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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, it appears line indentation starting with “extending along” should be kept with the phase above it.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (DE 4033117).
Regarding claim 1, Mohr discloses a method of plant agriculture comprising: forming an elongated depression by removing a portion of a topsoil (21) from a farm field (Fig. 2, paragraph [0028], “trench” dug is an elongated depression would include topsoil), said depression being sized to provide a sufficient amount of the topsoil to construct a shaped crop bed for growing an agriculture crop to harvest (Fig. 2 shows plant, paragraph [0028] discloses a shaped crop bed), the depression including sidewalls (Fig. 2), laying a piece of sheet material (15) along the length of said depression with a remainder of said sheet material (15) positioned on one side of said depression and a distal edge (16) of said sheet material (15) extending along an opposite side of said depression (Fig. 2, paragraph [0028] of the human assisted machine translation discloses edges initially protrude outwards over the edges of the trench), thereby covering said depression (Fig. 2), moving said removed topsoil (21) onto said sheet material (15) with said distal edge (16) of said sheet material (15) still protruding from said depression (Fig. 2, paragraph [0028] of the human assisted machine translation discloses the placement), while said remainder of said sheet material (15) extends adjacent said depression, positioning a drip tube (19) along the length of said removed topsoil (21), forming said removed topsoil (15) into a desired shape constructing the crop bed (Fig. 2), positioning said remainder of said sheet material (15) including a second distal edge (17) across a top surface of said removed and shaped topsoil (21) having the distal edges (16, 17) of said sheet material (15) positioned in an overlapping position with respect to each other (Fig .2), said distal edges (16,17) secured together to hold said sheet material (15) together in a closed position (Fig. 2).
Mohr does not explicitly disclose moving said removed topsoil to a side position adjacent said depression, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mohr to provide this step since this would reduce the distance the removed topsoil would have to be moved for the full method to be completed, i.e. it would have been obvious to place the removed topsoil adjacent where the removed topsoil would eventually be placed to reduce labor.
Regarding claim 2, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches wherein said distal edges (edges (16) and (17)) are secured together by placing a portion of said topsoil on a top surface of said overlapping distal edges (Fig. 2, paragraph [0028] of the human assisted machine translation teaches edges 16, 17 are folded over the earth filling so that they overlap and then covered with the removed topsoil).
Regarding claim 9, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches the method including planting plants within said removed and shaped topsoil through said sheet material (Fig. 2, paragraph [0028] of human assisted machine translation notes plants (25) to be inserted to be grown) positioned across said top surface of said removed and shaped topsoil so that the roots of said plants are positioned within said removed topsoil and a remainder of said plants extends out through said sheet material (Fig. 2).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (DE 4033117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murray (US 5839659).
Regarding claim 3, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1. However, Mohr does not explicitly teach wherein said distal edges are secured together by gluing said overlapping distal edges together.
Murray, like Mohr, teaches a method of plant agriculture, and further teaches wherein said distal edges are secured together by gluing said overlapping distal edges together (col. 3, lines 22-27 teach gluing as an option).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mohr to include a gluing step as taught by Murray, with a reasonable expectation of success, as a known technique to secure together two pieces of material to form a tubular member as is applicable to the method of Mohr, and obvious that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results by sealing the two edges together (Murray: col. 6, lines 46-48).
Regarding claim 6, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1. However, Mohr does not explicitly teach wherein said distal edges are secured together by stitching said overlapping distal edges together.
Murray, like Mohr, teaches a method of plant agriculture, and further teaches wherein said distal edges are secured together by stitching said overlapping distal edges together (col. 3, lines 22-27 teach sewing as an option which would provide the stitching).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mohr to include a stitching step as taught by Murray, with a reasonable expectation of success, as a known technique to secure together two pieces of material to form a tubular member as is applicable to the method of Mohr, and obvious that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results by sealing the two edges together (Murray: col. 6, lines 46-48).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (DE 4033117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson (US 2008/0282609).
Regarding claim 4, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1. Mohr does not explicitly teach wherein said distal edges are secured together by heat welding said overlapping distal edges together.
Nelson, like Mohr, teaches a method of plant agriculture, and further teaches said distal edges are secured together by heat welding said overlapping distal edges together (paragraphs [0033] and [0038]).
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 securing of the sheet material in the method of Mohr by heat welding as taught by Nelson, with a reasonable expectation of success, as a known technique to secure together two pieces of material to form a tubular member as is applicable to the method of Mohr, and obvious that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results by sealing the two edges together (Nelson: paragraph [0033] and [0038)]).
Regarding claim 5, Mohr as modified by Nelson teaches the method of claim 4, and teaches (references to Nelson) wherein said heat welds are intermittent, having spaces of unwelded areas between said welds (Fig. 8; paragraph [0033]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (DE 4033117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldring (US 3362106).
Regarding claim 7, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1. Mohr does not explicitly teach including planting seeds within said removed and shaped topsoil through said sheet material positioned across said top surface of said removed and shaped topsoil.
Goldring, like Mohr, teaches a method for plant agriculture, and further teaches planting seeds within said removed and shaped topsoil through said sheet material positioned across said top surface of said removed and shaped topsoil (Figs. 1-6, col. 1, lines 9-15, method includes planting seeds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mohr to use seeds to start the growing process within the sheet material within the topsoil as taught by Goldring, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce work raising the seeds to plants outside of the system allowing for a more self-contained method.
Regarding claim 8, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1. Mohr does not explicitly teach including planting seedlings within said removed and shaped topsoil through said sheet material positioned across said top surface of said removed and shaped topsoil.
Goldring, like Mohr, teaches a method for plant agriculture, and further teaches planting seedlings within said removed and shaped topsoil through said sheet material positioned across said top surface of said removed and shaped topsoil (Figs. 1-6, col. 1, lines 9-15, method includes planting seedlings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mohr to use seedings to start the growing process within the sheet material within the topsoil as taught by Goldring, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce work raising the seedlings to plants outside of the system allowing for a more self-contained method.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (DE 4033117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Julia (US 2008/0110086).
Regarding claim 10, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1. Mohr does not explicitly teach wherein said removed topsoil is formed into a trapezoid shape on top of said sheet material.
Julia, like Mohr, teaches a method of plant agriculture, and further teaches a topsoil formed into a trapezoid shape on top of said sheet material (see Fig. 8, where a trapezoid shaped crop bed is presented for the substrate (16) as shown at the edge of the enclosure C on top of said sheet material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mohr to provide a trapezoid shape as taught by Julia, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a widened base to help provide space for the growing plant.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (DE 4033117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rast Jr. (US 4357884, hereinafter “Rast”).
Regarding claim 11, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1. Mohr does not explicitly teach wherein said removed topsoil is formed into a rectangular shape on top of said sheet material.
Rast, like Mohr, teaches a method of plant agriculture, and further teaches a topsoil formed into a rectangle shape on top of said sheet material (see Figs. 3-5, where a rectangle shape is shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mohr to provide a rectangle shape as taught by Rast, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a widened base to help provide space for the growing plant.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (DE 4033117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Neal (CA 2291033).
Regarding claim 12, Mohr teaches the method of claim 1. Mohr does not explicitly teach wherein said sheet material includes a coating on at least one surface thereof.
O’Neal, like Mohr, teaches a method of plant agriculture, and further teaches a sheet material includes a coating on at least one surface thereof (p. 11, lines 24-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mohr to have a coating on the sheet material as taught by O’Neal, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide horticultural agents to the soil and to prevent incidence of weeds (O’Neal: p. 1, lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 13, Mohr as modified by O’Neal teaches the method of claim 12, and teaches (references to O’Neal) wherein said coating is a fertilizer (p. 11, lines 24-32).
Regarding claim 14, Mohr as modified by O’Neal teaches the method of claim 12, and teaches (references to O’Neal) wherein said coating is an herbicide or a pesticide (p. 11, lines 24-32, herbicide and insecticide is a type of pesticide).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1-2, 9, and 12-14, Applicant has argued that Mohr requires the device 5 meters to 15 meters deep, an aluminum lamination is added, forced ventilation, bed had a flat V profile with large gravel filling the bottom, cuff-like pieces, corrugated films that have cup shaped depressions, and these limitations are not found in the present claims. Therefore, applicant argued that the claims are allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Please note that each limitation that applicant says is required by Mohr are optional components, and further, the majority of these limitations are for the first embodiment shown in Fig. 1 which is not part of the rejection above. Mohr states that the device can be placed in a shallow trench, which is shown in Fig. 2 (paragraph [0011]). Mohr states the device can be 5m to 15m deep, but also states that embodiments can be on the ground, which would require the aluminum lamination (paragraph [0018]). Mohr states forced ventilation can be used, and does not say it has to be used (paragraph [0010]). Mohr states the gravel filling the bottom would be in place of a drip tube, and would therefore be optional (paragraph [0012]). Mohr states that corrugated films that have cup shaped depressions are used in the embodiment shown in Fig. 1, which is not part of the rejection as recited above (paragraph [0023]). Mohr does mention the cuff-like pieces in the Fig. 2 embodiment; however, just like the other limitations that Mohr offers, if the prior art has additional steps or components, that does not limit it as a prior art reference. The prior art only has to include the limitations of the instant set of claims, which Mohr does. Therefore, Mohr reads on the claim limitations.
Please note Applicant, in their arguments states the instant claims are set on top of the ground, which is an inaccurate statement. The claims recite the crop bed is positioned within an elongated depression, and therefore is below ground.
With respect to claims 3 and 6, Applicant has argued that Murray relies on capillary action and is not a growing device or system. Further, Applicant argued that the combination would disable the intended function. Therefore, Applicant argued the claim was allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Murray teaches water management around the roots of plants, which is analogous art since it has to do with the growing of those plants. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the drip tube positioned directly under the plastic sheet on the top of the shaped soil) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The instant claims only recite that the drip tube is positioned along the length of the removed topsoil, which it is within Mohr, and Murray further details a means of closing the distal edges of the device used in the method, which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would yield predictable results. Therefore, Mohr modified by Murray reads on the claims.
With respect to claims 4-5, Applicant has argued that Nelson is not a growing device or system. Further, Applicant argued that the combination would disable the intended function. Therefore, Applicant argued the claim was allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Nelson teaches water management around plants, and wherein the drip tube is positioned above the bed with soil, which is analogous art since it has to do with the growing of those plants in the beds. Nelson details a means of closing the distal edges of the device used in the method, which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would yield predictable results.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination would disable the intended function, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Nelson details a means of closing the distal edges of the device used in the method, which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would yield predictable results. Therefore, Mohr modified by Nelson reads on the claims.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Applicant has argued that Goldring does not form the device. Therefore, Applicant argued the claims are allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Goldring was brought into the rejections to show that seeds and seedlings can be planted instead of the plants that Mohr cites. It would have been obvious that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results, i.e. planting seeds and seedlings within the method of Mohr.
With respect to claim 10, Applicant has argued that Julia is not a similar device and therefore does not disclose a similar method. Further, Applicant argued that the combination would disable the intended function. Therefore, Applicant argued the claim was allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Julia is relied upon for the shape of the crop bed, and not the additional structures of the system used by the method.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination would disable the intended function, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It would have been obvious that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results, i.e. shaping the bed in a trapezoid shape. Therefore, Mohr modified by Julia reads on the claims.
With respect to claim 11, Applicant has argued that Rast, Jr. relies on capillary action and requires energy. Therefore, Applicant argued the claim was allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Rast, Jr. is relied upon for the shape of the crop bed, and not the additional structures of the system used by the method.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Rast, Jr. teaches a shaped crop bed, which is analogous art since it has to do with the growing of plants. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the drip tube positioned directly under the plastic sheet on the top of the shaped soil) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The instant claims only recite that the drip tube is positioned along the length of the removed topsoil, which it is within Mohr, and Rast, Jr. further details a shape for the crop bed, which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would yield predictable results. Therefore, Mohr modified by Rast, Jr. reads on the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
ZUNJING HUANG. (CN 1139512) teaches a method of plant agriculture using hollow tubes.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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 M 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights