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 legs of claim 22 being through-holes must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). This configuration is not shown in the drawings. The drawings show legs in figure 9b but does not show any through-holes. 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 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 59 is 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 25 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “that is a maximum distance above the top of the plurality of raft holes.” It is unclear what the maximum distance is, and this is not further discussed in the specification.
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) 1-10, 12, 26, 30-31, 53, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A).
Regarding claim 1, Day discloses an aquaponics and/or hydroponics apparatus comprising:
a raft (100a) having a plurality of raft holes (135), wherein one or more holes in the plurality of raft holes comprises a first hole portion having a cross-section that expands from a top of the first hole portion towards a bottom of the first hole portion (see original fig 1a and annotated fig 5a below), wherein the top of the first hole portion is a single constricted waist (waist at line 525, see annotated fit 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 5a
Day fails to disclose wherein a slope of the cross-section is constant from the top of the first hole portion to the bottom of the first hole portion.
Lecuru teaches wherein the top of the first hole portion is a single constricted waist (constricted waist at top of hole 3), and wherein a slope of the cross-section is constant from the top of the first hole portion to the bottom of the first hole portion (hole 3, slope is constant, see fig 2).
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 slope of the first hole portion to be constant as taught by Lecuru with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure there is room for root growth and ventilation of the roots to ensure plants receive optimal growing conditions.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Day further discloses wherein the one or more holes in the plurality of raft holes comprises a second hole portion having a cross-section that expands from a bottom of the second hole portion towards a top of the second hole portion (see annotated fig 5a above), wherein the bottom of the second hole portion and the top of the first hole portion are connected by the single constricted waist (constricted waist at line 525, see annotated fig 5a above).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a width of the cross-section of the second hole portion decreases continuously from the top of the second hole portion to the single constricted waist, and wherein a width of the cross-section of the first hole portion increases continuously from the single constricted waist to the bottom of the first hole portion.
Lecuru teaches wherein a width of the cross-section of the second hole portion decreases continuously from the top of the second hole portion to the single constricted waist (element 2, slope is constant and decreases from top to bottom, see figs 2-3), and wherein a width of the cross-section of the first hole portion increases continuously from the single constricted waist to the bottom of the first hole portion (element 3 fig 2 and 4, slope is constant & increasing).
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 slope of the first and second hole portions to be constant as taught by Lecuru with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure there is room for root growth and ventilation of the roots to ensure plants receive optimal growing conditions.
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and Day further discloses wherein the second hole portion is a top hole portion extending from a top surface of the raft (see annotated fig 5), and wherein the first hole portion is a bottom hole portion disposed below the second hole portion, and wherein the first hole portion and the second hole portion are connected (see annotated fig 5a above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Day further discloses further comprising one or more additional holes in the plurality of raft holes comprising an upper hole portion and a lower hole portion (raft 100a, plurality of holes 135 with upper and lower portions, see figs 1-2 and 5).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 4, and Day further discloses wherein a cross-section of the upper hole portion expands from the bottom of the upper hole portion towards the top of the upper hole portion (see annotated fig 5b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
284
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 5b
Day fails to disclose wherein the lower hole portion has a same cross-section across an entire length of the lower hole portion. 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 hole with a not changing cross section with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plant does not slip through the hole and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 4, and Day further discloses wherein a cross-section of the lower hole portion expands from the top of the lower hole portion towards the bottom of the lower hole portion (see annotated fig 5b above).
Day fails to disclose wherein the upper hole portion has a same cross-section across an entire length of the upper hole portion. 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 hole with a not changing cross section with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plant does not slip through the hole and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Day further discloses wherein the one or more holes in the plurality of raft holes comprises a flat area disposed around a top circumference of each hole in the one or more holes (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Day further discloses wherein the raft further comprises one or more indentations disposed around a circumference of the one or more holes (chimneys 130, see fig 1-2 and para 0158).
The modified reference fails to teach and wherein the one or more indentations are adjacent to, and physically contacting, the circumference.
Lecuru teaches wherein the raft further comprises one or more indentations disposed around a circumference of the one or more holes (Indentations/grooves 5, see figs 2 and 3), and wherein the one or more indentations are adjacent to, and physically contacting, the circumference (Indentations/grooves 5, see figs 2 and 3).
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 indentations with the placement of the indentations of Lecuru with a reasonable expectation of success as this configuration will facilitate the flow of water to each pot to ensure plants receive optimal growing conditions.
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Day further discloses wherein the raft comprises one or more channels disposed on a circumference of the one or more holes (chimneys 130, see fig 1-2 and para 0158).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the raft comprises one or more channels disposed on a circumference of the one or more holes, and wherein the one or more indentations are adjacent to, and physically contacting, the circumference.
Lecuru teaches wherein the raft comprises one or more channels disposed on a circumference of the one or more holes (channels/grooves 5, see figs 2 and 3), and wherein the one or more indentations are adjacent to, and physically contacting, the circumference (channels/grooves 5, see figs 2 and 3).
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 indentations with the placement of the indentations of Lecuru with a reasonable expectation of success as this configuration will facilitate the flow of water to each pot to ensure plants receive optimal growing conditions.
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 9, and Lecuru further teaches wherein the one or more channels extend a full length of the one or more holes (channels/grooves 5, extend the full length of the hole 2, see figs 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Day further discloses wherein the raft comprises one or more channels disposed on a circumference of the one or more holes (chimneys 130, see fig 1-2 and para 0158).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the one or more indentations are adjacent to, and physically contacting, the circumference, and wherein the one or more channels extend a full length of the one or more holes.
Lecuru teaches wherein the one or more indentations are adjacent to, and physically contacting, the circumference (channels/grooves 5, see figs 2 and 3),, and wherein the one or more channels extend a full length of the one or more holes (channels/grooves 5, extend the full length of the hole 2, see figs 2 and 3).
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 indentations with the placement of the indentations of Lecuru with a reasonable expectation of success as this configuration will facilitate the flow of water to each pot to ensure plants receive optimal growing conditions.
Regarding claim 26, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Day further discloses wherein a top surface of the raft has one or more properties that affect absorption and/or reflection of electromagnetic radiation with respect to a top surface of the raft (reflective surface, see para 0147), wherein the one or more modified properties are selected from the group consisting of: color, luster, spectral range, amount of the electromagnetic radiation reflected, range of the electromagnetic radiation reflected, quality of the electromagnetic radiation reflected, and combinations thereof (color and reflecting radiation, see para 0147 and 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 28, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 26, and Day further discloses wherein the one or more properties comprises color, and wherein the color enhances reflected Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) in a spectral range of between 380 and 750 nanometers (reflective surface, see para 0147 and white expanded polystyrene for raft construction, see para 0124, white reflects light in the visible spectrum).
Day discloses the claimed invention except the specific wavelengths from 400-700 nanometers. 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 system to reflect only light from 400-700 nm with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure the light reflected is of a wavelength that is beneficial for plant growth, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 30, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Day further discloses wherein the raft comprises food- grade plastics (polystyrene and bioplastics, see para 0020).
Regarding claim 31, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 30, and Day further discloses wherein the food-grade plastics are selected from the group consisting of: expanded polystyrene (EPS), extruded polystyrene (XPS), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene (PE), expanded polypropylene (EPP), polypropylene (PP), expanded polyvinyl chloride (PVC), bioplastics, and combinations thereof (polystyrene and bioplastics, see para 0020).
Regarding claim 53, Day discloses a method of manufacturing an aquaponics and/or hydroponics apparatus (see para 0005-0007), the method comprising:
forming a raft comprising a plurality of raft holes (see figs 1-2),
wherein one or more holes in the plurality of raft holes comprises a first hole portion having a cross-section that expands from a top of the first hole portion towards a bottom of the first hole portion (see annotated fig 5a above).
The modified reference fails to teach the cross section having a width that linearly increases with a distance from a top of the first hole portion towards a bottom of the first hole portion.
Lecuru teaches wherein one or more holes in the plurality of raft holes comprises a first hole portion (3) having a cross-section with a width that linearly increases with a distance from a top of the first hole portion towards a bottom of the first hole portion (see figs 2-3).
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 cross-section of the first hole portion increase linearly as taught by Lecuru with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure there is room for root growth and ventilation of the roots to ensure plants receive optimal growing conditions.
Regarding claim 56, Day discloses an aquaponics and/or hydroponics method comprising:
placing a raft (100a) comprising a plurality of raft holes (135) in a body of water (pond, see para 0005) such that (i) a plurality of bottom portions of the plurality of raft holes contacts the body of water for at least a period of time in a growth cycle (see claim 1 and para 0024)
(ii) a top surface of the raft does not contact the body of water (inherent as the raft is buoyant, see para 0024)
wherein one or more holes in the plurality of raft holes comprises a first hole portion having a cross-section that expands from a top of the first hole portion towards a bottom of the first hole portion (see annotated fig 5a above).
The modified reference fails to teach the first hole portion having a cross-section in which a width of the cross-section linearly increases with a distance from a top of the first hole portion towards a bottom of the first hole portion.
Lecuru teaches wherein one or more holes in the plurality of raft holes comprises a first hole portion having a cross-section in which a width of the cross-section linearly increases with a distance from a top of the first hole portion towards a bottom of the first hole portion (see figs 2-3).
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 cross-section of the first hole portion increase linearly as taught by Lecuru with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure there is room for root growth and ventilation of the roots to ensure plants receive optimal growing conditions.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Beeman (US-20070137100-A1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches apparatus of claim 9.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the one or more channels are configured to receive an attachment piece that connects the raft to one or more additional rafts.
Beeman teaches wherein the one or more channels are configured to receive an attachment piece that connects the raft to one or more additional rafts (channels 35 receive attachment piece 26, see figs 1-4 and para 0025-0028).
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 channels with the attachment pieces of Beeman with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure that multiple rafts can be securely connected in a space efficient manner to allow for higher crop yields in a smaller space.
Claim(s) 13-18 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walker (US-11490572-B2).
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches apparatus of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising: one or more handles on the raft.
Walker teaches further comprising: one or more handles on the raft (handles 74 and handle made via indentation at corner next to 114, see figs 18-19 and 22).
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 raft with the handle of Walker with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for easier maneuverability by the user.
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 13, and Walker further teaches wherein the one or more handles are configured to enable a user to manipulate the raft without contacting grow bed water (handle 74 and recess at corner next to 114, see fig 18-19 and 22).
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the one or more handles comprise a raised or indented feature along one or more edges of the one or more handles.
Walker teaches wherein the one or more handles comprise a raised or indented feature along one or more edges of the one or more handles (handle 74 and recess at corner next to 114, see fig 18-19 and 22).
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 handle with the raised edges of Walker with a reasonable expectation of success as this provides more grip for the user, and connection with other rafts.
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 15, and Walker further teaches wherein the raised or indented feature is configured to enable the user to manipulate the raft without contacting grow bed water (Handle 74 and recess at corner next to 114, see fig 18-19 and 22).
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the one or more handles comprise one or more raised or indented features along one or more edges of the one or more handles, and wherein the one or more raised or indented features are configured so that the raft can be connected to, and mated with, one or more adjacent additional rafts.
Walker teaches wherein the one or more handles comprise one or more raised or indented features along one or more edges of the one or more handles (handle 74 with raised edges, see fig 18-19), and wherein the one or more raised or indented features are configured so that the raft can be connected to, and mated with, one or more adjacent additional rafts (handle 74 and recess 68 for connection, see figs 18-19).
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 raft with the mating edges of Walker with a reasonable expectation of success as this allows for increased planting area and higher crop yields.
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the one or more handles are configured to receive an attachment piece to connect the raft with one or more additional rafts.
Walker teaches wherein the one or more handles are configured to receive an attachment piece to connect the raft with one or more additional rafts (handle 74 and recess 68 for connection, see figs 18-19).
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 raft with the mating edges of Walker with a reasonable expectation of success as this allows for increased planting area and higher crop yields.
Regarding claim 58, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 13 and Walker further teaches wherein the one or more handles are recessed with respect to one or more surfaces of the raft (handle made by indentation at corner next to 114, see fig 22).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi (CN-113366998-A ).
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches apparatus of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising: a frame, fitted to one or more indentations on a top surface of the raft, that extends vertically upward from the top surface.
Shi teaches further comprising: a frame (supporting column C), fitted to one or more indentations (holes for C, see fig 7) on a top surface of the raft, that extends vertically upward from the top surface (supporting column C extending upward from middle portion 6, see fig 7).
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 raft with the frame of Shi with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide support for the growing plants.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) and Shi (CN-113366998-A) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Morris (US-20110197502-A1).
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 19.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the frame is configured to connect the raft together with one or more additional rafts, thereby forming a contiguous set of rafts.
Morris teaches wherein the frame is configured to connect the raft together with one or more additional rafts, thereby forming a contiguous set of rafts (connector 138 for connecting adjacent frames together, see figs 3-5).
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 frames with the connection as taught by Morris with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide increased structural integrity and durability.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umbaugh (US-7426802-B2).
Regarding claim 21, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Day further discloses one or more indentations (130), disposed on a bottom surface of the raft (130 are through-holes, i.e. extend to the bottom of the raft).
Day fails to disclose further comprising: the indentations being for attaching one or more legs to the bottom surface of the raft.
Umbaugh teaches further comprising: one or more indentations (102), disposed on a bottom surface of the raft, for attaching one or more legs to the bottom surface of the raft (legs 99 engaged with table through through-holes 102, see fig 5b and col 5, lines 4-13).
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 raft with the legs on the bottom surface of the raft as taught by Umbaugh with a reasonable expectation of success for easy storage of the raft during planting, cleaning or harvesting.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) and Umbaugh (US-7426802-B2) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Beeman (US-20070137100-A1).
Regarding claim 22, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the one or more indentations are through- holes to a top surface of the raft and are configured to receive an attachment piece for connecting the raft together with one or more additional rafts.
Beeman teaches wherein the one or more indentations are through- holes to a top surface of the raft (through-holes 35 receive attachment piece 26, see figs 1-4 and para 0025-0028) and are configured to receive an attachment piece for connecting the raft together with one or more additional rafts (through-holes 35 receive attachment piece 26, see figs 1-4 and para 0025-0028).
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 raft with the through-holes for the attachment piece as taught by Beeman with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure that multiple rafts can be securely connected in a space efficient manner to allow for higher crop yields in a smaller space.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) and Umbaugh (US-7426802-B2) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Shi (CN-113366998-A ).
Regarding claim 23, the modified reference teaches apparatus of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising a frame, wherein the one or more indentations are through-holes to a top surface of the raft to receive the frame.
Shi teaches further comprising a frame (supporting column C),, wherein the one or more indentations are through-holes to a top surface of the raft to receive the frame (supporting column C extending upward from middle portion 6, see fig 7).
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 raft with the frame of Shi with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide support for the growing plants.
Claim(s) 24-25 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noordam (US-20220087121-A1).
Regarding claim 24, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the raft comprises one or more raised areas disposed between the plurality of raft holes, and raised relative to a top of the plurality of raft holes.
Noordam teaches wherein a top surface of the raft comprises one or more raised areas disposed between the plurality of raft holes (130 raised and sloped to hole 140, see fig 1a and 2, and para 0072), and raised relative to a top of the plurality of raft holes (130 is above the raft holes 140, see fig 1a and 2, and para 0072, see also annotated fig 1a below).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 1a
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 top surface of the raft with the raised areas of Noordam with a reasonable expectation of success as this will more efficiently facilitate water flow to the planting holes.
Regarding claim 25, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 24, and Noordam further teaches wherein the raised areas curve or slope downwards towards the plurality of raft holes from a central point (130 raised and sloped to hole 140, see fig 1a and 2, and para 0072), that is a maximum distance above the top of the plurality of raft holes (130 is above the raft holes 140, see fig 1a and 2, and para 0072).
Regarding claim 59, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 24, and Noordam further teaches wherein the one or more raised areas comprises a plurality of raised areas (see annotated fig 1a above), and wherein each of the plurality of raised areas physically contacts at least one other raised area in the plurality of raised areas (see annotated fig 1a above).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Ishikawa (WO-2017090197-A1).
Regarding claim 27, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 26.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the raft has one a metallic finish that provides a luster that affects absorption and/or reflection of electromagnetic radiation.
Ishikawa teaches wherein a top surface of the raft has one a metallic finish that provides a luster that affects absorption and/or reflection of electromagnetic radiation (metallic luster for diffusing light, see page 4).
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 system with a metallic luster as taught by Ishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success as this will help ensure the light is uniformly applied (see page 4).
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Kakimoto (WO-2020149051-A1).
Regarding claim 29, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 26.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the raft has a color that enhances reflected far-red light in a spectral range of between 700 and 800 nanometers.
Kakimoto teaches wherein a top surface of the raft has a color that enhances reflected far-red light in a spectral range of between 700 and 800 nanometers (red colored mulch film for reflecting sunlight and further activating photosynthesis, see page 4).
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 system with the red color properties of Kakimoto with a reasonable expectation of success as red colored mulch helps further activate photosynthesis (see page 4).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except the specific wavelengths from 700-800 nanometers. 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 system to reflect only light from 700-800 nm with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure the light reflected is of a wavelength that is beneficial for plant growth, and since light from 700-750 helps further activate photosynthesis in plants, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 32-38, 54-55 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US-20230380360-A1).
Regarding claim 32, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising a cover for covering a top surface of the raft.
Kim teaches further comprising a cover for covering a top surface of the raft (cover 33, see figs 4-5 and 10).
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 raft of Day with the cover of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide protection to the plants and further structural support to the raft.
Regarding claim 33, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 32, and Kim further teaches wherein the cover comprises a lip that extends vertically downward along one or more edges of the cover (331a on cover 33, see figs 4-5 and 10).
Regarding claim 34, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 32, and Kim further teaches wherein the cover comprises one or more cover holes arranged such that, when the cover is placed on the top surface of the raft, at least one cover hole in the one or more cover holes is disposed directly above, and aligned with, the one or more holes (cover 33, holes 334 aligned with raft holes 32, see figs 4-5 and 10).
Regarding claim 35, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 32, and Kim further teaches wherein the cover comprises one or more hole lips that extend vertically downward into the interiors of the one or more cover holes when the cover is placed on the raft (333 on cover 33, see figs 4-5 and 10).
Regarding claim 36, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 32, and Kim further teaches wherein the one or more cover holes comprises a flat area disposed around a top circumference of each hole in the one or more cover holes (see figs 4-5 and 10, flat area around cover holes 334).
Regarding claim 37, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 32, and Kim further teaches wherein the cover further comprises one or more indentations disposed around a circumference of the one or more cover holes (indentations 333 on cover 33, see figs 4-5 and 10).
Regarding claim 38, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 32.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the cover has one or more modified properties that affect absorption and/or reflection of electromagnetic radiation with respect to a top surface of the cover, wherein the one or more properties are selected from the group consisting of: color, luster, spectral range, amount of the electromagnetic radiation reflected, range of the electromagnetic radiation reflected, quality of the electromagnetic radiation reflected, and combinations thereof.
Kim teaches wherein a top surface of the cover has one or more properties that affect absorption and/or reflection of electromagnetic radiation with respect to a top surface of the cover (reflective sheet 34, see para 0161-0164), wherein the one or more modifications are selected from the group consisting of: color, luster, spectral range, amount of the electromagnetic radiation reflected, range of the electromagnetic radiation reflected, quality of the electromagnetic radiation reflected, and combinations thereof (Reflect emitted light, see para 0161-0164).
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 system with the reflected light properties of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success as this will increase light available for plants for photosynthesis, thereby increasing plant growth and crop yield.
Regarding claim 54, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 26.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising producing a cover that is sized to fit over a top surface of the raft.
Kim teaches further comprising producing a cover that is sized to fit over a top surface of the raft (cover 33, see figs 4-5 and 10).
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 raft of Day with the cover of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide protection to the plants and further structural support to the raft.
Regarding claim 55, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 54, and Kim further teaches wherein the cover comprises one or more cover holes arranged such that, when the cover is placed on the top surface of the raft, at least one cover hole in the one or more cover holes is disposed directly above, and aligned with, at least one raft hole in the plurality of raft holes (cover 33, holes 334 aligned with raft holes 32, see figs 4-5 and 10).
Regarding claim 57, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 56.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising placing a cover comprising one or more cover holes on the top surface of the raft such that at least one cover hole in the one or more cover holes is disposed directly above, and aligned with, at least one raft hole in the plurality of raft holes.
Kim teaches further comprising placing a cover comprising one or more cover holes on the top surface of the raft such that at least one cover hole in the one or more cover holes is disposed directly above, and aligned with, at least one raft hole in the plurality of raft holes (cover 33, holes 334 aligned with raft holes 32, see figs 4-5 and 10).
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 raft of Day with the cover and cover holes of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide protection to the plants and further structural support to the raft.
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) and Kim (US-20230380360-A1) as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Ishikawa (WO-2017090197-A1).
Regarding claim 39, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 38.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the cover has a metallic finish that provides a luster that affects absorption and/or reflection of electromagnetic radiation.
Ishikawa teaches wherein a top surface of the cover has a metallic finish that provides a luster that affects absorption and/or reflection of electromagnetic radiation. (metallic luster for diffusing light, see page 4).
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 system with a metallic luster as taught by Ishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success as this will help ensure the light is uniformly applied (see page 4).
Claim(s) 40 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) and Kim (US-20230380360-A1) as applied to claims 32 and 38 above, and further in view of Li (US-20200084985-A1).
Regarding claim 40, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 38.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the cover has a color that enhances reflected Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) in a spectral range of between 400 and 700 nanometers
Li teaches wherein a top surface of the cover has a color that enhances reflected Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) in a spectral range of between 380 and 750 nanometers (cover 42 with reflective coating & white color, white reflects light in the visible spectrum).
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 system with the light reflection of Li with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure the light reflected is of a wavelength that is beneficial for plant growth
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except the specific wavelengths from 400-700 nanometers. 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 system to reflect only light from 400-700 nm with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure the light reflected is of a wavelength that is beneficial for plant growth, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 63, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 32.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the cover has a color that is any shade of white, any shade of red, any shade of blue, any shade of green, or any shade of yellow.
Li teaches wherein a top surface of the cover has a color that is any shade of white, any shade of red, any shade of blue, any shade of green, or any shade of yellow (cover 42 with white color, see para 0071).
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 top surface of the cover to be white as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a light reflective layer to prevent overheating of plants.
Claim(s) 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) and Kim (US-20230380360-A1) as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Kakimoto (WO-2020149051-A1).
Regarding claim 41, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 38.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the cover has a color that enhances reflected far-red light in a spectral range of between 700 and 800 nanometers.
Kakimoto teaches wherein a top surface of the cover has a color that enhances reflected far-red light in a spectral range of between 700 and 800 nanometers (red colored mulch film for reflecting sunlight and further activating photosynthesis, see page 4).
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 system with the red color properties of Kakimoto with a reasonable expectation of success as red colored mulch helps further activate photosynthesis (see page 4).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except the specific wavelengths from 700-800 nanometers. 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 system to reflect only light from 700-800 nm with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure the light reflected is of a wavelength that is beneficial for plant growth, and since light from 700-750 helps further activate photosynthesis in plants, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) and Kim (US-20230380360-A1) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Noordam (US-20220087121-A1).
Regarding claim 42, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the cover comprises one or more raised areas, and wherein, when the cover covers the top surface of the raft, the one or more raised areas are disposed between the plurality of raft holes.
Noordam teaches wherein a top surface of the cover comprises one or more raised areas ((130 raised and sloped to hole 140, see fig 1a and 2, and para 0072), and wherein, when the cover covers the top surface of the raft, the one or more raised areas are disposed between the plurality of raft holes ((130 raised and sloped to hole 140, see fig 1a and 2, and para 0072).
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 top surface of the raft with the raised areas of Noordam with a reasonable expectation of success as this will more efficiently facilitate water flow to the planting holes.
Claim(s) 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) and Kim (US-20230380360-A1) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Hoshihara (WO-2020241418-A1).
Regarding claim 43, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 32.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the cover comprises food-grade plastics.
Hoshihara teaches wherein the cover comprises food-grade plastics (lid portion made of a polyvinyl chloride plate, see page 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 cover with the food-grade plastics of Hoshihara with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure plants grown as consumables will meet safety standards.
Regarding claim 44, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 43, and Hoshihara further teaches wherein the food-grade plastics are selected from the group consisting of: expanded polystyrene (EPS), extruded polystyrene (XPS), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene (PE), expanded polypropylene (EPP), polypropylene (PP), expanded polyvinyl chloride (PVC), bioplastics, and combinations thereof (lid portion made of a polyvinyl chloride plate, see page 6).
Claim(s) 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A), Kim (US-20230380360-A1) and Hoshihara (WO-2020241418-A1) as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Sun (US-9901046-B2).
Regarding claim 45, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 43.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the cover comprises a composite material.
Sun teaches wherein the cover comprises a composite material (top surface 18 maybe be made of a composite material, see col 10, lines 32-59).
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 cover with a composite material as taught by Sun with a reasonable expectation of success as composite materials as this will provide enhanced strength and durability.
Claim(s) 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Lecuru (US-3810329-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US-20200084985-A1).
Regarding claim 62, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein a top surface of the cover has a color that is any shade of white, any shade of red, any shade of blue, any shade of green, or any shade of yellow.
Li teaches wherein a top surface of the cover has a color that is any shade of white, any shade of red, any shade of blue, any shade of green, or any shade of yellow (cover 42 with white color, see para 0071).
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 top surface of the cover to be white as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a light reflective layer to prevent overheating of plants.
Claim(s) 46 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Jung-wan (KR-200309425-Y1).
Regarding claim 46, Day discloses an aquaponics and/or hydroponics apparatus comprising:
a raft (100a) having a perimeter composed of one or more solid materials, wherein the perimeter is disposed around one or more empty spaces within the perimeter (empty spaces holes 135).
Day fails to disclose such that the one or more empty spaces and the perimeter are concentric with respect to each other.
Jung-wan teaches such that the one or more empty spaces and the perimeter are concentric with respect to each other (perimeter is concentric with through-hole 3, see fig 1).
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 empty spaces to be concentric as taught by Jung-wan with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure there is adequate spacing between plants in adjacent rafts to provide adequate room as plants grow.
Regarding claim 60, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 46, and Jung-wan further teaches wherein the perimeter and the one or more empty spaces form concentric rectangles (perimeter is concentric with through-hole 3, see fig 1).
Claim(s) 47-48 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Jung-wan (KR-200309425-Y1) as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Chandrakanthan (US 11991962 B2).
Regarding claim 47, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 46.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the raft comprises one or more supports that extend across one or more portions of the one or more empty spaces.
Chandrakanthan teaches wherein the raft comprises one or more supports that extend across one or more portions of the one or more empty spaces (rods and support net, trellis or lattice 701 extends across empty space 705, see col 13, lines 18-41 and fig 7).
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 raft with the frame of Chandrakanthan with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide support for the growing plants.
Regarding claim 48, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 47, and Chandrakanthan further teaches wherein the one or more supports are detachable from the perimeter (rods and support net 701, removable via 703, see col 13, lines 18-41).
Regarding claim 61, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 47, and Chandrakanthan further teaches wherein the one or more supports extend across the one or more portions of the one or more empty spaces (701 extends across empty space 705) such that the one or more supports physically contact the perimeter rods and support net, trellis or lattice 701, see col 13, lines 18-41 and fig 7, contact the perimeter via their attachment in 103/703, see figs 7).
Claim(s) 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Jung-wan (KR-200309425-Y1) as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Kim (US-20230380360-A1).
Regarding claim 49, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 46.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising a raft cover that fits over the perimeter.
Kim teaches further comprising a raft cover that fits over the perimeter (cover 33, see figs 4-5 and 10).
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 raft of Day with the cover of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide protection to the plants and further structural support to the raft.
Regarding claim 50, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 49, and Kim further teaches wherein the raft cover comprises one or more cover holes, wherein when the cover is placed on a top surface of the raft, at least one cover hole in the one or more cover holes have no raft material beneath them (cover 33, holes 334 aligned with raft holes 32, see figs 4-5 and 10).
Claim(s) 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Jung-wan (KR-200309425-Y1) and Kim (US-20230380360-A1) as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Arnau (US-10750688-B2).
Regarding claim 51, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 49.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the raft cover is interchangeable with a plurality of additional raft covers that are different with respect to one or more cover hole parameters than the raft cover, and wherein the one or more cover hole parameters are selected from the group consisting of: a shape, a size, a quantity, a physical arrangement on the cover, and combinations thereof.
Arnau teaches wherein the raft cover is interchangeable with a plurality of additional raft covers that are different with respect to one or more cover hole parameters than the raft cover (see figs 1-12, multiple lid 1 options), and wherein the one or more cover hole parameters are selected from the group consisting of: a shape, a size, a quantity, a physical arrangement on the cover, and combinations thereof (quantity of holes and arrangement of holes, see figs 1-12).
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 cover with the interchangeable covers of Arnau with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide increased variety of planting configurations for plants with different sizes or spacing needs.
Claim(s) 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overDay (US-20160135396-A1) in view of Jung-wan (KR-200309425-Y1) and Kim (US-20230380360-A1) as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Mizrakci (US-11582927-B1).
Regarding claim 52, the modified reference teaches the apparatus of claim 49.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the raft cover has a thickness of between 1/32" and 1", and wherein, when the raft cover is placed on a top surface of the raft, the raft cover supports the weight of a plurality of plants disposed in the raft cover over one or more middle portions of the raft.
Mizrakci teaches when the raft cover is placed on a top surface of the raft, the raft cover supports the weight of a plurality of plants disposed in the raft cover over one or more middle portions of the raft (see fig 2B and col 7, lines 63-67 and col 8, lines 1-21).
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 raft cover to support the weight of the plants with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the raft retains buoyancy throughout the plant’s life cycle and corresponding growth.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the raft cover has a thickness of between 1/32" and 1". 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 raft cover to have a thickness between 1/43” and 1” with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the raft has a thickness adequate for plant protection without being so bulky it interferes with the growth of the plant canopy above the raft, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 19, 21-23, 46, and 52-53 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendments to the independent claims have resulted in new grounds of rejection and the arguments over those claims are therefore moot.
Applicant argues that the indentations of claim 22 are indeed through-holes, and references elements 904 and 910 in figures 9A and 9D-E. However, neither 904 nor 910 itself is a through-hole, therefore the claim language is still inconsistent with the drawings. The two indentations together may comprise a through-hole but one of the indentations 904 or 910 on its own is not a through-hole.
Applicant argues that there was no cited rationale for claim 5. The Non-Final office action page 11 states the rational for modifying the cross section as “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 hole with a not changing cross section with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plant does not slip through the hole.” Applicant then argues the benefits and function of an expanding lower, portion, which is not relevant as claim 5 is directed to a lower portion with a constant cross section, i.e. not expanding. Further, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions. In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531.
Applicant argues that cited chimneys of Day for claim 8 are not indentations as chimneys are through-holes, whereas indentations would not extend all the way through the structure. Firstly, the Office has brought in a new reference for claim 8. Additionally, Applicant later argues that indentations of claim 22 are through-holes, and therefore it is not persuasive that an indentation could not extend through the structure.
Applicant argues that the Office cannot use the cited chimneys of Day for the indentations of claim 8 and the channels of claim 9. However, claim 9 is not dependent on claim 8, and therefore the chimneys 130 can be used differently in separate claims. Further, the Office has provided a new reference for claim 9.
In regards to claims 13-18, Applicant argues that Walker does not teach a handle. More specifically, Applicant argues that Walker fails to teach a handle as the reference does not specify that the cited element can be used to lift the growing module. However, according to Merriam Webster dictionary, a handle is “a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand,” which does not require the capability for lifting. Additionally, the citations for claims 13-18 now include a recessed portion of the module of Walker that could be used to lift the module.
Applicant argues that the Morris reference, used to claim 20, is non-analogous art.
In response to applicant's argument that Morris is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, claim 20 pertains to connecting of two frames, and Morris is a stackable plant system with connectable frames. Therefore, Morris is analogous as it pertains to the problem and solution of connecting adjacent planter frames.
In regards to claim 27, Applicant argues that the cited reference fails to teach the luster as the reference does not teach a float or a raft. In response to applicant's argument that the luster of Ishikawa is not relevant as it is not on a float or a raft, 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). In this case, Ishikawa teaches luster on pipe 9 for the same purpose as the instant invention, that is reflecting light, and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 29, Applicant argues that the cited reference fails to teach the correct color as the reference does not teach a float or a raft. In response to applicant's argument that the red color of Kakimoto is not relevant as it is not on a float or a raft, 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). In this case, Kakimoto teaches a red colored mulch film for the same purpose as the instant invention, that is reflecting light, and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 30 is not taught as Day does not mention the term “food-safe” or “food-grade.” However, Day teaches specific materials that are listed in claim 31 as specific types of food grade plastics. Similar arguments were presented in regards to claim 42, and similarly, the material cited is then presented in a list of material options in claim 43.
Applicant argues that Kim is non-analogous art as it is not used as a raft for hydroponics.
In response to applicant's argument that Kim is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kim relates in that it pertains to a planting container with a cover that includes holes matching those of the container.
In regards to Applicants arguments against Kim for claims 32-38 and 42, in response to applicant's argument that Kim cannot be used with a float or a raft, 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). Kim is used to teach a cover with holes matching the holes of its container.
In regards to claim 40, Applicant argues that Li does not state any spectral range. However, Li discusses using a white color, which is known to reflect visible light, i.e. light in the range of approximately 400-750nm.
In regards to claim 47, Applicant argues that Chandrakanthan fails to teach the one or more supports that extend across one or more portions of the empty spaces. This is not persuasive as the claim language does not require that the supports be located on or touching the empty spaces. Supports extending across the empty spaces above them satisfies the current claim language.
In regards to Applicants arguments against Arnau for claim 51, in response to applicant's argument that the lid of Arnau cannot be used with a float or a raft, 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). In this case, Arnau is used merely to teach a container or plate having multiple interchangeable lids.
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 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
Prosecution Insights