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
Claims 1, 4, and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
See claim 1, where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 609.01(i).
In claim 4, line 3, “overlapping said distal edges” should be changed to --overlapping distal edges--.
In claim 7, line 2, “removed topsoil” should be changed to --removed and shaped topsoil--.
In claim 8, line 2, “removed topsoil” should be changed to --removed and shaped topsoil--.
In claim 9, lines 2 and 5, “removed topsoil” should be changed to --removed and shaped topsoil--.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the topsoil” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “shallow” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shallow” 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. The term is not necessary with respect to the phrase prior to its use in claim 1. Therefore, it is suggested to remove the term from the claim to avoid indefiniteness.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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, human assisted machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Mohr discloses a method of plant agriculture comprising: Forming an elongated depression by removing a portion of the 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 being formed shallow and 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 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, human assisted machine translation attached) 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, human assisted machine translation attached) 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 said 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, human assisted machine translation attached) 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 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 topsoil through said sheet material positioned across said top surface of said removed and shaped topsoil (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 seedings within said removed 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 seedings within said removed topsoil through said sheet material positioned across said top surface of said removed and shaped topsoil (col. 1, lines 9-15, method includes planting seedings).
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 seedings 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, human assisted machine translation attached) 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, human assisted machine translation attached) 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, human assisted machine translation attached) 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Jones et al. (US 2011/0308153) teaches a method of plant agriculture using a grow bag.
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