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 1,2,6,8,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (US 20200120884 A1) in view of Park (KR 101251203 B1) and Van Buuren et al. (WO 2020008400 A1).
For claim 1, Zhan et al. teach a tray for a tray assembly for cultivating horticultural crops, the tray comprising:
- a reservoir (104,105) configured to contain water and to receive one or more than one float (20) in the reservoir to substantially shield water contained in the reservoir from the external environment, wherein the one or more than one float is configured to receive one or more than one plant and to be arranged in the reservoir; and
- a water inlet section (in the area of refs. 101,109) that is arranged adjacent the reservoir and comprises a water flow guide (101,110,109), wherein the water flow guide comprises:
- a downward sloping guide surface (fig. 8, inclined surface of ref. 109) of which at least a part is arranged above a maximum water level of the reservoir exposed to the external environment and which is configured to guide water received on said part of the water flow guide into the reservoir under a level at which the one or more than one float is arrangeable in the reservoir; and
-a throughflow opening (101,1094) configured to guide water into a chamber of the water inlet section that is in fluid connection with the reservoir.
However, Zhan et al. are silent about wherein the throughflow opening comprises a water permeable membrane comprising one or more than one flap of a flexible material configured to be pushed aside by an incoming waterflow and resume an initial position to shield water within the water inlet section from the external environment.
Park teaches a tray (110,140,141) for a tray assembly for cultivating horticultural crops, the tray comprising a throughflow opening (141) comprises a water permeable membrane (see fig. 10 for close-up of ref. 141) configured to shield water within the water inlet section (water inlet section of the tray is where ref. 141 is located) from the external environment. In addition, Park shows ref. 141 with some sort of material covering the opening but allow filling operation of nutrient solution, which means that this material has to be some sort of flexible material for the user to apply nutrient solution through ref. 141. In addition, it appears that the material is also non-translucent material, since ref. 141 is not shown to be clear or transparent. However, because these two elements are known in the art, and thus, Park probably does not wish to focus on these minor or known elements in the art, one can only assume from Park’s figures that the water permeable membrane 141 is flexible and non-translucent. 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 water permeable membrane as taught by Parkin the throughflow opening of the tray of Zhan et al. in order to cover or protect the interior from debris or the like.
Zhan et al. as modified by Park are silent about the water permeable membrane comprising one or more than one flap of a flexible material configured to be pushed aside by an incoming waterflow and resume an initial position to shield water within the water inlet section from the external environment.
Van Buuren et al. teach a tray for cultivating crops comprising one or more than one flap of a flexible material (382,383) configured to be pushed aside by an incoming waterflow and resume an initial position to shield water within the water inlet section from the external environment (functional recitation to which the one or more than one flap of a flexible material of Van Buuren can and does perform the intended function of configured to be pushed aside by an incoming waterflow and resume an initial position to shield water within the water inlet section from the external environment). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water permeable membrane of Zhan et al. as modified by Park comprises one or more than one flap of a flexible material as taught by Van Buuren et al. in order to allow water flow entry and prevent debris or the like from entering the reservoir.
For claim 2, Zhan et al. as modified by Park and Van Buuren et al. teach the tray according to claim 1, and further teach wherein the downward sloping guide surface extends substantially along an entire side of the tray (figs. 4-5 of Zhan et al. show the downward sloping guide surface 109 extending substantially along an entire side 107,106 of the tray; noting that the tray has many “sides”, for example, sides created by refs. 107,106, which are occupied by the downward sloping guide surface 109 as shown in fig. 5); and wherein at least of a part of the downward sloping guide surface that is arranged in the water inlet section is arranged above a maximum water level of the reservoir (fig. 8, due to ref. 108, the water level will be maximum at the top of ref. 108, which is where a part of the downward sloping guide surface is arranged).
For claim 6, Zhan et al. as modified by Park and Van Buuren et al. teach the tray according to claim 1, and further teach that the material is also non-translucent material, since ref. 141 of Park is not shown to be clear or transparent.
For claim 8, Zhan et al. as modified by Park and Van Buuren et al. teach the tray according to claim 1, and further teach wherein a top surface of the water flow guide exhibits a downward slope in a direction toward the reservoir of the tray (fig. 8 of Zhan et al.).
For claim 9, Zhan et al. as modified by Park and Van Buuren et al. teach the tray according to claim 1, and further teach wherein the water flow guide is removably insertable into the tray (refs. 101,110,109 are all removable per figs. 7-8 and para. 0091); and wherein at least one of the water flow guide and the tray comprises a recess (106,108,1061,1094), defining the fluid connection between the reservoir and the water inlet section of the tray.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued the following:
First, Applicant disagrees that the element identified as reference 141 is a "membrane." There is absolutely no disclosure in Park that would support the Examiner's conclusion that the element identified as reference 141 constitutes a "membrane".
The examiner respectfully disagrees because, while Park does not discuss in detailed ref. 141, it is very clear from the drawings that ref. 141 is some sort of membrane or thin layer with openings so that the user can fill with water or solution. From the zoomed in below, it is clear that ref. 141 is a thin layer or membrane. While it may not have flaps and all, it is, nevertheless, a membrane because the definition of a membrane is “any thin pliable sheet of material” (www.dictionary.com). In addition, drawings are also crucial part of the description of the invention, thus, if the drawings clearly show an element that meets the definition of a membrane, then one can considered as such. This implied or taught in the reference and not based on the principle of inherency as stated by applicant. The examiner did not indicate in the rejection that reliance of ref. 141 is based on inherency as appears to be implied by applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Second, Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's assertion that the element identified as reference 141 "has to be some sort of flexible material for the user to apply nutrient solution through ref. 141."
The examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant failed to described further what type of material used is considered a flexible material. Nothing in the specification further define the material so as to determine the degree of flexibility because a thin layer of material will be some what flexible due to the thinnest of the material. A thin layer or membrane such as ref. 141 has some sort of flexibility because it is thin, so unless applicant specified the specific material, which applicant did not, the thin layer 141 is considered somewhat flexible material.
Third, Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's assertion that "this material is also non-translucent material, since ref. 141 is not shown to be clear or transparent." The figures in Park identifying ref. 141 make it exceedingly hard to determine what the structure of ref. 141 is, let alone would the figures enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the item is made of non-translucent material.
Based on MPEP 608.02 Drawing, standard symbols are to be used to indicate materials. As illustrated below, ref. 141 is not labeled or shown as transparent material per the drawings. Thus, ref. 141 of Park is considered to be non-translucent material because it is not shown to be clear or transparent.
PNG
media_image2.png
888
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Fourth, Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's assertion that "Park probably does not wish to focus on these minor or known elements in the art, one can only assume from Park's figures that the water permeable membrane 141 is flexible and nontranslucent."
As stated in the above, drawings are part of the description of the invention, and if the drawings clearly show the items, then it is taught in the invention. This implied or taught in the reference and not based on the principle of inherency as stated by applicant. The examiner did not indicate in the rejection that reliance of ref. 141 is based on inherency as appears to be implied by applicant. As stated in the above, ref. 141 is a thin layer that can be considered as a membrane based on the definition. In addition, lack of description in applicant’s specification of what type of material is considered to be a flexible material, ref. 141 is a thin layer of some sort of material that can be considered as a flexible material due to the thinnest of the layer. Most material of a thin dimension has some sort of flexibility, thus, unless applicant specifically define such material, the thin material can be considered flexible material. In addition, as stated in the above, the drawings symbol does not indicate that ref. 141 is transparent. Thus, whatever material used for ref. 141, it is non-translucent or not transparent.
Though not entirely clear, but it appears the Examiner may be relying on the theory of inherency in finding that Park discloses the above-emphasized aspects of the claims. If so, Applicant believes that the theory fails to support the Examiner's allegations.
The examiner did not based on inherency as alleged by applicant. The drawings are part of the description of the invention and not just the specification only. Thus, it is clear from Park’s drawings that ref. 141 is a thin layer that meets the definition of a membrane, and the thin layer 141 is flexible due to its thinnest, based on the lack of description in applicant’s specification for the type of material that is considered to be a flexible material.
Specifically, Van Buuren is devoid of any disclosure that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that inlet cover (382) is made of a flexible material, or that the inlet cover (382) is capable of being pushed aside by an incoming waterflow and resume an initial position to shield water within the water inlet section from the external environment…Contrary to the Examiner's assertion, one of ordinary skill in the art, reading Van Buuren's specification and viewing Van Buuren's figures, would reasonably conclude that the inlet cover (382) is both rigid, and not capable of "being pushed aside by an incoming waterflow and resume an initial position to shield water within the water inlet section from the external environment". Instead, the inlet cover (384) deflects flow and diverts flow through the slits (383), which slow the flow of liquid into the planting tray.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because, as stated in the above, applicant failed to disclose what type of material is considered to be a flexible material. Thus, same response for Park as for Van Buuren, Van Buuren’s cover 382 is a thin layer that meets the definition of a membrane, and because of its thinnest, it is flexible. In addition, the slits or cuts in the membrane would make the membrane more flexible because the slits or cuts would make the material more pliable or weak. Furthermore, based on applicant’s description of the flap’s functionality in the specification, it sounds like it is the same as Van Buuren’s (i.e. to deflect water flow). The specification states: “Even more preferably, the water permeable membrane comprises one or more than one flap of a flexible material. This one or more than one flap is easily pushed aside by an incoming waterflow from, for example, a(n) (automated) watering system to facilitate filling of the reservoir. When filling of the reservoir has been completed, the one or more than one flexible flap reassumes an initial position in which it substantially seals off the throughflow opening of the water flow guide.”. “This one or more than one flap is easily pushed aside by an incoming waterflow from, for example, a(n) (automated) watering system to facilitate filling of the reservoir”, does this not mean the same as “deflects flow and diverts flow through the slits” in Van Buuren? It appears that it is the same functionality because the cover of Van Buuren deflects and diverts water flowing through the slits. Regardless, as stated, the slits would certainly make the cover more flexible than if the slits were not there because the cover is not one solid piece of material.
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