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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “32” has been used to designate both narrow slot and tabs in paragraphs 30, 33 respectively. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “male and female connecting formations”. It was understood that Applicant meant to recite -male and female connectors- instead of introducing a new structure.
Claim 13 recites “one or more of trays” which should be revised to read -one or more trays-.
Claim 13 recites “further including control unit” which should be revised to read -further including a control unit-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: connecting means in claims 1, 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-15 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 1 line 6 recites “the connected trays”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the second tray. While Applicant intended there to be two trays recited, the limitation attempting to introduce the second tray reads as “connecting means for connecting the tray in a side by side array with a second, substantially identical, tray”. As such, the second tray is not currently positively recited. Applicant is suggested to add language positively reciting the second tray to make it clear that the second tray is required by the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim is understood to require a second tray. A suggested amendment to overcome this would be something along the lines of -a modular green roof system comprising a tray, a second identical tray, and connecting means for connecting the two trays-. Applicant may revise the language as desired to include desired structure such as the side walls.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "of the tray" in lines 3-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is in reference to “a tray” or “a second tray” recited earlier in the claim, or potentially both. Since the trays are meant to be substantially identical, examination has occurred under the assumption that both trays comprise similar structural features. Applicant should revise the language to read -of the trays- or other language in order to make clear that structural features are present in both trays.
The term “standard size pipe” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standard size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant is recommended to revise the language so that there is no uncertainty regarding the sizing of the pipe.
Claim 12 line 6 recites “the trays”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the second tray. While Applicant intended there to be two trays recited, the limitation attempting to introduce the second tray reads as “connecting means for connecting the tray in a side by side array with a second, substantially identical, tray”. As such, the second tray is not currently positively recited. Applicant is suggested to add language positively reciting the second tray to make it clear that the second tray is required by the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim is understood to require a second tray. A suggested amendment to overcome this would be something along the lines of -a modular green roof system comprising a tray, a second identical tray, and connecting means for connecting the two trays-. Applicant may revise the language as desired to include desired structure such as the side walls.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the tray" in lines 3, 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is in reference to “a tray” or “a second tray” recited earlier in the claim, or potentially both. Since the trays are meant to be substantially identical, examination has occurred under the assumption that both trays comprise similar structural features. Applicant should revise the language to read -the trays- or other language in order to make clear that structural features are present in both trays.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Lines 5-6 recite “such as a rotary valve or the like”. For purposes of examination, it has been interpreted that a rotary valve is not required and any adjustable valve would read upon the claims.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Line 2 recites “such as expected rainfall and duration of rainfall”. For purposes of examination, it has been interpreted that rainfall information is not required.
Claims 2-10, 15 are also rejected due to dependency on a rejected 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, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushita (JP 2004337073 A).
Regarding claim 1: Matsushita discloses a modular green roof system comprising a tray (planter 1) having a base, side walls and connecting means (Fig. 2) for connecting the tray in a side by side array with a second, substantially identical, tray (Fig. 3),
the side walls of the tray defining an aperture (port 10) to allow fluid to flow from or into the tray wherein the side walls of the tray are connectable together by male and female connectors defined on top of the side walls of the tray (Fig. 2) in which arrangement the apertures of the connected trays are opposed and separated by a gap and the trays are, at least loosely, linked together (Fig. 1); and
further including a fluid flow connector (tool 11) configured to be slid between the apertures and which defines a tubular portion (pipe 11b) for connecting the apertures together allowing the passage of fluid from the one tray to the second, connected, tray (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4: Matsushita discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the connection between the male and female connectors is relatively loose and allows some movement between the trays (This limitation would be met as the spacing between planters 10 would allow for some movement).
Regarding claim 5: Matsushita discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses a series of internal walls (walls of pockets 4) extending upwards from the base of the tray for supporting an inner tray (pot 3) or sheet of geotextile (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9: Matsushita discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the side walls of the tray define a recess (para 32 discusses groove 25 in connection port 10) in which the aperture (port 10) is defined (Fig. 2C), the recess having opposed side walls which extend vertically upwards and wherein at the top of each side wall of the recess: a tab projects from the rim of the tray into the recess (para 40 discusses two projecting portions 25 provided at connecting port 10. Reference character 25 is used twice by the prior art but there is understood to be a projection for connection to tool 11).
Regarding claim 10: Matsushita discloses the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the fluid flow connector (tool 11) defines two opposed walls (connecting portions 11a) connected by the tubular portion (pipe 11b, Fig. 2A), and a top portion connecting the two and the top portion defines one or more grooves (grooves 26 provided along outer periphery of connecting portion 11a) for receiving the tabs defined on the rim (para 40, “The connecting tool 11 is fitted so that two grooves 26 provided along the outer periphery of the connecting portion 11a are fitted to two projecting portions 25 provided at the connecting port 10 of the water storage tank 8, respectively”).
Regarding claim 11: Matsushita discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the fluid flow connector defines an aperture size which can receive a standard size drainage pipe (15, Fig. 3, any piping fitting into an aperture is considered to be standard size for purpose of examination).
Regarding claim 12: Matsushita discloses a tray (planter 1) for use in a green roof system having a base, side walls and connecting means for connecting the trays in a side by side array with a second, substantially identical tray (Fig. 3), the side walls defining an aperture (port 10) to allow fluid to flow from or into the tray, wherein the side walls of the tray are connectable together by male and female connectors defined on the side walls of the tray (Fig. 2) by means of which connectors, the trays may be, at least loosely, linked together, in which arrangement the apertures of the connected trays are opposed and separated by a gap (Fig. 1) and wherein the gap is configured to receive a fluid flow connector (tool 11) which can be slid between the apertures and which defines a tubular portion (pipe 11b) connecting the apertures together allowing the passage of fluid from one tray to the connected tray (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13: Matsushita discloses green roof system comprising a plurality of trays (planter 1) as claimed in claim 12 (see claim 12) interconnected together (Fig. 1) and including fluid flow connectors (tool 11) allowing the flow of fluid between trays, wherein the trays defines a series of walls (wall of pockets 4) extending upwards from the base of the tray supporting an inner tray (pot 3) above the base of the tray and defining a reservoir below the tray (Fig. 1), further including control unit (controller 19) operatively connected to an adjustable valve (controlled unit 24), such as a rotary valve or the like, for controlling and varying the rate of flow of water out of the green roof to the roof drainage system/down pipes (para 54), the system including one or more sensor (detection unit 23) indicating the water level in the one or more of trays which is provided to the control unit (para 56), the control unit adjusting the flow of water from the system based on the indicated water level (para 54).
Regarding claim 14: Matsushita discloses the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the control unit is supplied with weather information such as expected rainfall and duration of rainfall and is arranged to adjust the valve also based on the weather information (paras 54-56, discuss pollution sensor which would supply weather information).
Regarding claim 15: Matsushita discloses the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, and further discloses growing medium and plants supported by the inner tray (pot 3, Fig. 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shenzhen (CN 101297628 B).
Regarding claim 2: Matsushita discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the tray is generally square in plan view and has four side walls which taper outwardly from the base to the top (Best seen in Fig. 2C).
Matsushita fails to teach wherein the aperture is located in the centre of each side wall towards the base of the tray.
However, Shenzhen teaches wherein the aperture (drain hole 5) is located in the centre of each side wall towards the base of the tray (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 apertures as disclosed by Matsushita with the center-based apertures as taught by Shenzhen with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an aperture at the center of the sidewalls would achieve the predictable result of assisting the users in connecting the trays, by allowing alignment to occur in a quicker and easier fashion.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daum (DE 4309601 A).
Regarding claim 3: Matsushita discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the tray includes a projecting rim (9) and the male and female connecting formations are defined on the rim (Fig. 2, paragraph 40 discusses male/female connections in detail).
Matsushita fails to teach the male connectors being generally T-shaped including a stem and a cross-piece, and the female connectors defining a slot for receiving the stem which is narrower than the crosspiece and a space behind the slot for receiving the cross-piece.
However, Daum teaches the male connectors (26) being generally T-shaped including a stem and a cross-piece, and the female connectors (28) defining a slot for receiving the stem which is narrower than the crosspiece and a space behind the slot for receiving the cross-piece (Figs. 6-7).
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 connection as disclosed by Matsushita with the T-shaped connections as taught by Daum with a reasonable expectation of success because providing T-shaped connections would decrease the likelihood that the trays become undesirably disconnected, and also could result in quicker connecting means for a user connecting multiple trays as they would just need to slide the T-shaped connector into the respective slot of another tray.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of roof tray planters.
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.
/EDGAR REYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights