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 .
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20150096949) in view of Griffin et al. (WO 2021237294), hereinafter Griffin.
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches of (fig. 1) a modular system (modular garden system 100) for creating floral scenic designs (fig. 8, can put plants and flowers in the flowerpots 90 to create a floral scenic design with the modular system 100), the system comprising:
a plurality of panels (rectangular frame 10) with a front face (front face seen in fig. 2), a rear face (rear face seen in fig. 3) and a perimeter edge (perimeter of frame 10);
wherein each panel (10) comprises mutual constraint devices (fig.1, hooks 20, grooves 21; fig. 7, hook member 40, groove 41) between adjacent panels along the perimeter edge (seen in figs. 1 and 7); and
a plurality of containers for plants (fig. 8 flower pots 90), each constrained to, or which can be constrained to a respective panel (seen in fig. 8);
Chang does not appear to teach of wherein the mutual constraint devices between adjacent panels are positioned according to an octagonal arrangement.
Griffin teaches of (fig. 1a) wherein the mutual constraint devices (connectors 13) between adjacent panels (geometric blocks 11) are positioned according to an octagonal arrangement (¶0226, block shapes can be octagonal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate the teachings of Griffin of wherein the mutual constraint devices between adjacent panels are positioned according to an octagonal arrangement in order to pick a shape that the user finds aesthetically pleasing and to connect more panels on the sides per panel.
Regarding claim 2, Chang as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein at least some of said panels (10) comprise a lattice structure (fig. 1, seen at the X portion).
Regarding claim 3, Chang as modified teaches of claim 1, wherein (fig. 8) each container (90) consists of a component physically separated from the respective panel (flowerpots are a physically separated component from the modular garden system 100) and connectable thereto using mutual connection devices between container and panel (¶0021, flowerpots 90 hanged on a transverse member between two adjacent openings 11).
Regarding claim 7, Chang as modified teaches of claim 1, and (figs. 1 and 7) wherein the constraint devices (20, 21, 40, 41) are arranged along the perimeter edge of each panel (seen in figs. 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Chang as modified teaches of claim 1, and with which there are associated mutual constraint devices (figs. 1 and 7, the sides of the frames are associated with mutual constraint devices 20, 21, 40, 41).
Chang does not appear to teach of wherein the panels are octagonal and the respective perimeter edge of each panel comprises a plurality of straight sides consecutive with respect to each other.
Griffin teaches of wherein the panels are octagonal and the respective perimeter edge of each panel comprises a plurality of straight sides consecutive with respect to each other (fig. 1, ¶0226, block shapes can be octagonal which by definition by Oxford languages have a plurality of straight sides consecutive with respect to each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate the teachings of Griffin of wherein the panels are octagonal and the respective perimeter edge of each panel comprises a plurality of straight sides consecutive with respect to each other in order to pick a shape that the user finds aesthetically pleasing and to fit more panels on the sides per panel.
Regarding claim 9, Chang as modified teaches of claim 8, and Griffin further teaches of wherein said panels are regular octagons (fig. 1, panels are geometric blocks 11. ¶00226, the geometric blocks can be octagonal. Geometric is defined as “characterized by or decorated with regular lines and shapes” by Oxford Languages, which means that a geometric octagon in Griffin would be regular octagons).
Regarding claim 15, Chang as modified teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 8) wherein the containers (90) comprise lower openings for discharging irrigation water (has lower openings for allowing the tube go through it and could be used to discharge irrigation water).
Regarding claim 18, Chang teaches of (fig. 1) a modular system (modular garden system 100) for creating floral scenic designs (fig. 8, can put plants and flowers in the flowerpots 90 to create a floral scenic design with the modular system 100), the system comprising:
a plurality of panels (rectangular frame 10) with a front face (front face seen in fig. 2), a rear face (rear face seen in fig. 3) and a perimeter edge (perimeter of frame 10),
wherein each of the panels (10) comprises mutual constraint devices (fig.1, hooks 20, grooves 21; fig. 7, hook member 40, groove 41) between adjacent panels along the perimeter edge (seen in figs. 1 and 7); and
a plurality of containers for plants (fig. 8 flower pots 90), each constrained to, or which can be constrained to a respective panel (seen in fig. 8).
Chang does not appear to teach of each of the panels being in a shape of an octagon, wherein the mutual constraint devices between adjacent panels are positioned according to an octagonal arrangement.
Griffin teaches of (fig. 1a) each of the panels being in a shape of an octagon (¶0226, block shapes can be octagonal), wherein the mutual constraint devices (connectors 13) between adjacent panels (geometric blocks 11) are positioned according to an octagonal arrangement (¶0226, block shapes can be octagonal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate the teachings of Griffin of each of the panels being in a shape of an octagon, wherein the mutual constraint devices between adjacent panels are positioned according to an octagonal arrangement in order to pick a shape that the user finds aesthetically pleasing and to connect more panels on the sides per panel.
Regarding claim 19, Chang as modified teaches of claim 18, and wherein at least some of said panels (10) comprise a lattice structure (fig. 1, seen at the X portion).
Regarding claim 20, Chang as modified teaches of claim 18, and wherein (fig. 8) each container (90) consists of a component physically separated from the respective panel (flowerpots are a physically separated component from the modular garden system 100) and connectable thereto using mutual connection devices between container and panel (¶0021, flowerpots 90 hanged on a transverse member between two adjacent openings 11).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, as modified by Griffin and as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shah (WO 2014167576).
Regarding claim 4, Chang as modified teaches of claim 3, but does not appear to teach of wherein the mutual connection devices between each panel and the respective container comprise mutually couplable male and female elements.
Shah teaches of wherein the mutual connection devices between each panel and the respective container comprise mutually couplable male and female elements (figs. 1, 4A, and 10A, support snubs 3 in each cavity for the pots to get good anchorage at the top and bottom. The support snubs anchors to the top and bottom of the pots as see in fig. 4A and 10B. In fig. 4A, there is a cavity that is a female element to accept the bottom support snubs 3 for anchorage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate the teachings of Shah of wherein the mutual connection devices between each panel and the respective container comprise mutually couplable male and female elements in order to provide good anchorage of the containers to the frame.
Regarding claim 5, Chang as modified teaches of claim 4, and Shah further teaches of (fig. 9A) wherein the connection devices comprise male elements on the panel (support snubs 3) and female elements on the container (fig. 4A, there is a cavity that is a female element to accept the bottom support snubs 3 for anchorage).
Regarding claim 6, Chang as modified teaches of claim 5, but does not appear to teach of wherein the male elements are housed in respective windows obtained in the panel, and wherein - in assembled configuration - the female elements on the container are housed in said windows.
Shah teaches of (fig. 1) wherein the male elements (3) are housed in respective windows (cavities 2) obtained in the panel (seen in fig. 1), and wherein - in assembled configuration - the female elements (cavity on the bottom of the pots to anchor to the bottom support snubs 3) on the container are housed in said windows (seen in fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate the teachings of Shah of wherein the male elements are housed in respective windows obtained in the panel, and wherein - in assembled configuration - the female elements on the container are housed in said windows in order to anchor the containers into the respective windows and keep them in place.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, as modified by Griffin and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Taylor (US 11252875).
Regarding claim 10, Chang as modified teaches of claim 1, and (figs. 5 and 7) wherein the constraint devices (20, 21, 40, 41) comprise male coupling elements (hooks 20, 40) and female coupling elements (grooves 21, 41) complementary to each other and which can be mutually connected (seen in figs. 5, and 7).
Chang does not appear to teach of wherein male coupling elements are arranged along a first half of the perimeter edge of each panel female coupling elements are arranged and along a second half of the perimeter edge of each panel.
Taylor teaches of wherein (fig. 3) along a first half of the perimeter edge (top and left edges) of each panel male coupling elements are arranged (protruding crenellation pattern 24 are arranged) and along a second half of the perimeter edge (bottom and right edges) of each panel female coupling elements are arranged (grooves of the crenellation pattern 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate the teachings of Taylor of wherein along a first half of the perimeter edge of each panel male coupling elements are arranged and along a second half of the perimeter edge of each panel female coupling elements are arranged in order to provide ample connection points around the perimeter for better customization of the arrangement of panels.
Regarding claim 11, Chang as modified teaches of claim 10, and (figs. 5 and 7) wherein the male coupling elements (20, 40) comprise hooks (hooks 20, 40) protruding from the perimeter edge (seen in figs. 5 and 7) and contained in the thickness of the respective panel (hooks are within the boundaries of the thickness of the respective panel); and wherein the female coupling elements (21, 41) comprise recesses (grooves 21, 41) along the perimeter edge and therein (grooves 21, 41 are along the perimeter edge and are within the perimeter edges of the panels).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, as modified by Griffin and Taylor and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kirkwood (US 20080047918).
Regarding claim 12, Chang as modified teaches of claim 11, and wherein (fig. 8) the recesses (21, 41) are arranged on a rear face of the respective panel (of the recesses 21, recess 21 arranged on the rear face facing rearwards) and the hooks (20, 40) protrude from the rear surface of the panel (protrudes from the rear face of the frame 10) toward the external of the perimeter edge (extends out externally to the side of the perimeter edge).
Chang does not appear to teach of the hooks protrude toward the front face of the panel.
Kirkwood teaches of the hooks (fig. 8-B, tab and recess portions 830, 840) protrude toward the front face of the panel (fig. 9-A, tab and recess portions 830, 840 extends from the rear face towards the front face of the panel 800-A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate the teachings of Kirkwood of the hooks protrude toward the front face of the panel in order to change the directionality of the orientation of the frame and adjust how the user would like to attach and hook different panels together.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, as modified by Griffin and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Birdrock Home (https://a.co/d/dHyfqcg), hereinafter Birdrock.
Regarding claim 13, Chang as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein each panel comprises fixing members for fixing to a load-bearing structure.
Birdrock teaches of (p. 1) wherein each panel (wall grid) comprises fixing members (mounting hardware to the wall) for fixing to a load-bearing structure (fixes it to a wall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate the teachings of Birdrock of wherein each panel comprises fixing members for fixing to a load-bearing structure in order to mount the frame to a wall.
Regarding claim 14, Chang as modified teaches of claim 13, but does not appear to teach of wherein the fixing members comprise through holes for each coupling member.
Birdrock teaches of (p. 3) wherein the fixing members (mounting hardware of the black circles to the wall) comprise through holes (holes of the fixing members) for each coupling member (can see two screws as the coupling members at the top corners of the gird and the screws are through the through holes of the fixing members).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang to incorporate the teachings of Birdrock of wherein the fixing members comprise through holes for each coupling member in order to use a simple and well-known mechanism of drilling a hole through the wall and mounting the frame to the wall via a screw through the through holes of the fixing members and to the hole in the wall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., The structure disclosed in Chang is not adapted to create compositions wherein letters or numbers are formed by a pattern of plant containers arranged according to a desired sequence of letters and numbers as featured in the present invention) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, letters and numbers can be formed through quadrangular shapes, such as the letters H and L, and numbers 1 and 4, similarly to pixels on a screen, and one of ordinary skill in the arts would be able to arrange any shape to form letters and numbers.
Applicant argues that Chang and Griffin does not teach of suggest mutual constraint devices between adjacent panels that are positioned according to an octagonal arrangement as claimed because Chang teaches of a squash mesh and Griffin teaches of a hexagonal mesh. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Griffin teaches in para. 0226 that the shape of the blocks can be octagons. One of ordinary skill in the art would change the shape of the meshes to octagons or any shape they desire in order to have their preference for design and aesthetics and how they want the devices to be arranged.
In response to applicant's argument that a combination of Chang and Griffin is not possible since Chang and Griffin are based on mutually excluding approaches where Change uses quadrangular meshes and Griffin uses continuous undulated beams to form a rigid grid pattern of hexagonal meshes, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Griffin is used to teach that the shape of the meshes can be octagons and can be arranged in an octagonal arrangement side by side as taught in para. 0226. Chang already teaches of a modular structure where adjacent panels can be coupled together.
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 ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647