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 § 112
Claims 1-4, 7-14, 17, 19, 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 29 recite “a distal end of each protrusion of the two longitudinal outer ends is narrower than a proximal end of that protrusion, and a distal end of each recess of the two longitudinal outer ends is wider than a proximal end of that recess.”
This feature is not considered to be supported by the drawings as drawings are not considered to scale, and the amended limitations were not found to be portrayed by the drawings due to a lack of emphasis for this shape. Furthermore the Office turned to the specifications to determine whether support for these limitations were found in the original disclosure however the specifications are also silent to this tapering design that is being claimed.
Claims 2-3, 7-14, 17, 19, 26-28 are similarly rejected due to dependency on a rejected claim above.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-13, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20160109298 A) in view of Furukawa (GB 2266647 A).
Regarding claim 1: Choi discloses a tray (10) for cultivating a crop or precursor thereof, , wherein the tray (10) comprising an upper wall (11) with a number of holders (20) for holding therein the crop or precursor thereof, wherein the holders are formed by a number of longitudinally extending rows of cup-shaped recesses (21) in the upper wall (Fig. 1), the upper wall also comprises a groove-like recess (30) arranged between adjacent rows of cup-shaped recesses and extending in longitudinal direction (Fig. 2).
Choi fails to teach the tray is provided at each of two longitudinal outer ends with both recesses and corresponding protrusions, and the recesses and corresponding protrusions of each longitudinal outer end are configured for engagement with protrusions and recesses, respectively of another tray, a distal end of each protrusion of the two longitudinal outer ends is narrower than a proximal end of that protrusion, and a distal end of each recess of the two longitudinal outer ends is wider than a proximal end of that recess.
Furukawa teaches the box is provided with both a recess (208) and a corresponding protrusion (207), and the recess and corresponding protrusion (207,208) are configured for engagement with a protrusion and a recess, respectively of another box (“portions 207 and 208 for connecting the boxes together.”), and a distal end of each protrusion (207 (of the two longitudinal outer ends is narrower than a proximal end of that protrusion, and a distal end of each recess (208) of the two longitudinal outer ends is wider than a proximal end of that recess (See annotated Fig. below)
PNG
media_image1.png
132
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 longitudinal outer ends of the tray as disclosed by Choi with the mating elements as taught by Furukawa with a reasonable expectation of success because including mating features on two sides of the tray would allow for a numerous amount of trays to be attached together, therefore further reducing the space required by the cultivations of a crop within a greenhouse system.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the tray comprises at least three rows of cup-shaped recesses (21) and at least one groove-like recess (30) is arranged between adjacent rows of cup-shaped recesses (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3: Modified Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the tray comprises a number of sliding surfaces (12) formed on undersides of two lateral side edges of the tray to support the tray for sliding on top of girder profiles of a greenhouse system (the walls 12 would be able to meet this limitation, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses guides (12) formed along lateral side edges of the tray for guiding the tray between side surfaces of adjacent girder profiles of a greenhouse system (this functional limitation could be met, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7: Modified Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the groove- like recess (30) extends over a whole length of the tray (10, Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 8: Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the groove- like recess (30) is embodied to form part of an uninterrupted passage when a number of trays are placed one behind the other (Figs. 2-3 suggest this functional limitation being met).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein a width of the groove-like recess (30) is constant (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10: Modified Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein a cross- section of the groove-like recess (30) is embodied for guiding along a crop treatment unit therein (grooves 30 could be used for nutrient supplying tubing).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein a part of the upper wall (11) between a row of cup-shaped recesses (21) and the groove-like recess (30) has a support surface (22a, Fig. 2) for supporting the crop or precursor thereof arranged in the cup-shaped recesses (surface 22a would be able to meet this limitation),
Regarding claim 13: Modified Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein a non-recessed portion the upper wall (11) is flat (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 26: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Modified Choi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the support surface has a width of at least 1 or 2 centimeters. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the width of the support surface to be at least 1 or 2 centimeters, 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. Such change to the size would be done in order to ensure that the tray has enough strength to support the weight of the plants.
Regarding claim 28: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Choi as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein: the tray is provided at each of the two longitudinal outer ends with at least one more recess and at least one more corresponding protrusion, and the at least one more recess and the at least one more corresponding protrusion of each longitudinal outer end are configured for engagement with at least one more protrusion and at least one more recess, respectively of another tray. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the amount of recesses and protrusions, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Providing additional protrusions and recesses would achieve the predictable result of providing further securement among the trays decreasing the likelihood of undesirable disassembly.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Furukawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (KR 108199724 A, cited by applicant in IDS dated 09/13/2022).
Regarding claim 11: Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Choi fails to explicitly teach a strengthening walls extending in transverse direction and formed on an underside of the upper wall and on an underside of the groove-like recess.
However, Jeong teaches a strengthening wall extending in transverse direction and formed on an underside of the upper wall and on an underside of the groove-like recess (Best illustrated in Figs. 3 and 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 provided the tray as disclosed by Choi with the strengthening parts as taught by Jeong with a reasonable expectation of success because including rigid features on the underside of the upper wall and groove recesses would allow for the tray to be supported on a structure within the greenhouse, providing strength and stability throughout the tray so that no part of the tray begins to deform.
Claims 14, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Furukawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Didak (BE 1015887 A3).
Regarding claim 14: Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Choi fails to teach wherein the tray comprises additional recesses formed in each of the two longitudinal outer ends in an upper, non-recessed flat part of the upper wall and/or in the groove-like recess.
However, Orschulik teaches wherein: the tray comprises additional recesses (6, Fig. 2) formed in each of the two longitudinal outer ends at an upper, non-recessed flat part of the upper wall and/or in the groove-like recess (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 tray as disclosed by Choi with the additional recesses as taught by Didak with a reasonable expectation of success because including recesses on the edges of the tray and near the groove ends would allow for a user or machine to engage the tray for easier means of transportation or alignment.
Regarding claim 27: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 14 as shown above.
Didak further teaches wherein the recesses are arranged in one or more of the following: an upper, non-recessed flat part of the upper wall, the groove-like recess, or longitudinal outer ends of the groove-like recess (recesses are arranged in groove-like recess).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Furukawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boudreau (US 5664370 A).
Regarding claim 17: Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Choi fails to teach wherein the groove- like recess comprises a bottom and wherein one or more openings are arranged in the bottom.
However, Boudreau teaches wherein: the groove- like recess (15, Fig. 3A-3B) comprises a bottom, the bottom of the groove-like recess is rounded and/or chamfered (Fig. 3A) and one or more openings are arranged in the bottom (Col 2 lines 54-58, “On the other hand, a plurality of openings or apertures can be formed at the bottom of the V-groove portion or pleat 15 along the folding line 16 of the V-groove portion or pleat 15 for the purpose of water drainage.”).
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 grooves as disclosed by Choi with the openings as taught by Boudreau with a reasonable expectation of success because including openings at the bottom of the groove would allow for any fluid or water to drain out of the tray system.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Furukawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schneider (US 20210212275 A1).
Regarding claim 19: Modified Choi discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Choi fails to explicitly teach wherein the tray is manufactured from plastic and/or wherein the tray comprises four rows of in each case three cup- shaped recesses.
However, Schneider teaches wherein: the tray (42) is manufactured from plastic (para 72) and/or the tray comprises at least four rows with at least three cup- shaped recesses (56, Fig. 2) in each row.
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 tray as disclosed by Choi with the plastic material as taught by Schneider with a reasonable expectation of success because changing the material of the tray to be plastic would provide the necessary amount of stability and strength to support the fluid/crops within the cultivation tray. Furthermore it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20160109298 A) in view of Furukawa (GB 2266647 A) Didak (BE 1015887 A3), and Boudreau (US 5664370 A).
Regarding claim 29: Choi discloses a tray (10) for cultivating a crop or precursor thereof, the tray comprising: an upper wall (11) with a number of holders (20) for holding therein the crop or precursor thereof, wherein: the holders are formed by a number of longitudinally extending rows of cup-shaped recesses (21) in the upper wall (Fig. 1), the upper wall also comprises a groove-like recess (30) arranged between adjacent rows of cup-shaped recesses and extending in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2).
Choi fails to explicitly teach the tray is provided at each of two longitudinal outer ends with both a recess and a corresponding protrusion, the recess and corresponding protrusion of each longitudinal outer end are configured for engagement with a protrusion and recess, respectively of another tray, a distal end of each protrusion of the two longitudinal outer ends is narrower than a proximal end of that protrusion, a distal end of each recess of the two longitudinal outer ends is wider than a proximal end of that recess, the tray comprises additional recesses formed in each of the two longitudinal outer ends at an upper, non-recessed flat part of the upper wall and/or in the groove-like recess and the additional recesses extend from a top of the tray to a bottom of the tray, and one or more holes are provided at a bottom of the groove-like recess for discharging water and/or ventilation.
Furukawa teaches the box is provided with both a recess (208) and a corresponding protrusion (207), and the recess and corresponding protrusion (207,208) are configured for engagement with a protrusion and a recess, respectively of another box (“portions 207 and 208 for connecting the boxes together.”), and a distal end of each protrusion (207) of the two longitudinal outer ends is narrower than a proximal end of that protrusion, and a distal end of each recess (208) of the two longitudinal outer ends is wider than a proximal end of that recess (See annotated Fig. below)
PNG
media_image1.png
132
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 longitudinal outer ends of the tray as disclosed by Choi with the mating elements as taught by Furukawa with a reasonable expectation of success because including mating features on two sides of the tray would allow for a numerous amount of trays to be attached together, therefore further reducing the space required by the cultivations of a crop within a greenhouse system.
Didak teaches the tray comprises additional recesses (6, Fig. 2) formed in each of the two longitudinal outer ends at an upper, non-recessed flat part of the upper wall and/or in the groove-like recess (4) and the additional recesses extend from a top of the tray to a bottom of the tray, (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 tray as disclosed by modified Choi with the additional recesses as taught by Didak with a reasonable expectation of success because including recesses on the edges of the tray and near the groove ends would allow for a user or machine to engage the tray for easier means of transportation or alignment.
Boudreau teaches one or more holes are provided at a bottom of the groove-like recess for discharging water and/or ventilation (Col 2 lines 54-58, “On the other hand, a plurality of openings or apertures can be formed at the bottom of the V-groove portion or pleat 15 along the folding line 16 of the V-groove portion or pleat 15 for the purpose of water drainage.”).
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 grooves as disclosed by modified Choi with the openings as taught by Boudreau with a reasonable expectation of success because including openings at the bottom of the groove would allow for any fluid or water to drain out of the tray system, decreasing the likelihood of any bacteria forming.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Furukawa does not teach the amended limitations. The Office respectfully disagrees, as the claims do not provide a proper configuration of what is considered “distal” or “proximal”. As seen in the annotated Fig. above, a user could consider the ends of the protrusion/recess furthest from the center of the apparatus to be the proximal end, and the ends of protrusion/recess closest to the center of the structure to be the distal. Furthermore as stated above, this amended limitation is new matter as it does not seem to explicitly discussed within the specification and the drawings are not considered to be to scaled unless described as such.
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
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642