end at the leftmost side and a respective second terminating end on the rightmost side);
wherein each said story is configured to accommodate of one or more leading plants (13; the new primocanes, fig. 3-6) within an array of growing boxes (fig. 1-6 and col 3; 9-14, the guide wires support the individual primocane therethrough a respective story), and is further characterized by said trellising wires being configured to support leaves of said leading plants (fig. 1-6, the guide wires support the leaves grown on the primocane); further wherein each said story is further configured to accommodate roots (fig. 1-6 and col 3; 9-14, the guide wires support the individual primocane therethrough such that it is not detached from the planted root system) of one or more first chasing plants (10; the blackberry primocanes, fig. 1-6) within an array of growing boxes (fig. 1-6 and col 3; 9-14, the guide wires support the individual primocane therethrough a respective story), said chasing plant array located behind said leading plant array (fig. 3-6, the chasing or older plant being located to the rear of the leading or newer plant), and is further characterized by said trellising wires being configured to support leaves of said first chasing plants (fig. 1-6, the guide wires support the leaves grown on the primocane); wherein said array of growing boxes is configured for initially cultivating said leading plants (fig. 4 and col 4; 46-56, the first stages of the new primocane; 13 growth that is emerging through the upper array formed by the guide wires; 24) along a first section of relisting wires (28/30; the respective cross member the new primocane is weaved thereto, fig. 1 & 4 and col 4; 46-56); wherein said first section of relisting wires is configured for initially supporting leaves of said leading plants (fig. 1-6, the guide wires and cross members support the individual primocane and leaves thereof) and for consecutively supporting leaves of said first chasing plants (fig. 3-6, wherein the guide wires and cross members are supporting a plurality of primocane); further wherein said second section is configured for supporting leaves of said leading plants simultaneously with the first section of relisting wires and for consecutively supporting leaves of said first chasing plants (again see fig. 3-6, the second array section to the right of “the first section”), and for consequentially supporting leaves of said first chasing plants (again see fig. 3-6); further wherein, said array of growing boxes and said leading plants are configured to be consequentially moved ( fig. 2 & 5 and col 3; 37-61, via the pivoting of the flexible joint), thereby enabling said chasing plant array to be advanced forwards to a previous position of said leading plant array (fig. 2-5, via the pivoting motion allows the older primocane to act as a leading plant), to advance a chasing plant array to previous position of a leading plant array (col 4; 41-57, the array of the new primocanes are horizontally arranged within the positioning cycle and can be repeated indefinitely for each new primocane/fruiting plant), and to add a new array of growing boxes (again see fig. 1-6 and col 4; 41-57), thereby enabling succession of arrays while constantly utilizing both the first section of the trellising wires and the second section of the trellising wires without interrupting yield (fig. 1-6 and col 4; 41-57, the successive arrays allowing for continuous cycling throughout the fruit baring season).
Tak discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said array of growing boxes and said leading plants are configured to be explicitly removed however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the plant and trellis be removable to isolate diseased sections or old primocanes that are no longer harvesting, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various separable elements is generally an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Re claim 16, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 15, Tak further discloses trellising wires tensioning mechanism (col 4; 6-13, the cable winches).
Re claim 17, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 15, Tak further discloses that the growing box comprises apertures (fig. 1, between each cross member).
Re claim 18, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 16, Tak further discloses wherein a first array of trellising wires is located at a higher portion of a second story, that is in parallel to a length axis of a first story (fig. 1-3, each story being formed by the trellis arm levels and each have respective upper and lower guide wires; 24, 26).
Re claim 19, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 16, Tak further discloses said growing boxes being erected perpendicularly to a growing direction of said plants (fig. 1-6, the primocanes are growing perpendicular to the wire/cable sections they are received).
Re claim 20, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 19, Tak further discloses wherein there are less than 21 stories (fig. 1-3, there are 2 stories shown).
Re claim 22, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 15, Tak further discloses one or more vertically erected stories (fig. 1-3, there are 2 stories shown); each story comprises an array of growing boxes (fig. 1-6, between the separate wire arrangements) located at the first end of an array of horizontal trellising wires (fig. 1-6).
Re claim 23, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 15, Tak further discloses trellising wires tensioning mechanism (col 4; 6-13, the cable winches).
Re claim 24, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 15, Tak further discloses that the growing box comprises apertures (fig. 1, between each cross member).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Su et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0228103 A1; herein Su.
Re claim 21, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 15, Tak further discloses growing fruiting plants which typically necessitates a source of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. from the sun).
Tak fails to explicitly disclose wherein electromagnetic radiation is transmitted by means of one or more sources. However, Su discloses a trellising system wherein electromagnetic radiation (para 27, via the LED) is transmitted by means of one or more sources (110; the light source, fig. 1A & 2).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein electromagnetic radiation is transmitted by means of one or more sources however, Su discloses such a source. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of the light source as taught by Su to the system of the prior art to yield the predictable result of essential and consistent lighting of the growing plants. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Buss, U.S. Patent No. 11,304,385 A.
Re claim 25, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 15, Tak further discloses a method of operation comprising steps of
providing a multi-story horizontal trellising system (11; the trellis system, fig. 1-6), characterized by one or more vertically erected stories (fig. 1-3, there are two distinct stories shown formed by the trellis post members; 14, 18 and trellis arms; 16, 20); each story comprises an array of growing boxes (fig. 1-6 & col 3; 9-14, the rectangular sections for supporting the growing primocane planted in the ground that exists between the sets of cross members) located at a first end of an array of horizontal trellising wires (fig. 2-6, each primocane is shown to extend from left to right, following such logic a first end being the leftmost section of guide wires; 24, 26); said trellising wires having the first end, located adjacent to said array of growing boxes (fig. 1-6 & col 3; 9-14, each primocane is shown to extend from left to right at a specific distance from the attachment to the leftmost trellis arm) and an opposite end, located a distance from said growing boxes (fig. 1-6 & col 3; 9-14, the rightmost portion of the guide wire attached to the separate trellis arm located a lateral distance from the initial leftmost primocane growth); along said trellising wires there are provided two sections, a first section begun at said first end of the said trellising wire; and a second section, terminated at said opposite end of the said trellising wire (fig. 1-6, the upper and lower pairs of guide wires; 24, 26 are attached at a respective first end at the leftmost side and a respective second terminating end on the rightmost side);
for each of said stories, placing leading plants (13; the newer primocane, fig. 3-6) within the said array of growing boxes (fig. 3-6), and supporting leaves of the leading plants by said trellising wires (fig. 3-6);
cultivating said leading plants for a period of time (col 4; 33-48, while the new primocane grows to a certain height), along said the first section of said trellising wires (fig. 3-4, the new primocane; 13 is grown in the leftmost half of the guide wires);
after said period of time, and for each of said stories,
advancing leaves of said leading plant from said first section to said second section (fig. 4-6 and col 4; 46-56, via the repositioning process);
trimming and pruning a canopy of said leading plants along said first section (fig. 6 and col 4-5; 63-6, the tipping process is a trimming/pruning type process, see col 1; 53-56);
placing first chasing plants (10; the primocanes, fig. 1-6) within a second array of growing boxes (fig. 1-6, located in an array located laterally to the left of the newer primocanes), located behind a first array of growing boxes (fig. 1-6, via the positioning of the separate primocanes);
supporting leaves of said first chasing plants at a beginning of said first section (fig. 3-6), now free of a canopy of said leading plants (fig. 2, the upper members are freed of space by the horizontal positioning of the primocanes, see fig. 2-6); and
allowing said first chasing plants to yield for a given time in said first section (col 4; 33-56, during the initial primocane growth period and/or the positioning process); and
after said period of time (col 4; 46-58, the cycle is continuously repeated throughout the growing season),
removing both leaves of said leading plants (col 4-5; 63-22, during the tipping process for harvest) and moving their growing boxes (col 3-4; 37-5, via the pivot joint of the trellis for positioning);
advancing said growing boxes of said first chasing plants forwards (fig. 2-6, via the path of the pivot joint), as growing boxes of leading plants are now moved (again see fig. 2-6);
placing second chasing plants within the second array of growing boxes (fig. 1-6, located in an array located laterally to the left of the older primocanes), located behind the said first array of growing boxes (fig. 1-6, via the positioning of the separate primocanes), now accommodating said first chasing plants (col 4; 46-58, via the repeated cycle throughout the growing season);
allowing said first chasing plants to advance along said trellis wires (col 4; 6-13, via the trellis movement system), and to yield at said second section (col 4; 33-56, for the growth and/or positioning stages); and
a trellising canopy of said second chasing plants on said trellising wires at the beginning of said first section, now free of a canopy (fig. 2, the upper members are freed of space by the horizontal positioning of the primocanes, see fig. 2-6) and fruits of said first chasing plants (col 4-5; 63-22, from the harvesting).
Tak discloses the claimed invention except for placing specifically roots of plants and wherein said growing boxes and said leading plants are configured to be explicitly removed however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the plant and trellis be removable to isolate diseased sections or old primocanes that are no longer harvesting, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various separable elements is generally an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
The modification of Tak fails to disclose placing specifically roots of said plants. However, Buss discloses root enclosures (20; the root enclosures, fig. 7-10) for flowering plants (abstract).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose placing specifically roots of said plants however, Buss discloses an arrangement for receiving roots. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the root enclosures as taught by Buss to the blackberry plants/primocane of the prior art to yield the predictable result of preventing tangling of root systems. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 26, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 25, Tak further discloses trellising wires tensioning mechanism (col 4; 6-13, the cable winches).
Re claim 27, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 25, Tak further discloses trellising wires tensioning mechanism (col 4; 6-13, the cable winches).
Re claim 28, as best understood, the modification of Tak discloses the invention of claim 15, Tak further discloses providing said growing box comprises a member with apertures (fig. 1, between each cross member).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
International Publication No. WO 2022/106602 A1 which discloses a horizontal trellising system with lighting and root sorting arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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 J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642