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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman (US 6381901 B1) in view of Visser et al. (US 8443547 B2).
For claim 1, Friedman teaches a system comprising:
a basin (25);
a lid (32) removably coupled to the basin; wherein the lid includes a plurality of openings (34); and wherein each of the plurality of openings includes an opening (71);
a solid growing medium (16) positioned in the plurality of slots;
a solution (62) positioned within the basin; and
a plurality of plants (18) at least partially positioned within the solid growing medium; wherein each of the plurality of plants includes roots (col. 3, line 53 states that the plant 18 is rooted) that extend through the opening and into the basin to access the solution;
wherein an air gap is formed between the solution and a bottom of the lid (any portion or point on the lid 32 that is not topmost is a bottom of the lid, thus, there are open gaps or spaces as shown in fig. 5; also, depending on how much water the user places in the basin so that the water line 62 is lower and not filled all the way up, thus, would create air gap between the water and a bottom of the lid).
However, Friedman is silent about the plurality of openings being slots.
Visser et al. teach in the same field of a system for growing plant comprising a plurality of slots (fig. 2, created by ref. 7) to hold plant inserts (3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the plurality of openings of the lid of Friedman in the shape of slots as taught by Visser et al., depending on the user’s preference to select the desired shape for the openings/slots, perhaps to save material, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
For claim 2, Friedman as modified by Visser et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the roots are only partially submerged in the solution (Friedman teaches the roots in the medium 16 not completely submerged in the solution as shown in fig. 5 because only the tip or bottom end is in the solution; also, depending on how much solution is in the basin because one does not have to fill it fully).
For claim 3, Friedman as modified by Visser et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the basin includes a plurality of baffles (baffles are the protrusions created by refs. 64,65 in Friedman).
For claim 4, Friedman as modified by Visser et al. teaches the system of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the basin includes a plurality of grooves (where ref. 64 is pointing at in fig. 5 are grooves) formed in a bottom surface of the basin (fig. 5).
For claim 5, Friedman as modified by Visser et al. teaches the system of claim 4, but is silent about wherein the basin has a width of 40 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the basin of Friedman as modified by Visser et al. be with a width of 40 inches, depending on the user’s preference to select the desired size for mass production or smaller production, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
For claim 8, Friedman as modified by Visser et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the solution is stagnant (Friedman teaches the system is placed on the shelf at stores in col. 3, lines 35-40, and there is no constant pumping of solution, thus, the solution is stagnant).
Claims 6-7,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman as modified by Visser et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vandecruys (US 20180206422 A1).
For claim 6, Friedman as modified by Visser et al. teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent about wherein the solution includes a concentration of nutrients at least as high as 2.5 mS/cm.
Vandecruys teaches in the same field of a system for growing plant comprising a solution includes a concentration of nutrients at least as high as 2.5 mS/cm (para. 0068). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the solution of Friedman as modified by Visser et al. with a concentration of nutrients at least as high as 2.5 mS/cm as taught by Vandecruys, depending on the user’s preference of nutrient concentration based on the plant type being grown in the system and the desired electrical conductivity that is required for the plant type grown, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 7, Friedman as modified by Visser et al. and Vandecruys teaches the system of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the concentration of nutrients is at least as high as 3.5 mS/cm (para. 0068 of Vandecruys, which teaches 4.0 mS/cm).
For claim 9, Friedman as modified by Visser et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches a light source (Friedman teaches in col. 3s, lines 35-40 that the plant system being placed in a grocery store shelf which implied that there will be a light source on the plant).
However, in the event applicant disagrees with the examiner’s interpretation, in addition to the above, Vandecruys teaches a light source (160) being provided to enhance growth of the plant (135). See fig. 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a light source as taught by Vandecruys in the system of Friedman as modified by Visser et al. in order to provide light for enhancing the plant viability and growth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a plant growing system:
US 20100064583 A1 teaches Method and apparatus for propagation and growth of plants in a sterile synthetic medium,
US 20210045303 A1 teaches Airborne Rooting and Callusing of Cuttings,
US 20210315174 A1 teaches advanced nutrient film and well,
US 20040040209 A1 teaches Flats and tray systems for plant borders and methods for using same,
US 20190177046 A1 teaches plate-shaped structure, a reservoir and method,
US 3751852 A teaches plastic planter flat,
US 4982527 A teaches Seedling propagation assembly,
US 20150282444 A1 teaches hydroponic flood table,
US 7392616 B1 teaches Modular field planting system,
US 5953859 A teaches Rechargeable live planter assembly and method of use thereof,
DE 102012024680 A1 teaches Device for the long-term supply of a plant and cover for a container of such a device,
NL 2018076 A teaches a plate-shaped structure, a reservoir and a method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights