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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the barrier at a first position that allows water to flow underneath the barrier as recited in claims 3 and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings only show the barrier in the second position and completely removed. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 reads “wherein the pooling depth is adjusted in response to adjustment of the at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism” which should read “wherein the pooling depth is configured to be adjusted in response to adjustment of the at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism.”
Claim 12 reads “wherein the flow directing fingers receive water from the water source and direct the water to pods received in each of the at least one aperture” which should read “wherein the flow directing fingers are configured to receive water from the water source and direct the water to pods received in each of the at least one aperture.”
Claim 13 recites “a planting area within the tray, wherein the planting area receives water from a pole to which the tray is attached” which should read “a planting area within the tray, wherein the planting area is configured to receive[[s]] water from a pole to which the tray is attached”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 3 recites “wherein the barrier, in a first position, allows water to flow from the planting area, under the barrier, and into the at least one channel, and wherein the barrier in the first position causes pooling in the planting area.” However, this first position is not shown in the drawings or described with sufficient detail in the specification. The drawings and specification only detail the barrier being in the second position, i.e. with the bottom of the barrier flush with the bottom of the planting area as seen in figure 35, and the barrier being fully removed, as seen in figure 34. The specification does not provide details as to how the barrier 422b would support itself in the slots 421b such that water can flow underneath without sliding down until it reaches the bottom. Claim 16 is likewise rejected. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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 3-4 and 16 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 3 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “wherein the barrier, in a first position, allows water to flow from the planting area, under the barrier, and into the at least one channel, and wherein the barrier in the first position causes pooling in the planting area.” As discussed above, this is not supported by the drawings or specification as they only detail the barrier being in the second position, i.e. with the bottom of the barrier flush with the bottom of the planting area as seen in figure 35, and the barrier being fully removed as seen in figure 34. There are no details as to how the barrier 422b would support itself in the slots 421b such that water can flow underneath without sliding down until it reaches the bottom. Claim 16 is likewise rejected. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 4 is rejected for lack of antecedent basis. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the barrier gate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously the barrier has only been referred to as “the barrier” and this is the first mention of the barrier “gate.” It is unclear if this is a typographical error, or a different element, in which case it must be introduced separately. 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) 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhan (US 10010034 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Zhan discloses a tray for a hydroponics system (see figs 4a-b) comprising:
a planting area within the tray (see annotated fig 4a below), wherein the planting area receives water from a pole to which the tray is attached (planting area receives water via inlet 141 attached to pole 310, see figs 2a and 8a);
a channel (see annotated fig 4a) for returning water from the planting area of the tray to a spout (spout 143, see fig 4a below and 8a) exiting the tray; and
a water flow control mechanism within the tray between the channel and the planting area (dam 150, see figs 4a-b and 5a-g); wherein the water flow control mechanism at least partially controls a pooling depth of the water within the planting area of the tray (see annotated 4a below and col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 4a
Regarding claim 15, Zhan discloses the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 13, wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a barrier (dam 150), wherein the barrier is positioned between the planting area and the channel (see annotated fig 4a above and col 13, lines 33-42).
Regarding claim 16, Zhan discloses the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 15, wherein the barrier is adjustable (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth), in a first position, allows water to flow from the planting area, under the barrier, and into the channel, and wherein the barrier in the first position causes pooling in the planting area (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth, see also 112(a) and (b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 17, Zhan discloses the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 16, wherein the barrier, in a second position, allows water to flow from the planting area, over the barrier, and into the channel (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth), wherein the barrier in the second position causes pooling in the planting area at least to a height of a top of the barrier relative to a bottom of the planting area (see annotated fig 4a and col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
Regarding claim 18, Zhan discloses the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 13, further comprising an entry channel, wherein water entering the tray is guided through the entry channel before entering the planting area of the tray (see annotated fig 4a above).
Regarding claim 19, Zhan discloses the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 13, wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a flow restriction between the planting area and the channel (dam 150, see annotated fig 4a 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.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) as applied to claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 14, Zhan discloses the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 13, wherein the water flow control mechanism is adjustable, the tray further comprising: wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a barrier (dam 150), wherein the barrier is slidably received (see figs 4a-b and 5a-g), wherein the pooling depth is adjusted in response to adjustment of the water flow control mechanism (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
Zhan fails to teach a pair of slots between the channel and the planting area.
Zhan discloses a pair of slots on the barrier which are slideabley received on the side of the channel.
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 slots to be on the channel instead of on the barrier itself with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a more secure connection and therefore enhanced water flow control, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) as applied to claim 19 above, and in further view of Stadie (US 20230263107 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Zhan discloses the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 19.
Zhan fails to disclose wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a water-permeable barrier, wherein the water-permeable barrier is formed of a porous material.
Stadie teaches wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a water-permeable barrier (water permeable barrier 202, see para 0266), wherein the water-permeable barrier is formed of a porous material (water permeable barrier 202 is inherently porous).
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 barrier to be water-permeable and porous as taught by Stadie with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for a controlled fluid flow rate to ensure adequate irrigation needs (see Stadie para 0266).
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Zhan discloses a tray for a hydroponics system (see fig 4a) comprising:
a planting area within the tray (see annotated fig 4a below);
at least one channel (see annotated fig 4a below) for returning water from the planting area of the tray to a spout (143) exiting the tray; and
at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism within the tray between the at least one channel and the planting area (removable dam 150, see figs 4a-b and 5a-g, see annotated fig 4a below), wherein the at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism controls, in combination with a flow rate of water from the water source, a pooling depth of the water within the planting area of the tray (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth), and wherein the pooling depth is adjusted in response to adjustment of the at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 4a
Zhan fails to disclose a ramp for guiding water from a water source into the planting area of the tray.
Higgins teaches a ramp for guiding water from a water source into the planting area of the tray (ramp 400, see figs 13a and 19-20).
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 inlet of the planting tray with the water directing ramp of Higgins with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the water is properly delivered to the correction portion of the tray to prevent waste and ensure plants receive adequate irrigation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 1, and Zhan further discloses wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a barrier (dam 150), wherein the barrier is adjustably positioned between the planting area and the at least one channel (see annotated fig 4a above and col 13, lines 33-42).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 2, and Zhan further discloses wherein the barrier, in a first position, allows water to flow from the planting area, under the barrier, and into the at least one channel, and wherein the barrier in the first position causes pooling in the planting area (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth, see also 112(a) and (b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 3, and Zhan further discloses wherein the barrier, in a second position, allows water to flow from the planting area, over the barrier gate, and into the at least one channel (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth), wherein the barrier in the second position causes pooling in the planting area at least to a height of a top of the barrier relative to a bottom of the planting area (see annotated fig 4a and col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 1, and Zhan further discloses wherein the at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism comprises at least one barrier (dam 150), wherein the at least one barrier is slidably received (see figs 4a-b and 5a-g, and see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
The modified reference fails to teach a pair of slots between the at least one channel and the planting area.
Zhan discloses a pair of slots on the barrier which are slideably received on the side of the channel.
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 slots to be on the channel instead of on the barrier itself with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a more secure connection and therefore enhanced water flow control, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising a plurality of protrusions positioned between the planting area and the at least one channel, wherein the plurality of protrusions permit water flow between them.
Higgins teaches further comprising a plurality of protrusions (202, see fig 18a) positioned between the planting area and the at least one channel, wherein the plurality of protrusions permit water flow between them (protrusions 202, see fig 18a).
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 planting area with the protrusions of Higgins with a reasonable expectation of success as this will further assist with water flow control, thereby ensuring plants receive a steady flow of water.
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 1, and Zhan further discloses further comprising an entry channel (see annotated fig 4a above), wherein water entering the tray is guided from the ramp to the entry channel before entering the planting area of the tray (see entry channel in annotated 4a above, as combined with the ramp of Higgins in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 7, and Zhan further discloses further comprising a wall separating the entry channel from the planting area of the tray (see annotated fig 4a above), wherein the wall is at least partially permeable by water to permit water flow from the entry channel into the planting area (entry wall is permeable with breaks to allow water flow, see annotated fig 4a above).
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 1, and Zhan further discloses further comprising a lid (120) covering the planting area, wherein the lid defines at least one aperture (121) for receiving therein a pod (122, see figs 1, 7a-b and 7f-8a).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lin (US-20140069009-A1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 7, and Zhan further discloses wherein the tray comprises a substantially rectangular shape (see annotated fig 4a above), wherein the entry channel is disposed along a first side of the tray (see annotated fig 4a above), water flows across the planting area to a second side of the tray, opposite the first side of the tray (see annotated fig 4a above), and water returns along the at least one channel for returning water from the planting area (see annotated fig 4a).
The modified reference fails to teach water returns along the at least one channel for returning water from the planting area along a third side of the tray, wherein the ramp is disposed between the first side of the tray and the third side of the tray.
Lin teaches wherein the entry channel is disposed along a first side of the tray, water flows across the planting area to a second side of the tray (see annotated fig 6 below), opposite the first side of the tray, and water returns along the at least one channel for returning water from the planting area along a third side of the tray (see annotated fig 6 below), wherein the ramp is disposed between the first side of the tray and the third side of the tray (the inlet 141 of Zhan as modified with the ramp of Higgins in the rejection of claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 6
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 planting area with the flow path of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the water is spread equally throughout the planting area before exiting, thereby ensuring all plants receive adequate hydration.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Adams (US 11337387 B2).
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 10, and Zhan further discloses further comprising a pod (122), supported in the at least one aperture (plugs 122, see fig 7b and see col 15, lines 8-26).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the pod is configured to wick water from the planting area into the pod.
Adams teaches wherein the pod is configured to wick water from the planting area into the pod (plugs 309 in absorbent net cuts 301 that can wick water up to the plants, see col 13, lines 43-56 and figs 10a and 11a).
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 plugs to wick water as taught by Adams with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plants receive adequate hydration regardless of their growth stage and root size.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2) and Adams (US 11337387 B2) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Franczuz (US-20190254240-A1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 11.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising flow directing fingers disposed between the lid and the planting area, wherein the flow directing fingers receive water from the water source and direct the water to pods received in each of the at least one aperture.
Franczuz teaches further comprising flow directing fingers disposed between the lid and the planting area (flow directing fingers 194 and 196, see figs 12-13), wherein the flow directing fingers receive water from the water source and direct the water to pods received in each of the at least one aperture (flow directing fingers 194 and 196, see figs 12-13, receive water and direct it to 216).
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 planting area with the flow directing fingers of Franczuz with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure plants receive adequate and easily accessible hydration throughout their life cycle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above, exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Zhan ‘884 discloses a similar flow path (see fig 5) and Gardner discloses flow directing fingers and pod apertures.
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 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642