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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the water container portion” in line 7. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “the planar water container portion.”
Dependent claim 9 fails to remedy the deficiency.
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.
Claim 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buist (US 20110030274 A1) in view of Schneider et al. (WO 2017208008 A1), hereinafter Schneider.
Regarding claim 1, Buist discloses a greening system for growing plants comprising
a soil layer for planting plants (¶ 0035, lines 1-3, “During use, the modules 10 may be pre-vegetated by filing the tray 12 with soil or other growing medium and plants or other vegetation [indicated generally as V in FIG. 6]”),
a permeable soil layer supporting portion that supports the soil layer (tray 12; Figs. 1 and 6), and
a planar water container portion that supports the soil layer and the soil layer supporting portion and is provided with a water storage portion and an air layer above the water storage portion (Figs. 1 and 6 show drainage board 16 is a planar water container portion with cloth 14 and holes 20 located above the drainage board 16),
wherein the planar water container portion is configured to have the water storage portion by forming a container unit into a rectangular shape in a top surface view and mating sides of adjacent container units so as to have the water storage portion (Figs. 5, and 8-10 show drainage boards 16 are rectangular container units mated to one another at their respective sides by way of locking mechanism 30);
the container unit has at least two container-shaped portions connected to each other that can each be a water container and are arranged without overlapping each other (locking mechanism 30; Figs. 5, and 8-10); the container unit has, at at least one predetermined position, an overflow portion through which water can overflow into an adjacent container-shaped portion, into the adjacent container unit, and to an outside of the container unit, respectively; (overflow holes 28; Fig. 2; Fig. 7 also shows each drainage board 16 is linked such that water can overflow into each adjacent board by way of each linked side); and
Buist, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the overflow portion provided between the adjacent container units has one groove-shaped projection formed per container unit so that the groove-shaped projection mates to another overflow portion of another container unit.
Schneider is in the field of plant containers and teaches the container unit has, at at least one predetermined position, an overflow portion through which water can overflow into an adjacent container-shaped portion, into the adjacent container unit, and to an outside of the container unit, respectively; wherein the overflow portion provided between the adjacent container units has one groove-shaped projection formed per container unit so that the groove-shaped projection mates to another overflow portion of another container unit (connectors 11a, 11b; Figs. 2b-7; page 28, lines 14-19, “The connectors 11 also present channels in the sides of the bucket 2 and therefore also serve the purpose of being water access holes through which water can be provided into the bucket. These are located at or near the open end of the bucket. These connectors 11 are further designed to provide channels linking adjacent buckets. This facilitates the provision of water to the buckets, as the water can be added to one bucket and allowed to overflow into the adjacent bucket, rather than needing to fill each bucket individually”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Buist such that the overflow portion provided between the adjacent container units has one groove-shaped projection formed per container unit so that the groove-shaped projection mates to another overflow portion of another container unit, as taught by the overflow portions of Schneider. This would facilitate the provision of water to the containers, as the water can be added to one container and allowed to overflow into the adjacent container, rather than needing to fill each container individually. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Buist in view of Schneider discloses the device of claim 1.
Buist discloses wherein the container unit is provided with, at a predetermined position, a reinforced portion connecting the adjacent container-shaped portions (Figs. 8-10 show connections are reinforced).
Regarding claim 3, Buist in view of Schneider discloses the device of claim 1.
Buist discloses wherein the container unit is mountain-folded, i.e., folded into an inverted V shape on two outer sides and valley-folded, i.e., folded into a V shape on another two sides, in which mountain-folded sides are each divided by a notch and have a fixed portion with a hook at a leading end, while valley-folded sides each have a hole for the hook to engage when the sides are mated (Figs. 3, and 8-10).
Regarding claim 4, Buist in view of Schneider discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the container unit is configured to have a groove at a top center of each of two of four side walls forming the container-shaped portion that serves as an overflow portion, allowing water from all of the container-shaped portions in the container unit to overflow to an outside of the container unit (Schneider; connectors 11a, 11b; Figs. 2b-7; page 28, lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 6, Buist in view of Schneider discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the container unit is formed by injection-molding molten thermoplastic resin into a mold at high pressure (Schneider; page 21, line 34 - page 22, line 10, “In one embodiment one or more [and preferably all] of the body, the tray and the bucket are formed from polymeric material. The polymeric material used for each of the body, the tray and the bucket which may be the same or different. The polymeric material could be thermoplastic, or elastomeric, or thermosetting. It may be that one or more of the body, the tray and the bucket are formed from one or more polymers selected from the group consisting of: polystyrene; polypropylene; polythene; polyamides; terephthalate; acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; polyvinyl chloride; and combinations and blends thereof. It will be understood that other materials could, however, be used, for example ceramics, such as pottery. It will be appreciated that the composite product has the advantage of potentially being cheap to produce, as it can be formed from relatively cheap and readily available polymers. The body, the tray and the bucket may each be formed by conventional techniques. In one embodiment the body, the tray and the bucket are each independently formed by thermoforming; and/or injection moulding; and/or extrusion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Buist in view of Schneider such that the container unit is formed by injection-molding molten thermoplastic resin into a mold at high pressure, as taught by the material of Schneider. This would provide the device with a material that is sufficiently rigid as well as flexible, which would improve the function of the overall device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Buist in view of Schneider discloses a method of installing the greening system according to claim 1, wherein the sides of the adjacent container units are mated to each other to render the container unit a water storage portion (Buist; Figs. 5, and 8-10 show drainage boards 16 are rectangular container units mated to one another at their respective sides by way of locking mechanism 30), the water container portion is configured such that an upper part of the container unit corresponding to the overflow portion is to be an air layer (Buist; Figs. 1 and 6 show drainage board 16 is a planar water container portion with cloth 14 and holes 20 located above the drainage board 16), the soil layer supporting portion is arranged so as to be supported by the water container portion, and the soil layer is supported by the soil layer supporting portion (Buist; Figs. 1 and 6; ¶ 0035, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Buist in view of Schneider discloses a method of claim 8, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the overflow portion provided between the adjacent container units has one groove-shaped projection per container unit so that the groove-shaped projection is arranged to mate to another overflow portion of another container unit (Schneider; connectors 11a, 11b; Figs. 2b-7; page 28, lines 14-19).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buist (US 20110030274 A1) in view of Schneider (WO 2017208008 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jang (KR 102004827 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Buist in view of Schneider discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the soil layer supporting portion is a resin net with a yield point strength of not less than 2000 N/m.
Jang is in the field of plant growth and teaches wherein the soil layer supporting portion is a resin net (¶ 0027, line 4, “The first net [120] may be made of metal or synthetic resin, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant growth before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Buist in view of Schneider such that the soil layer supporting portion is a resin net, as taught by the material of Jang. This would provide the soil layer with support that further facilitates rooting, which would improve the function of the overall device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Buist in view of Schneider and Jang such that the resin net has a yield point strength of not less than 2000 N/m in order to provide the net with sufficient strength to accommodate the soil. Additionally, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Ripley, Sr. et al., US 5595021 A, discusses turfing systems for stadia.
McDonough et al., US 6606823 B1, discusses a modular roof covering system.
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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights