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 parallel beams, cross arms, anchor systems, and tensioning devices must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “101”.
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 5, 8, 9-11, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 8 “rows of grave vines” should read “rows of grape vines”
In claims 5, 11, and 20 “parallel beams between the vertical posts for additional support to the overhead grid of wires.” should read “horizontal parallel beams between the vertical posts for additional support to the overhead grid of wires.” or “vertical parallel beams between the vertical posts for additional support to the overhead grid of wires.” or the like to clarify which of the following arrangements is being described.
PNG
media_image1.png
581
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
581
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In claims 9 and 10 “the method Claim 8” should read “The method of Claim 8.”
In claims 18 and 19 “the method Claim 16” should read “The method of Claim 16.”
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 3585755) in view of Amaro (US 2002/0108362).
Regarding Claim 1, Thomas discloses a trellising and grape growing system for cultivating grape vines, comprising: a. a trellis structure having
i. plurality of vertical posts positioned at intervals along rows of grape vines (corner poles 21, side poles 22, and anchoring poles 23; Figure 1), each vertical post having an upper end (top 26);
ii. an overhead grid of wires (wire cable network 20) supported by the vertical posts, the grid including:
1. parallel wires running substantially parallel to the rows of vines (supporting wires 28), and
2. cross wires running substantially perpendicular to the rows of vines (cables 24 and 27), wherein the parallel wires and cross wires are connected to form a stable structure for supporting the growth of vine cordons, canes, and arms in a radiating arrangement (Figure 1).
Thomas fails to disclose a plurality of vines of a dry-on-the-vine (DOV) grape variety trained on the trellis structure with canes positioned on cross wires and over spaces between a plurality of rows of the vines.
However, Amaro teaches a similar trellis system comprising a plurality of vines of a dry-on-the-vine (DOV) grape variety (Paragraph [0047]; raisins 24; Figure 1) trained on the trellis structure with canes (canes 22) positioned on cross wires and over spaces between a plurality of rows of the vines (Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the dry on the vine grapes trained on the trellis structure as taught by Amaro, since it is well known in the art to train grapes on a trellis system for sufficient support of the grapes during growth, improving airflow to the grapes, and helping with pest control.
Regarding Claim 2, Thomas as modified teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further discloses the system, further comprising end posts positioned at the end of each row to provide stability to the trellis system (side poles 22 and corner poles 21; Figure 1), the end posts being anchored to the ground with anchor systems, braces or stays extending from the end posts to further stabilize the trellis system (sleeve 31 with base 33; Figures 1 and 4, and anchor stays 38; Figures, 1, 9-11), turnbuckles or other tensioning devices attached to the end posts and wires for adjusting the tension of the wires (“Each anchor plate 41 has an eyelet 42 at the upper end of plate 41 and a screw-type takeup device 43 is hooked between stay 38 and eyelet 42 for tightening stays 38 from time to time as it may become necessary.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Thomas as modified teaches the system of claim 1. Thomas further discloses the system, further comprising oblique wires running at oblique angles to the parallel and cross wires, the oblique wires being substantially parallel to one another (shown in annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
443
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Thomas as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Thomas fails to disclose the system, wherein the overhead grid of wires is elevated above the rows of grape vines at a height that allows the passage of trailers or harvesters underneath for collecting grapes or raisins from the space between the rows.
However, Amaro teaches the system, wherein the overhead grid of wires is elevated above the rows of grape vines at a height that allows the passage of trailers or harvesters underneath for collecting grapes or raisins from the space between the rows (harvester 10; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grid of Thomas, with the height of Amaro, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier and more efficient harvesting of the fruit.
Regarding Claim 8, Thomas discloses a method for growing grape vines on a trellis system, comprising:
a. installing a plurality of vertical posts at intervals along rows of grape vines (corner poles 21, side poles 22, and anchoring poles 23; Figure 1);
b. supporting an overhead grid of wires on the vertical posts (wire cable network 20), the grid comprising connected parallel wires (supporting wires 28) and cross wires (cables 24 and 27) to form a stable structure (Figure 1).
Thomas fails to explicitly disclose c. spacing rows of grape vine and the parallel wires to allow for the passage of trailers or harvesters underneath the overhead grid; d. training the cordons and canes of grape vine to grow in a multi-axial arrangement over the overhead grid of wires, including over spaces between the rows of grave vines.
However, Amaro teaches a similar method of growing vines comprising c. spacing rows of grape vine and the parallel wires to allow for the passage of trailers or harvesters underneath the overhead grid (harvester 10; Figure 1);
d. training the cordons and canes of grape vine to grow in a multi-axial arrangement over the overhead grid of wires (canes and canopy 22 growing vertically then horizontally; Figure 1), including over spaces between the rows of grave vines (Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the grape vines trained on the trellis structure as taught by Amaro, since it is well known in the art to train grapes on a trellis system for sufficient support of the grapes during growth, improving airflow to the grapes, and helping with pest control, and to have modified the grid of Thomas, with the height of Amaro, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier and more efficient harvesting of the fruit.
Regarding Claim 9, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 8. Thomas further discloses the method, further comprising anchoring end posts at the end of each row and securing them with anchor systems to provide stability to the trellis system (sleeve 31 with base 33; Figures 1 and 4, and anchor stays 38; Figures, 1, 9-11), and adjusting the tension of the wires using turnbuckles or other tensioning devices (“Each anchor plate 41 has an eyelet 42 at the upper end of plate 41 and a screw-type takeup device 43 is hooked between stay 38 and eyelet 42 for tightening stays 38 from time to time as it may become necessary.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 8. Thomas further discloses the method, further comprising oblique wires in the overhead grid of wires (shown in annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
443
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 8.
Thomas fails to disclose the method, further comprising shaking the overhead grid of wires with a shaking device to dislodge raisins from the canes for harvesting.
However, Amaro teaches a similar method comprising shaking the overhead grid of wires with a shaking device to dislodge raisins from the canes for harvesting (“the rods 66 extend upward into and above the trellis wires 14 to contact the leaves and stems in the canopy of vine plants 22 below and above the trellis wires 14 to shake the vines 22 and remove the fruit 24” Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of Thomas, with the shaking device of Amaro, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is well known in the art of grape growing to use shaking devices to increase the speed and efficiency of harvesting.
Regarding Claim 14, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 8.
Thomas fails to disclose the method, wherein the grape vines are of a dry-on-the-vine (DOV) variety.
However, Amaro teaches a similar method wherein the grape vines are of a dry-on-the-vine (DOV) variety (Paragraph [0047]; raisins 24; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the dry on the vine grapes trained on the trellis structure as taught by Amaro, since it is well known in the art to train dry on the vine grapes on a trellis system for sufficient support of the grapes during growth, improving airflow to the grapes, and helping with pest control.
Regarding Claim 16, Thomas discloses a method for growing grape vines on a trellis system, comprising:
a. positioning a plurality of vertical posts at intervals along rows (corner poles 21, side poles 22, and anchoring poles 23; Figure 1);
b. supporting an overhead grid of wires on the vertical posts (wire cable network 20), the grid comprising parallel wires (supporting wires 28) and cross wires (cables 24 and 27) interwound or otherwise bound to form a stable structure (Figure 1).
Thomas fails to explicitly disclose rows of grape vines of a dry-on-the-vine (DOV) variety; c. training the cordons, canes, and arms of the grape vines to grow in a multi- axial arrangement over the overhead grid of wires; d. spacing the rows of grape vines and the parallel wires to facilitate harvesting from the space between the rows; and e. harvesting the grapes by positioning a receptacle under the overhead grid and shaking the grid to dislodge the grapes into the receptacle.
However, Amaro teaches a similar method of growing vines on a trellis system comprising positioning a plurality of vertical posts at intervals along rows of grape vines (“rows of upright supports 18” Paragraph [0032; Figure 1) of a dry-on-the-vine (DOV) variety (Paragraph [0047]; raisins 24; Figure 1); c. training the cordons, canes, and arms of the grape vines to grow in a multi- axial arrangement over the overhead grid of wires (canes and canopy 22 growing vertically then horizontally; Figure 1); d. spacing the rows of grape vines and the parallel wires to facilitate harvesting from the space between the rows (harvester 10; Figure 1); and e. harvesting the grapes by positioning a receptacle under the overhead grid and shaking the grid to dislodge the grapes into the receptacle (“the rods 66 extend upward into and above the trellis wires 14 to contact the leaves and stems in the canopy of vine plants 22 below and above the trellis wires 14 to shake the vines 22 and remove the fruit 24” Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the dry on the vine grapes trained on the trellis structure as taught by Amaro, since it is well known in the art to train dry on the vine grapes on a trellis system for sufficient support of the grapes during growth, improving airflow to the grapes, and helping with pest control, and to have provided the method of Thomas, with the shaking device of Amaro, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is well known in the art of grape growing to use shaking devices to increase the speed and efficiency of harvesting.
Regarding Claim 18, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 16. Thomas further discloses the method, further comprising anchoring end posts at the end of each row and securing them with anchor systems to provide stability to the trellis system (sleeve 31 with base 33; Figures 1 and 4, and anchor stays 38; Figures, 1, 9-11), and adjusting the tension of the wires using turnbuckles or other tensioning devices (“Each anchor plate 41 has an eyelet 42 at the upper end of plate 41 and a screw-type takeup device 43 is hooked between stay 38 and eyelet 42 for tightening stays 38 from time to time as it may become necessary.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 16. Thomas further discloses the method, further comprising oblique wires in the overhead grid of wires (shown in annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
443
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Amaro as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Barnes (US 2022/0192108).
Regarding Claim 5, Thomas as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Thomas fails to disclose the system, further comprising parallel beams between the vertical posts for additional support to the overhead grid of wires.
However, Barnes teaches a similar grid trellis system comprising parallel beams between the vertical posts for additional support to the overhead wires (cross beams 2; Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the beams of Barnes, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the wires remain in the correct locations to ensure proper spacing and a healthy growth environment for the vines and fruit.
Regarding Claim 11, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 8.
Thomas fails to disclose the method, further comprising installing parallel beams between the vertical posts to provide additional support to the overhead grid of wires.
However, Barnes teaches a similar method of growing vines on a grid trellis comprising installing parallel beams between the vertical posts to provide additional support to the overhead grid of wires (cross beams 2; Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the beams of Barnes, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the wires remain in the correct locations to ensure proper spacing and a healthy growth environment for the vines and fruit.
Regarding Claim 20, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 16.
Thomas fails to disclose the method, further comprising installing parallel beams between the vertical posts to provide additional support to the overhead grid of wires.
However, Barnes teaches a similar method of growing vines on a grid trellis further comprising installing parallel beams between the vertical posts to provide additional support to the overhead grid of wires (cross beams 2; Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the beams of Barnes, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the wires remain in the correct locations to ensure proper spacing and a healthy growth environment for the vines and fruit.
Claims 6, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Amaro as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Hardy (US 1487779).
Regarding Claim 6, Thomas as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Thomas fails to disclose the system, further comprising cross arms are positioned at the upper end of the vertical posts to provide further support and attachment for the overhead grid of wires.
However, Hardy teaches a similar grid trellis system comprising cross arms are positioned at the upper end of the vertical posts to provide further support and attachment for the overhead grid of wires (pipes 2 and 3 on uprights 1 supporting wires 10 and 11; Figures 1-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the cross arms of Hardy, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the wires remain in the correct locations to ensure proper spacing and a healthy growth environment for the vines and fruit, as well as add strength to the wires, to help ensure they do not sag.
Regarding Claim 12, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 8.
Thomas fails to disclose the method, further comprising attaching cross arms at the upper end of the vertical posts to support and attach the overhead grid of wires.
However, Hardy teaches a similar method of growing vines on a grid trellis system further comprising attaching cross arms at the upper end of the vertical posts to support and attach the overhead grid of wires (pipes 2 and 3 on uprights 1 supporting wires 10 and 11; Figures 1-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the cross arms of Hardy, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the wires remain in the correct locations to ensure proper spacing and a healthy growth environment for the vines and fruit, as well as add strength to the wires, to help ensure they do not sag.
Regarding Claim 17, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 16.
Thomas fails to disclose the method, further comprising attaching cross arms at the upper end of the vertical posts to support and attach the overhead grid of wires.
However, Hardy teaches a similar method of growing vines on a grid trellis system further comprising attaching cross arms at the upper end of the vertical posts to support and attach the overhead grid of wires (pipes 2 and 3 on uprights 1 supporting wires 10 and 11; Figures 1-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the cross arms of Hardy, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the wires remain in the correct locations to ensure proper spacing and a healthy growth environment for the vines and fruit, as well as add strength to the wires, to help ensure they do not sag.
Claims 7, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Amaro as applied to claims 1, 14, and 16 above, and further in view of Ramming et al. (US PP26527) (cited by Applicant in IDS dated 7/2/25).
Regarding Claim 7, Thomas as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Thomas fails to disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein in the DOV grapes comprise the Vitis vinifera L.variety.
However, Ramming teaches that it is known in the art of grape growing to grow the Vitis vinifera L.variety on a trellis system (Abstract; “ Grapevine size as determined by grapevines growing on a single cross arm ‘T’ trellis” Col. 3 lines 43-44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the Vitis vinifera L.variety as taught by Ramming, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is well known in the art to pick a plant that is ideal for the intended growing environment and market.
Regarding Claim 15, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 14.
Thomas fails to disclose the method, wherein in the DOV grapes comprise the Vitis vinifera L.variety.
However, Ramming teaches that it is known in the art of grape growing to grow the Vitis vinifera L.variety on a trellis system (Abstract; “ Grapevine size as determined by grapevines growing on a single cross arm ‘T’ trellis” Col. 3 lines 43-44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the Vitis vinifera L.variety as taught by Ramming, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is well known in the art to pick a plant that is ideal for the intended growing environment and market.
Regarding Claim 21, Thomas as modified teaches the method of claim 16.
Thomas fails to disclose the method, wherein in the DOV grapes comprise the Vitis vinifera L.variety.
However, Ramming teaches that it is known in the art of grape growing to grow the Vitis vinifera L.variety on a trellis system (Abstract; “ Grapevine size as determined by grapevines growing on a single cross arm ‘T’ trellis” Col. 3 lines 43-44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trellis system of Thomas, with the Vitis vinifera L.variety as taught by Ramming, with reasonable expectation of success, since it is well known in the art to pick a plant that is ideal for the intended growing environment and market.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ammerlaan (US 2024/0206412), Hatmaker JR (US 2021/0360878), Sowinski (US 10517232), Fitzsimons et al. (US 2019/0387692), and Brown (US 4578896) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar trellis systems for growing vines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642