DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/18/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/11/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claims 13-14, the limitation “as a % of total pore space” in line 2 should read – as a percentage of total pore space--.
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 1-18 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 1, and 7 recites the limitation "the glass fibers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 9-11 and 17 recites the limitation "the glass fibers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 10 recites the limitation "the natural material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the natural material" in line 1 and “the range” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, the limitation “otherwise” in line 3 is unclear because the previously stated soilless growing media is being compared to a different soilless growing media that isn’t being claimed and required.
Claims 13-16 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-6, and 18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 13-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by SPITTLE (US 20200352118 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, SPITTLE teaches a soilless growing media (39 and [0023]) comprising a plurality of glass fibers (24 and [0053]), wherein a surface of at least some of the glass fibers has a hydrophobic coating ([0053-0054] as the surface of at least some of the glass fibers make up the man-made fiber, which may be hydrophobic, and so the glass fibers will have a hydrophobic coating) thereon to decrease the water retention of the growing media ([0054] as the hydrophobic coating will decrease the water retention of the growing media).
Regarding claim 3, SPITTLE discloses the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the glass fibers include a plurality of first glass fibers ([0053] and fig. 2 depicts a plurality of first fibers) and a plurality of second glass fibers ([0053] and fig. 2 depicts a plurality of second fibers); and wherein the first glass fibers have a first concentration of the hydrophobic coating thereon ([0053] as the hydrophobic coating is applied to the first glass fibers, and so the first glass fibers have a first concentration of the hydrophobic coating thereon); and wherein the second glass fibers have a second concentration of the hydrophobic coating thereon ([0053] as the hydrophobic coating is applied to the second glass fibers, and so the second glass fibers have a second concentration of the hydrophobic coating thereon).
Regarding claim 4, SPITTLE discloses the soilless growing media of claim 3, further comprising a plurality of third glass fibers ([0053] and fig. 2 depicts a plurality of third fibers); wherein the third glass fibers have a third concentration of the hydrophobic coating thereon ([0053] as the hydrophobic coating is applied to the third glass fibers, and so the third glass fibers have a third concentration of the hydrophobic coating thereon).
Regarding claim 6, SPITTLE discloses the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein a water holding capacity in a first region (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) of the soilless growing media is different from a water holding capacity in a second region (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 3) of the soilless growing media ([0026] and [0087] as the soilless growing media comprises of peat which is known to hold water, and the thickness of the first region is smaller than the thickness of the second region as the first region comprises of the aperture 46, and so the water holding capacity in the first region of the soilless growing media is different from the water holding capacity in a second region of the soilless growing media).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, SPITTLE discloses the soilless growing media of claim 1, further comprising a quantity of a natural material mixed with the glass fibers ([0023] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, SPITTLE discloses the soilless growing media of claim 7, wherein the natural material is at least one of peat and coconut coir ([0026]).
Regarding claim 13, SPITTLE discloses the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media has a water holding capacity in the range of 0% and 90%, as a % of total pore space by volume ([0026] as the soilless growing media comprises of peat, and so the soilless growing media has a water holding capacity in the range of 0% and 90%).
Regarding claim 14, SPITTLE discloses the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media has an air filled porosity in the range of 10% and 100%, as a % of total pore space by volume ([0091]).
Regarding claim 17, SPITTLE discloses the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the glass fibers are held together by a binder ([0061]).
Regarding claim 18, SPITTLE discloses the soilless growing media of claim 17, wherein the growing media is one of a cube and a cuboid ([0063]).
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(s) 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SPITTLE as applied to claims 1, 3 above, and further in view of Backfolk (US 20200008372 A1).
Regarding claim 2, SPITTLE teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the glass fibers include a plurality of first fibers ([0053] and fig. 2 depicts a plurality of first fibers) and a plurality of second fibers ([0053] and fig. 2 depicts a plurality of second fibers); wherein the first fibers have the hydrophobic coating ([0053-0054]).
However, SPITTLE does not explicitly state wherein the second fibers do not have the hydrophobic coating.
Backfolk teaches wherein the second fibers ([0012] as the glass wool comprises of a plurality of glass fibers, and so will include the second fibers) do not have the hydrophobic coating (abstract, [0010], [0016] and [0017] as an amphiphilic polymer is sprayed onto the substrate comprising the glass fibers, and an amphiphilic polymer is both a hydrophobic and hydrophilic polymer and so the second fibers do not have the hydrophobic coating).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second fibers of SPITTLE to not have the hydrophobic coating as taught by Backfolk in order to still allow the soilless growing media to absorb water ([0018] of Backfolk).
Regarding claim 5, SPITTLE teaches the soilless growing media of claim 3, further comprising a plurality of third glass fibers ([0053] and fig. 2 depicts a plurality of third fibers).
However, SPITTLE does not explicitly state wherein the third glass fibers do not have the hydrophobic coating.
Backfolk teaches wherein the third glass fibers ([0012] as the glass wool comprises of a plurality of glass fibers, and so will include a plurality of third glass fibers) do not have the hydrophobic coating (abstract, [0010], [0016] and [0017] as an amphiphilic polymer is sprayed onto the substrate comprising the glass fibers, and an amphiphilic polymer is both a hydrophobic and hydrophilic polymer and so the third glass fibers do not have the hydrophobic coating).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third fibers of SPITTLE to not have the hydrophobic coating as taught by Backfolk in order to still allow the soilless growing media to absorb water ([0018] of Backfolk).
Claim(s) 9-12, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SPITTLE as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, SPITTLE teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein a ratio of the natural material to the glass fibers is in the range of 1:8 to 8:1 by volume (abstract and [0027] as the natural material can have a percentage of 16% volume and the glass fibers from the man-made fiber portion can have 2% volume, which will give a ratio of 8:1 by volume).
However, in the event that applicant disagrees with examiner’s interpretation wherein SPITTLE teaches the ratio of the natural material to the glass fibers is in the range of 1:8 to 8:1 by volume, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of the natural material to the glass fibers of SPITTLE to be in the range of 1:8 to 8:1 by volume based on the user’s preference of water absorption and durability in the growing media as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, SPITTLE teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein a ratio of the natural material to the glass fibers is about 1:1 by volume (abstract and [0027] as the natural material can have a percentage of 5% volume and the glass fibers from the man-made fiber portion can have 5% volume, which will give a ratio of 1:1 by volume).
However, in the event that applicant disagrees with examiner’s interpretation wherein SPITTLE teaches the ratio of the natural material to the glass fibers is in the range of 1:1 by volume, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of the natural material to the glass fibers of SPITTLE to be in the range of 1:1 by volume based on the user’s preference of water absorption and durability in the growing media as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, SPITTLE teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, but is silent wherein an average diameter of the glass fibers is in the range of 1 µm to 5 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass fibers SPITTLE to have an average diameter in the range of 1 µm to 5 µm based on the user’s preference of resistance to compression of the media as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, SPITTLE teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media has a reduction in water retention as compared to an otherwise identical soilless growing media without the hydrophobic coating ([0054] as the hydrophobic coating will decrease the water retention of the growing media compared to an otherwise identical soilless growing media without the hydrophobic coating).
However, SPITTLE does not explicitly teach wherein the soilless growing media has said reduction in water retention in the range of about 10% to about 100%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the soilless growing media having said reduction in water retention of SPITTLE to be within the range of about 10% to about 100% based on the type of plant the user desires to grow to prevent overwatering and reduce root rot, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, SPITTLE teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media has a pH in the range of about 5 to about 7 ([0026], [0053] and [0118] as examples 6-11 comprises of the man-made fiber, which comprises of the glass fibers, and the natural material that make up the soilless growing media, and the soilless growing media will comprise of a fertilizer having a pH of 6.3, and so the soilless growing media has a pH in the range of about 5 to about 7).
In the event that the applicant disagrees with examiner’s interpretation of SPITTLE teaching wherein the soilless growing media has a pH in the range of about 5 to about 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pH of soilless growing media of SPITTLE to be in the range of about 5 to about 7 in order to optimize the nutrients available to the plant roots and prevent root burn as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, SPITTLE teaches the soilless growing media of claim 1, wherein the soilless growing media has an electrical conductivity in the range of about 1.0 mS/cm to about 3.0 mS/cm ([0026], [0053] and [0118] as examples 6-11 comprises of the man-made fiber, which comprises of the glass fibers, and the natural material that make up the soilless growing media, and the soilless growing media will comprise of a fertilizer having an electrical conductivity about 1200 μS/cm which converts to 1.2 mS/cm, and so the soilless growing media has an electrical conductivity in the range of about 1.0 mS/cm to about 3.0 mS/cm).
In the event that the applicant disagrees with examiner’s interpretation of SPITTLE teaching wherein the soilless growing media has an electrical conductivity in the range of about 1.0 mS/cm to about 3.0 mS/cm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical conductivity of SPITTLE to be in the range of 1.0 mS/cm to about 3.0 mS/cm in order to prevent root burn and nutrient toxicity as it is well known in the art, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berryesa (US 20230345888 A1) teaches a hydrophobic coating.
Rosen (US 20230217852 A1) teaches a soilless growing media and a hydrophobic coating.
Janssen (US 20110146151 A1) teaches a hydrophobic layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights