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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the amended claim language of “wherein the first height of the sidewalls of the carrier is greater than the second height of the end walls of the carrier” was previously provided in the claim 1 lines 2-4, with the use of differing language. Applicant should revise claim 1 so that there is no repetition of the same limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 4 are dependent on claim 2, however claim 2 was cancelled previously in prosecution and its subject matter incorporated into claim 1. Applicant should revise claim 3 to properly reflect that it is dependent on claim 1.
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, 3-5,7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eland (EP 2817233 B1) in view of Coit (US 2622830 A) and Poeppelmann (DE 202012010529 U1).
Regarding claim 1: Eland discloses a carrier system, comprising: a) a carrier (150), a pair of opposing side walls (151) extending upwards from the base to a first height, a pair of opposing end walls (211) extending upwards from the base to a second height, lower than the first height (Fig. 15), a plurality of spaced apart first connector elements (see Fig. 6) extending upward from each side wall (Fig. 6), a plurality of spaced apart second connector (186) elements extending downwards from each side wall, wherein each of the plurality of first connector element is sized and adapted to engage with the second connector element of a similarly constructed carrier (Fig. 9); and b) a tray (10,20,30) that is adapted to be accommodated on the upper surface of the base (193) of the carrier, the tray having a rectangular frame enclosing a plurality of open-ended cells arranged in an array (Fig. 13), each cell enclosing a central cavity for receiving a plant pot, wherein the tray is insertable onto and/or removable from the base of the carrier while the carrier is engaged with another similarly constructed carrier (Fig. 20).
Eland fails to teach a perforated base, and a bottom surface of each cell comprising one or more spacer elements, wherein an upper surface of the base comprises one or more raised sliding rails and wherein the tray is insertable onto and/or removable from the base of the carrier via sliding interaction between at least some of the spacer elements over at least some of the sliding rails..
Coit teaches a carrier comprising a perforated base (Fig. 4), wherein an upper surface of the base comprises one or more raised sliding rails (18,37).
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 carrier as disclosed by Eland with the perforations and rails as taught by Coit with a reasonable expectation of success because such perforations would allow for the introduction and ventilation of air through the carrier, thereby naturally providing air to any plants that are positioned within the tray and giving them optimal conditions, and providing such railing would further strengthen the carrier and provide a distance between the base of the carrier and bottom of the tray, which would allow for easier removal and insertion of the tray into the carrier.
Poeppelmann teaches a bottom surface of each cell (2) comprising one or more spacer elements (10, Fig. 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 provided the tray as disclosed by Modified Eland with the bottom spacing elements as taught by Poeppelmann with a reasonable expectation of success because providing such elements within the cells of the tray would allow for air to enter into the plants as well as provide an area for any excess water to drain from.
The combination of art would go on to read the remaining limitations of the claim: wherein the tray (Eland 10,20,30) is insertable onto and/or removable from the base of the carrier via sliding interaction between at least some of the spacer elements (Poeppelmann 10) over at least some of the sliding rails (Coit 18, 37)
Regarding claim 3: Eland as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Eland as modified does not teach wherein a lower surface of the base further comprises diagonal ribs, raised outwardly away from the bottom surface, the diagonal ribs configured to provide torsional stiffness to the carrier.
However, Coit teaches wherein a lower surface of the base further comprises diagonal ribs (26,27), raised outwardly away from the bottom surface, the diagonal ribs configured to provide torsional stiffness to the carrier (Col 2 lines 28-29, 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 provided the base of the carrier as disclosed by modified Eland with the diagonal ribs as taught by Coit with a reasonable expectation of success because such diagonal sections would serve as a cross brace, providing strength for the carrier and decreasing the likelihood that the carrier becomes deformed due to any external forces.
Regarding claim 4: Eland as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the diagonal ribs (Coit 26,27) are arranged at an angle to each other to form a cross brace on the lower surface of the base (Coit Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5: Eland as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the tray (30) is insertable and/or removable onto/from the base via the sliding interaction while the first connector element of the carrier is engaged to the second connector element of a similarly shaped carrier stacked on top of the given carrier (211 being a movable door would allow for this functional limitation to be met, Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 7: Eland as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the tray is accommodated onto the carrier over an end wall (211) of the carrier, and wherein upon accommodating the tray on the carrier, lateral movement of the tray is limited via the side walls of the carrier and longitudinal movement of the tray is limited via the terminal walls of the carrier (211 is a movable door, which would allow for this functional limitation to be met by opening when inserting the tray, and once inserted the tray would be prohibited by closing the door).
Regarding claim 8: Eland as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as shown above (See 112b), and further teaches wherein the one or more sliding rails (Coit 18,37) includes a central sliding rail (Coit 37) raised from the base of the frame and extending along a central longitudinal axis of the carrier (Coit Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9: Eland as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as shown above. wherein the one or more sliding rails includes one or more peripheral sliding rails (Coit 18), parallel to and offset from the central sliding rail (Coit 37, Fig. 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eland, Coit, and Poeppelmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scalf (US 6752285 B1).
Regarding claim 10: Eland as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Eland as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the carrier further comprises a nesting element comprising an opening at a corner of the base, and wherein when another similarly constructed carrier is nested on top of the given carrier, the second connector element of the another carrier is received through the opening of the given carrier.
However, Scalf teaches wherein the carrier further comprises a nesting element comprising an opening (30) at a corner of the base (Col 4 lines 35-37, “Each corner area 26 of base 22 can have a recess or cutout 28, which also can preferably include an aperture 30 extending therethrough”).
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 carrier as disclosed by modified Eland with the corner apertures as taught by Scalf with a reasonable expectation of success because providing corner apertures would allow for the connection elements of the above carrier to enter, therefore reducing the amount of space needed for carrying multiple carriers and thus making transportation easier.
The combination of art would teach the remaining limitations of wherein when another similarly constructed carrier is nested on top of the given carrier (Eland 150), the second connector element (Eland 186) of the another carrier is received through the opening (Scalf 30) of the given carrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art did not teach the limitations of claim 6. The Office respectfully disagrees, as the final rejection dated 06/11/2025 rejected this claim with art. Furthermore the limitation was just a repetition of language cited earlier in claim 1, which resulted in a rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(d). Applicant should see the claim objection above in order to resolve the repetitive claim language used in claim 1.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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