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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dyas US 2006/0218862.
Regarding claim 20, Dyas discloses a system for farming plants (Dyas, Figures 1-6), comprising: a plurality of plants (200); at least one nursery (300), each nursery comprising a plurality of trays (310), wherein the trays hold the plurality of plants during one or more nursery phases (Dyas, ¶0221); a greenhouse comprising a plurality of rafts (125), wherein the plants comprising growing roots (Dyas, ¶0227, ¶0232, ¶0235) are moved from the trays to the rafts (Dyas, ¶0221).
Dyas fails to disclose that the plants are moved from the trays to the rafts after a predetermined root length is reached, however, root length is a factor in determining when to move plants from their trays. Determining if plants should be moved from their trays to rafts depending on root length require only ordinary skill in the art using routine experimentation. Further, moving the trays after a root length is reached is a method step that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus claim.
The limitation of the trays holding the plurality of plants during the method of claim 1 is a product-by-process limitation. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the plants of Dyas to move from their trays to rafts depending on the size and growth of the plants.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been amended such that they are now allowable.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 20 has been amended to include a product-by-process limitation and is rejected as discussed above.
Conclusion
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 KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights