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 1,3-4,6-8,10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (JP 11346565 A) in view of Vincent et al. (US 20200000051 A1).
For claim 1, Taniguchi teaches a plant growing tray system, comprising:
a first tray (1) including:
a first horizontal longitudinal end (fig. 2, from ref. 2 to ref. 2);
a second horizontal longitudinal end (fig. 2, opposite side from ref. 2 to ref. 2);
a first horizontal lateral end (fig. 2, end where ref. 3 is located); and
a male part (fig. 5, L-shaped protrusion on the right side) positioned at the first horizontal lateral end and elongated between the first and second longitudinal ends;
wherein a bottom surface of the first tray extends between the first and second longitudinal ends, a portion of said bottom surface between the first and second longitudinal ends of the first tray being vertically recessed to form a first plant growing space on an upward facing surface of said bottom surface, wherein said male part extends vertically below a bottom-most underside of said bottom surface of said first tray and terminates at a male terminal end at a height lower than a height of said bottom-most underside of said bottom surface of said first tray (see the examiner’s illustration below);
a second tray (the other ref. 1, since the trays are duplicate) including:
a third horizontal longitudinal end (fig. 2, from ref. 2 to ref. 2);
a fourth horizontal longitudinal end (fig. 2, opposite side from ref. 2 to ref. 2);
a second horizontal lateral end (fig. 2, end where ref. 3 is located); and
a female part (fig. 5, the recess on the left side) positioned at the second horizontal lateral end and elongated between the third and fourth longitudinal ends, the female part configured to complementarily couple with the male part (as shown in fig. 5);
wherein a bottom surface of the second tray extends between the third and fourth longitudinal ends, a portion of said bottom surface of said second tray between the third and fourth longitudinal ends of the second tray being vertically recessed to form a second plant growing space on an upward facing surface of said bottom surface of said second tray, wherein said female part extends to a height below said male terminal end and to a height below a bottom-most underside of said bottom surface of said second tray, when said male and female parts are coupled (see the examiner’s illustration below).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
696
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Taniguchi is silent about the shape of the tray so that the male part positioned at the first horizontal longitudinal end and elongated between the first and second lateral ends; the female part positioned at the second horizontal longitudinal end and elongated between the third and fourth lateral ends; and a substantially impermeable interstitial medium configured to at least partially extend around a circumferential surface of the male part to fill a space between male and female parts; wherein the interstitial medium is configured to be compressed between the male and female parts to generate residual stresses to at least partially support a tray load and form a substantially impermeable inter-tray joint connecting the first tray to the second tray.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the shape of the trays of Taniguchi be reverse so that the male part positioned at the first horizontal longitudinal end and elongated between the first and second lateral ends; the female part positioned at the second horizontal longitudinal end and elongated between the third and fourth lateral ends, depending on the desired direction and shape of the trays the user wishes to have so that the male and female parts run longitudinally instead of laterally as in Taniguchi, since it is has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Vincent et al. teach a plant growing tray system comprising a substantially impermeable interstitial medium (para. 0104, the self-adjusting soft rubber) configured to at least partially extend around a circumferential surface of the male part (para. 0104 states outer and inner seal mechanical male and female connectors) to fill a space between male and female parts (para. 0104 states outer and inner seal mechanical male and female connectors); wherein the interstitial medium is configured to be compressed between the male and female parts to generate residual stresses to at least partially support a tray load and form a substantially impermeable inter-tray joint connecting the first tray (702) to the second tray (another 702; noting also that the limitation is functional recitation to which the interstitial medium of Vincent can performed the intended function of “configured to be compressed” and “to generate residual stresses”, for it is a self-adjusting flexible rubber material).
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 substantially impermeable interstitial medium as taught by Vincent et al. between the male and female parts of the tray system of Taniguchi in order to further seal the joint areas of the trays when connected.
The combination of Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. would result in performing the functional recitation of configured to at least partially extend around a circumferential surface of the male part to fill a space between male and female parts (due to the self-adjusting soft rubber as relied on from Vincent); and configured to be compressed between the male and female parts to generate residual stresses to at least partially support a tray load and form a substantially impermeable inter-tray joint connecting the first tray to the second tray (upon placing the self-adjusting soft rubber of Vincent in the joint area of the male/female members of the trays of Watanabe, the seal will be considered as a substantially impermeable inter-tray joint).
For claim 3, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein: the first horizontal longitudinal end of the first tray is positioned at an extremity of the first tray (with the modification of reversal of the lateral and longitudinal ends as stated above, Taniguchi teaches the first horizontal longitudinal end of the first tray is positioned at an extremity of the first tray); and the second horizontal longitudinal end of the second tray is positioned at an extremity of the second tray (with the modification of reversal of the lateral and longitudinal ends as stated above, Taniguchi teaches the first horizontal longitudinal end of the first tray is positioned at an extremity of the first tray).
For claim 4, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein: the first and second lateral ends of the first tray are positioned at extremities of the first tray (with the modification of reversal of the lateral and longitudinal ends as stated above, Taniguchi teaches the first and second lateral ends of the first tray are positioned at extremities of the first tray); and the third and fourth lateral ends of the second tray are positioned at extremities of the second tray (with the modification of reversal of the lateral and longitudinal ends as stated above, Taniguchi teaches the third and fourth lateral ends of the second tray are positioned at extremities of the second tray).
For claim 6, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein: the second tray includes a second overlap section extending horizontal longitudinally at the second horizontal longitudinal end of the second tray, said second overlap section extending at a height that is lower than said height of bottom surface of said second tray (fig. 5 of Taniguchi shows the left side having an overlap section or ledge at the end and this section or ledge is lower than the bottom portion, depending where the user define “bottom portion” because the limitation is broad and can cover any portion that is in the bottom area of the tray).
For claim 7, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of: the male and female parts are configured to connect along a vertical direction and prevent the inter-tray joint from protruding into a plant growing space of the system (either scenarios, the limitation is functional recitation to which the connection of the male and female parts can and does performed the intended function as shown in fig. 5 of Taniguchi).
For claim 8, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of: the interstitial medium is an elastomer (the self-adjusting flexible rubber as taught by Vincent is an elastomer); the interstitial medium includes silicone; or the interstitial medium includes a layer of adhesive.
For claim 10, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the male part is an integral part of the first tray and the female part is an integral part of the second tray (integral as in together forming a whole unit, which both the male and female parts are integral part of the trays in Taniguchi).
For claim 11, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second tray is configured to be removably connected to the first tray via the inter-tray joint (functional recitation to which the inter-tray joint can and does perform the intended function of “configured to be removably connected” by way of removing the self-adjusting flexible rubber as taught in Vincent connection at ref. 2 of Taniguchi).
For claim 12, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the interstitial medium is one of: attached to the male part; or removably attached to the male part (the rubber material as relied on Vincent will be attached to both male and female parts of Taniguchi, thus, covers the male part).
For claim 13, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first and second trays are end trays of the tray system (the user can select the ends trays shown in fig. 1 of Taniguchi, for Taniguchi teaches sectional trays that can be attached together).
For claim 14, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 17, and further teaches wherein each end tray of the tray system includes a sidewall (see fig. 1 of Taniguchi) defining a closed longitudinal end of the respective end tray.
For claim 15, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first and second trays include an end tray and an intermediate tray of the tray system (as shown in fig. 1 of Taniguchi , the user can select the ends trays and/or trays as desired, for Taniguchi teaches sectional trays that can be attached together), the plant growing tray system including: an additional end tray configured to be connected to the intermediate tray via an additional inter-tray joint (per Taniguchi’s teaching and as combined for the rubber material of Vincent to create the inter-tray joint).
For claim 16, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first and second trays include an end tray and an intermediate tray of the tray system (as shown in fig 1 of Taniguchi, the user can select the ends trays and/or trays in Taniguchi as desired, for Watanabe teaches sectional trays that can be attached together), the plant growing tray system including: a plurality of additional intermediate trays sequentially connected via a plurality of intermediate inter-tray joints (as shown in fig. 1 of Taniguchi, the user can select the ends trays and/or trays in Taniguchi as desired, for Taniguchi teaches sectional trays that can be attached together; per Taniguchi’s teaching and as combined for the rubber material of Vincent to create the inter-tray joint), the second tray configured to be connected to a first longitudinal end of the plurality of additional intermediate trays via a second inter-tray joint (per the connection of the combination of Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al.), and an additional end tray configured to be connected to a second longitudinal end of the plurality of additional intermediate trays via an additional inter-tray joint (per the connection of the combination of Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al.).
For claim 17, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the interstitial medium surrounds the male part (as taught in Vincent).
For claim 18, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the male part continuously extends between the first and second lateral ends of the first tray and the female part continuously extends between the third and fourth lateral ends of the second tray (as shown in figs. 1,2,5 of Taniguchi per reversal of parts as stated in the above rejection of claim 1).
For claim 19, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the inter-tray joint is configured to be positioned outside of the first and second plant growing spaces to form a substantially continuous plant growing space by connecting the first plant growing space to the second plant growing space (functional recitation to which the inter-tray joint of Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. can and does performed the intended function of “configured to be positioned outside”).
For claim 20, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the male part is positioned vertically below the first plant growing space and the female part is positioned vertically below the second plant growing space (fig. 5 of Taniguchi, the planting medium and plants will be above the male/female parts).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pope (US 9149006 B1).
For claim 5, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 1, but is silent about wherein the inter-tray joint includes an adhesive.
Pope teaches a plant growing tray system, wherein Pope discusses in the description of related art that an adhesive is notoriously well-known in the art to be used to join two sections of a planter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rubber material of Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. with an adhesive as taught by Pope, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of material would result in joining the parts of the tray system together). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riley (US 20200029505 A1).
For claim 9, Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. teaches the plant growing tray system as claimed in claim 8, but is silent about wherein the elastomer is neoprene.
Riley teaches a plant growing system, wherein Riley uses a seal such as neoprene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rubber material of Taniguchi as modified by Vincent et al. with neoprene as taught by Riley, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of material would result in joining the parts of the tray system together). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the Applicant submits that it is now clear that Taniguchi does not disclose or render obvious the above-noted claim features. Taniguchi discloses a tray system in which the male part does not extend to a height below the bottom-most underside of the bottom surface of the first tray, and the female portion also does not extend to a height below the bottom-most underside of the bottom surface of the second tray.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because as illustrated in the above examiner’s illustration, Taniguchi still teaches the added limitations. Thus, the added limitations do not overcome the rejection under Taniguchi. As applicant can see from the illustration above, the male part does extend to a height below the bottom-most underside of the bottom surface of the first tray (see also the dashed line in the illustration which shows the male part being under the underside of the first tray), and the female portion also does not extend to a height below the bottom-most underside of the bottom surface of the second tray (see also the dashed line in the illustration which shows the female part being below the underside of the second tray).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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