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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (WO 2007106527 A2) in view of Kantola (US 20140115960 A1) and Hansen (WO 2019011742 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Scott discloses a hydroponic system (para 0002) comprising: and one or more elongated growth medium rod (10); wherein each of said one or more elongated growth medium rods has a length of at least 0.5 meters (para 25, one meter in length) corresponding to a length of the cavity in which the elongated growth medium rod is positioned (this limitation would be met with the rod being positioned in the cavity); and wherein the one or more elongated growth medium rod comprises an amount of growth medium formed as a tube or cylinder covering the amount of growth medium (10a,10b), wherein each of the one or more elongated growth medium rods comprises a plurality of cavities (14a, Fig. 1C) positioned along its length, each cavity being configured to receive one or more seeds or a seedling (para 23), and wherein the plurality of cavities open at an upwardly facing side of the elongated growth medium rod (Fig. 3).
Scott fails to teach an elongated hydroponic reservoir; wherein said elongated hydroponic reservoir comprises: a1) one or more elongated cavity of at least 0.5 meters, each elongated cavity extending along a length of said reservoir and adapted for receiving an elongate growth medium rod; and a2) one or more elongated growth medium rods each positioned on its side within the one or more elongated cavity of said reservoir and extending longitudinally along the elongated cavity; in a water and air permeable sheet material.
Kantola teaches an elongated hydroponic reservoir (1); wherein said elongated hydroponic reservoir comprises: a1) one or more elongated cavity, each elongated cavity extending along a length of said reservoir and adapted for receiving an elongate growth medium rod (11); and a2) one or more elongated growth medium rods each (11) positioned on its side within the one or more elongated cavity of said reservoir (Fig. 4) and extending longitudinally along the elongated cavity (Fig. 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 provided the growth medium tubing as disclosed by Scott with the hydroponic reservoir as taught by Kantola with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a hydroponic reservoir in which the growth medium could be situated in, would assist in growing the plants while decreasing the amount of water consumption required for plant growth, providing further cost efficiency with the growth of the plants.
Scott as modified by Kantola discloses the claimed invention except for the elongated cavity of at least 0.5 meters It would have been an obvious matter of choice to size the cavity to be at least 0.5 meters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Sizing the cavity to be at least half meter in length would result in a greater amount of plants capable of being grown within the hydroponic system, which achieves the predictable result of an increase in yield provided during a given year.
Hansen teaches an amount of growth medium held in a water and air permeable sheet material (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 provided the growth medium as disclosed by modified Scott with the permeable material as taught by Hansen with a reasonable expectation of success because providing permeable material around the growth medium would allow for water and oxygen to reach the roots of the plant, allowing for greater nourishment for the plants and increasing the probability that they grow as intended.
Regarding claim 2: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Scott further teaches wherein the length of the one or more elongated growth medium rod is within a range of 0.5-20 meters (para 25).
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Scott further teaches wherein the plurality of the cavities each contains one or more seeds (14a, Fig. 1C, para 23 discusses seeds).
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Scott further teaches the plurality of the cavities each are filled with a seedling (14a, Fig. 1C, para 23 discusses seedlings).
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Scott further teaches wherein the plurality of the cavities each contain one or more seeds, and wherein the cavities are distributed at equidistance along the length of the one or more elongated growth medium rods (14A, Fig. 1C, para 23 discusses seeds and distance of 8-12 inches between holes).
Regarding claim 7: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Scott as modified teaches wherein the one or more growth medium rods are pre-seeded with seeds in or on the growth medium (This limitation is product by process, and could clearly be completed by one of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kantola further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of cavities is an indented cavity configured to receive a seed (para 4 discusses punching the surface to provide an opening, which would create an indented cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cavities as disclosed by modified Scott with the punched cavities as taught by Kantola with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an indented cavity on the surface would allow for seeds to be positioned within the medium without sliding off or otherwise being undesirably removed off of the medium
Regarding claim 9: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kantola further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of cavities is a drilled cavity configured to receive a seedling in a plant pot or bag (para 4 discusses drilling a surface to provide openings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cavities as disclosed by modified Scott with the drilled cavities as taught by Kantola with a reasonable expectation of success because drilling a surface to make a drilled cavity would allow for seeds or seedlings to be positioned within the growth medium, providing a greater amount of securement and decreasing the likelihood that the vegetation is dislodged.
Regarding claim 10: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kantola further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of cavities penetrates the water- and air-permeable sheet material (para 4 discusses drilling a surface to provide openings, which would penetrate the sheet material)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cavities as disclosed by modified Scott with the penetrated cavities as taught by Kantola with a reasonable expectation of success because having penetrated cavities would allow for seeds or seedlings to be situated within the growth medium and therefore achieve the predictable result of allowing for the vegetation to grow while decreasing the opportunity it becomes dislodged.
Regarding claim 11: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kantola further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of cavities is formed in the growth medium rod without penetrating the water- and air-permeable sheet material (para 4 discusses punching the surface to provide an opening, which would not penetrate the sheet material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cavities as disclosed by modified Scott with the non-penetrated cavities as taught by Kantola with a reasonable expectation of success because providing non-penetrated cavities would allow for the system to quickly position seeds within the cavities, achieving the predictable result of completing a larger number of seeded growth mediums in a desired amount of time.
Regarding claim 12: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein adjacent cavities of the plurality of cavities are spaced apart by a distance within a range of 3-30 cm (Scott para 23 discusses a distance of 8-12 inches which would meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 13: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kantola further teaches wherein the elongated hydroponic reservoir is a tube, pipe, or gutter (Kantola reservoir (trough 1) could be considered a gutter).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Scott teaches a different method of providing water and nutrients to the medium, through use of tubing which would need to be abandoned to arrive at applicant’s claimed invention of a water and air permeable material. The Office respectfully disagrees, as Scott teaches an outer water permeable material, and complete abandonment of the tubing would not be necessary as changing the material of the layer would be desired in order to introduce and retain water/nutrient from sources external to the medium.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments with reference to Kantola and Hansen were not found persuasive as they do not take into context the overall combination of art, as the Kantola reference is introduced to combine a hydroponic reservoir with the growth medium of Scott, and the Hansen reference is introduced to modify the permeable material of Scott’s growth medium.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Scott is defined as a watertight barrier and would not be able to be modified to be water and air permeable. The Office respectfully disagrees, as the abstract explicitly discloses that the outer layer is water permeable, which is further reiterated in paragraphs 14, 43, and claims 1, 18. It is therefore understood that the art of Scott is intended to allow water to flow into the growth medium but prevent water from leaking out of the medium.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights