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
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 2-3, 6, 8, and 13 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 2 states “each tray segment defining an inset which cooperates with the insets of the other trays.” It is unclear if the insets are cooperating with the insets of other separate trays or with the insets of other tray segments, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Office will read this limitation to say “…which cooperates with the insets of the other tray segments.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said 4 tray segments" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 states “wherein said central mount has a central opening therein for alignment with a drain of said grow tray.” However, “a drain of said grow tray” falls outside of the scope of the stand assembly, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, it does not appear that the grow tray itself is being positively claimed, and therefore, the drain also could not be positively claimed. The Office recommends amending this limitation to state “wherein said central mount has a central opening therein configured to align with a drain of said grow tray” or the like to avoid positively claiming the drain.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kung et al. (US 11612111).
Regarding Claim 1, Kung discloses a grow tray for supporting one or more plants (Abstract), the tray having a bottom (bottom surface 12; Figure 3), an upwardly extending peripheral rim (sidewalls 14), and at least one drain through said bottom (drainage hole 16; Figure 3), comprising:
a plurality of associable tray segments, each tray segment defining a portion of said bottom of said tray and having at least one side defining a portion of said upwardly extending peripheral rim (segmented off by channels 19; Figure 3), a plurality of supports (ribs 18) extending upwardly from said bottom (Figure 3), and one or more channels defined between said supports (channels 19).
Regarding Claim 4, Kung discloses the grow tray in accordance with claim 1, wherein said one or more channels comprise at least one first channel, at least one second channel extending orthogonal to the at least one first channel, and at least one third channel extending diagonally to said at least one first and at least one second channel (shown in annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Kung discloses the grow tray in accordance with claim 4, wherein said least one third channel extends to said at least one drain (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Kung discloses the grow tray in accordance with claim 1, wherein a flange extending outwardly from a top of said rim (ledge 44; Figure 3).
Claims 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gergek (US 2015/0135588).
Regarding Claim 9, Gergek discloses A stand assembly (Figure 6B) for supporting a grow tray (Abstract) comprising: a plurality of legs, each leg having a top and a bottom (shown in annotated Figure 6b below);
a plurality of beams, each beam configured to be detachably mounted to pairs of the plurality of legs (shown in annotated Figure 6b below, detachment shown in Figures 7a-7b; Paragraph [0061]); and
a central support, said central support comprising a central mount (center of 92; Figure 6B) and one or more cross-supports extending between the central mount and an adjacent beam for supporting the central mount in a raised position above the bottoms of the legs (shown in annotated Figure 6b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Gergek discloses the stand assembly in accordance with claim 9, comprising four legs and four beams (Figure 6B).
Regarding Claim 12, Gergek discloses the stand assembly in accordance with claim 9, wherein each of said plurality of beams has a first end and a second end and a middle, said cross-supports extending inwardly from the middle of each beam (Figure 6B).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung et al. (US 11612111) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosen et al. (US 2024/0010383)
Regarding Claim 2, Kung discloses the grow tray of claim 1. Kung further discloses wherein said tray comprises four tray segments (divided by channels 19).
Kung fails to disclose wherein each segment has four sides, wherein first and second sides define portions of said upwardly extending peripheral rim of said tray, and each tray segment defining an inset which cooperates with the insets of the other trays to define said drain.
However, Rosen teaches a similar plant growth tray wherein said tray comprises four tray segments (tray modules 310, 320, 370, 390; Figure 4), each having four sides (for example module 310 has sides 311, 312, 313, 314; Figure 3), wherein first and second sides define portions of the peripheral rim of said tray (Figure 7), and each tray segment defining an inset which cooperates with the insets of the other trays to define said drain (central region in Figure 3; “openings in the center region 1106 of the tray assembly 1100 include opening 1164 in tray 1110; opening 1162 in tray 1190; opening 1168 in tray 1170; and opening 1166 in tray 1120.” Paragraph [0053]; openings together form a central drain Figure 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the segments of Kung, to define the peripheral rim and inserts defining the drain as taught by Rosen, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to separate pieces of the tray for easier cleaning and maintenance of the planting system.
Regarding Claim 3, Kung discloses the grow tray of claim 2.
Kung fails to disclose the grow tray, wherein each tray segment defines at least a portion of a downwardly extending flange of said drain.
However, Rosen teaches wherein each tray segment defines at least a portion of a downwardly extending flange of said drain (shown in annotated Figure 11 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
619
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the segments and drain of Kung, with the downward extending flanges of Rosen, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure water that is drained from the tray can be directed towards a specific location, and help prevent unwanted leaks of the water elsewhere.
Regarding Claim 6, Kung discloses the grow tray of claim 2.
Kung fails to disclose the grow tray, wherein a third side of each tray defines an outwardly extending flange and a fourth side of each tray defines a stop, said third side of one tray configured to be positioned against the fourth side of an adjacent tray.
However, Rosen teaches wherein a third side of each tray defines an outwardly extending flange and a fourth side of each tray defines a stop, said third side of one tray configured to be positioned against the fourth side of an adjacent tray (fasteners 1102; Figure 11, one side has the screw, the other side has the nut).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the segments of Kung, to be separable and attached via a flange and stop as taught by Rosen, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to separate pieces of the tray for easier cleaning and maintenance of the planting system.
Regarding Claim 8, Kung discloses the grow tray of claim 1.
Kung fails to disclose wherein said four tray segments are identical.
However, Rosen teaches wherein said four tray segments are identical (Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the segments of Kung, to be identical as taught by Rosen, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help allow for easy assembly of the tray, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gergek (US 2015/0135588).
Regarding Claim 10, Gergek discloses the stand assembly of claim 9.
Gergek fails to disclose the stand assembly, wherein a top of each beam is located in the same plane as the top of each of said plurality of legs when connected thereto.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beams and plurality of legs of Gergek, to be on the same plane, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for a wider variety of plant tray sizes to be accommodated on the stand, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gergek (US 2015/0135588) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Millward et al. (US 2024/0130310).
Regarding Claim 13, Gergek discloses the stand assembly of claim 9.
Gergek fails to disclose the stand assembly, wherein said central mount has a central opening therein for alignment with a drain of said grow tray.
However, Millward teaches a similar stand assembly wherein said central mount has a central opening therein for alignment with a drain of said grow tray (conduit openings 204; Figure 3; Paragraph [0134]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the central mount of Gergek, with the central opening of Millward, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure water that is drained from the tray can be directed towards a specific location, and help prevent unwanted leaks of the water elsewhere.
Claims 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung et al. (US 11612111) in view of Gergek (US 2015/0135588).
Regarding Claim 14, Kung discloses in combination, a grow tray (container 10) and a grow tray stand (grow tower 200), comprising: said grow tray stand comprising:
a plurality of legs (Figure 18), each leg having a top and a bottom (Figure 18, top of legs and bottom of legs);
a plurality of beams (horizontal members in Figure 18; rails 204 Figure 5),
said grow tray having a bottom (bottom surface 12; Figure 3), an upwardly extending peripheral rim (sidewalls 14), and at least one drain through said bottom (drainage hole 16; Figure 3) and comprising a plurality of associable tray segments, each tray segment defining a portion of said bottom of said tray and having at least one side defining a portion of said upwardly extending peripheral rim (segmented off by channels 19; Figure 3), a plurality of supports (ribs 18) extending upwardly from said bottom (Figure 3), and one or more channels defined between said supports (channels 19).
Kung fails to disclose each beam configured to be detachably mounted to pairs of the plurality of legs; and a central support, said central support comprising a central mount and one or more cross-supports extending between the central mount and an adjacent beam for supporting the central mount in a raised position above the bottoms of the legs.
However, Gergek teaches a similar plant stand combination, comprising a plurality of beams, each beam configured to be detachably mounted to pairs of the plurality of legs (shown in annotated Figure 6b below, detachment shown in Figures 7a-7b; Paragraph [0061]); and a central support, said central support comprising a central mount (center of 92; Figure 6B) and one or more cross-supports extending between the central mount and an adjacent beam for supporting the central mount in a raised position above the bottoms of the legs (shown in annotated Figure 6b below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stand of Kung, with the central support and cross supports of Gergek, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the plant receives enough support throughout the entire growth of the plant.
Regarding Claim 17, Kung as modified teaches the combination of claim 14. Kung further discloses wherein said grow tray is quadrilateral shaped (Figure 3) and comprises four segments (segmented off by channels 19; Figure 3).
Kung fails to explicitly disclose wherein said grow tray stand is quadrilateral shaped when assembled, comprising four legs and four beams.
However, Gergek teaches wherein said grow tray stand is quadrilateral shaped when assembled, comprising four legs and four beams (Figure 6B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stand of Kung, to be quadrilateral shaped and having four legs and four beams, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide a sturdy base for the tray during the growth of the plant.
Regarding Claim 18, Kung as modified teaches the combination of claim 17.
Kung fails to explicitly disclose the combination, wherein each of said four legs, each of said four beams and each of said four grow tray segments are identical.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the legs, beams, and segments of Kung, to be identical, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide a sturdy base for the tray during the growth of the plant, and allow for easy assembly of the tray, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung in view of Gergek as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Millward et al. (US 2024/0130310).
Regarding Claim 15, Kung as modified teaches the combination of claim 14.
Kung fails to disclose the combination, wherein said at least one drain is assigned with an opening through said central support when said grow tray is located on said grow tray stand.
However, Millward teaches a similar combination grow tray and stand wherein said at least one drain (opening 303; Figure 9) is assigned with an opening through said central support when said grow tray is located on said grow tray stand (conduit openings 204; Figures 3 and 9; Paragraph [0134]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the central mount of Gergek, with the central opening of Millward, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure water that is drained from the tray can be directed towards a specific location, and help prevent unwanted leaks of the water elsewhere.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kung in view of Gergek as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chiang (US 2015/0201563).
Regarding Claim 16, Kung as modified teaches the combination of claim 14. Kung further discloses the combination, wherein said grow tray further comprises a flange extending outwardly from at least a portion of said peripheral rim (ledge 44; Figure 3).
Kung fails to disclose said flange positioned on a top of said plurality of legs and/or plurality of beams when said grow tray is located on said grow tray stand.
However, Chiang teaches a similar plant tray and stand combination, wherein said flange positioned on a top of said plurality of legs and/or plurality of beams when said grow tray is located on said grow tray stand (Figures 2 and annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
429
628
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tray with the flange and the stand of Kung, to have the flange resting on the beam as taught by Chiang, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help further provide support for the weight of the tray, while also increasing stability of the tray.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. French et al. (US 11997963), Maxwell (US 10470383), Bohner (US 2022/0142382), and Kaneko (US 2020/0375120) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar plant tray and stand combinations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights