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 Objections
Claims 8-9 and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8 and 9 read “the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 7.” However,
claim 7 has been cancelled and therefore the dependency of claim 8 must be amended.
Claims 21 and 22 read “The tray of claim 1, …” However the preamble of claim 1 states “A
tray for a hydroponics system” and all other claims dependent on claim 1 state “The tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 1.” Therefore, claims 21 and 22 should be amended to each read “The tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 1.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 10, 13-15, 18-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Zhan discloses a tray for a hydroponics system (see fig 4a) comprising:
a planting area within the tray (see annotated fig 4a below);
at least one channel (see annotated fig 4a below) for returning water from the planting area of the tray to the spout (143) exiting the tray; and
at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism within the tray between the at least one channel and the planting area (removable dam 150, see figs 4a-b and 5a-g, see annotated fig 4a below), wherein the at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism controls, in combination with a flow rate of water from the water source, a pooling depth of the water within the planting area of the tray (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth), and wherein the pooling depth is configured to be adjusted in response to adjustment of the at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 4a
Zhan fails to disclose an attachment mechanism for attaching the tray to a pole of the hydroponics system; a ramp for guiding water from a water source into the planting area of the tray, wherein the ramp is configured to direct water from the pole to the planting area; a spout disposed under the ramp, wherein the spout is configured to return water to the pole.
Higgins teaches an attachment mechanism (305) for attaching the tray to a pole of the hydroponics system (see fig 13a); a ramp for guiding water from a water source into the planting area of the tray (ramp 400, see figs 13a and 19-20), wherein the ramp is configured to direct water from the pole to the planting area (see fig 13a); a spout (reverse spout 400, see col 16, lines 8-14), disposed under the ramp (400), wherein the spout is configured to return water to the pole (reverse spout 400 that is connected to either the pole 301 and/or the pan 201 and configured to direct the flow of water from the pole apron 400 back into a pole cup 305 positioned beneath the pole apron, see col 16, lines 8-14).
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 the inlet of the planting tray with the water directing ramp and the outlet spout of Higgins with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the water is properly delivered to the correction portion of the tray to prevent waste and ensure plants receive adequate irrigation, and to allow for efficient drainage of water back out of the pan so that the plants do not become waterlogged.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 1, and Zhan further discloses wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a barrier (dam 150), wherein the barrier is adjustably positioned between the planting area and the at least one channel (see annotated fig 4a above and col 13, lines 33-42).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 1, and Zhan further discloses wherein the at least one adjustable water flow control mechanism comprises at least one barrier (dam 150), wherein the at least one barrier is slidably received (see figs 4a-b and 5a-g, and see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
The modified reference fails to teach a pair of slots between the at least one channel and the planting area.
Zhan discloses a pair of slots on the barrier which are slideably received on the side of the channel.
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 the slots to be on the channel instead of on the barrier itself with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a more secure connection and therefore enhanced water flow control, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 7, and Zhan further discloses further comprising: an entry channel (see annotated fig 4a above), wherein water entering the tray is guided from the ramp to the entry channel before entering the planting area of the tray (see entry channel in annotated 4a above, as combined with the ramp of Higgins in the rejection of claim 1 above), a wall separating the entry channel from the planting area of the tray (see annotated fig 4a above), wherein the wall is at least partially permeable by water to permit water flow from the entry channel into the planting area (entry wall is permeable with breaks to allow water flow, see annotated fig 4a above).
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 1, and Zhan further discloses further comprising a lid (120) covering the planting area, wherein the lid defines at least one aperture (121) for receiving therein a pod (122, see figs 1, 7a-b and 7f-8a).
Regarding claim 13, Zhan discloses a tray for a hydroponics system (see figs 4a-b) comprising:
a planting area within the tray (see annotated fig 4a below), wherein the planting area is configured to receive water from the pole to which the tray is attached (planting area receives water via inlet 141 attached to pole 310, see figs 2a and 8a) via the ramp;
a channel (see annotated fig 4a) for returning water from the planting area of the tray to the spout (spout 143, see fig 4a below and 8a) exiting the tray; and
a water flow control mechanism within the tray between the channel and the planting area (dam 150, see figs 4a-b and 5a-g); wherein the water flow control mechanism at least partially controls a pooling depth of the water within the planting area of the tray (see annotated 4a below and col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 4a
Zhan fails to disclose an attachment mechanism for attaching the tray to a pole of the hydroponics system; a ramp, a spout disposed under the ramp; wherein the spout is configured to return water to the pole.
Higgins teaches an attachment mechanism (305) for attaching the tray to a pole of the hydroponics system (see fig 13a); a ramp (ramp 400, see figs 13a and 19-20); a spout (reverse spout 400, see col 16, lines 8-14), disposed under the ramp (400), wherein the spout is configured to return water to the pole (reverse spout 400 that is connected to either the pole 301 and/or the pan 201 and configured to direct the flow of water from the pole apron 400 back into a pole cup 305 positioned beneath the pole apron, see col 16, lines 8-14).
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 the inlet of the planting tray with the water directing ramp and the outlet spout of Higgins with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the water is properly delivered to the correction portion of the tray to prevent waste and ensure plants receive adequate irrigation, and to allow for efficient drainage of water back out of the pan so that the plants do not become waterlogged.
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 13, and Zhan further discloses wherein the water flow control mechanism is adjustable, the tray further comprising: wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a barrier (dam 150), wherein the barrier is slidably received (see figs 4a-b and 5a-g), wherein the pooling depth is adjusted in response to adjustment of the water flow control mechanism (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
The modified reference fails to teach a pair of slots between the channel and the planting area.
Zhan discloses a pair of slots on the barrier which are slideabley received on the side of the channel.
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 the slots to be on the channel instead of on the barrier itself with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a more secure connection and therefore enhanced water flow control, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 13, and Zhan further discloses wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a barrier (dam 150), wherein the barrier is positioned between the planting area and the channel (see annotated fig 4a above and col 13, lines 33-42).
Regarding claim 18 the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 13, and Zhan further discloses further comprising an entry channel, wherein water entering the tray is guided through the entry channel before entering the planting area of the tray (see annotated fig 4a above).
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 13, and Zhan further discloses wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a flow restriction between the planting area and the channel (dam 150, see annotated fig 4a above).
Regarding claim 21, the modified reference teaches the tray of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the attachment mechanism comprises a pair of protrusions and a pair of recesses, wherein the protrusions are configured to engage a bottom edge of a pole cup of the pole, wherein water is received onto the ramp from the pole cup.
Higgins teaches wherein the attachment mechanism comprises a pair of protrusions (207a-b) and a pair of recesses (208), wherein the protrusions are configured to engage a bottom edge of a pole cup of the pole (see figs 18a-b), wherein water is received onto the ramp from the pole cup (see figs 18a-b).
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 the system with the attachment mechanism and ramp of Higgins with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a dual purpose attachment member, ensuring strong attachment of the planter tray to the pole, while also providing a ramp for water delivery to ensure the plants receive optimal growing conditions.
Regarding claim 22, the modified reference teaches the tray of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the planting area is angled down and away from the pole to which the tray attaches, and the at least one channel is angled down and toward the pole to which the tray attaches.
Zhan teaches wherein the planting area is angled down and away from the pole to which the tray attaches (base 203 of tray 201 slopes downward from inner wall 212 to outer wall 213, see col 13, lines 34-42), and the at least one channel is angled down and toward the pole to which the tray attaches (channels 205 are sloped to allow water to flow back towards the pole, see col 13, lines 34-42).
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 the planting tray with the angles of Higgins with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide slopes and inclinations to facilitate both efficient delivery of water, and efficient drainage of water to ensure plants are adequately hydrated but not waterlogged.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2) as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Kendall (US 20230026903 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 2.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the barrier, in a first position, allows water to flow from the planting area, under the barrier, and into the at least one channel, and wherein the barrier in the first position causes pooling in the planting area.
Kendall teaches wherein the barrier, in a first position, allows water to flow from the planting area, under the barrier, and into the at least one channel, and wherein the barrier in the first position causes pooling in the planting area (barrier 1060 is spaced apart from bottom surface of basin 1010 to allow water to flow underneath, see para 0097 and fig 11).
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 the system with the barrier being spaced above the bottom of the basin as taught by Kendall with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for fluid flow without the creation of waves or sloshing due to high flow of liquid (see Kendall para 0097).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 3, and Zhan further discloses wherein the barrier, in a second position, allows water to flow from the planting area, over the barrier, and into the at least one channel (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth), wherein the barrier in the second position causes pooling in the planting area at least to a height of a top of the barrier relative to a bottom of the planting area (see annotated fig 4a and col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 15, and Zhan further discloses wherein the barrier is adjustable (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the barrier in a first position, allows water to flow from the planting area, under the barrier, and into the channel, and wherein the barrier in the first position causes pooling in the planting area.
Kendall teaches wherein the barrier, in a first position, allows water to flow from the planting area, under the barrier, and into the at least one channel, and wherein the barrier in the first position causes pooling in the planting area (barrier 1060 is spaced apart from bottom surface of basin 1010 to allow water to flow underneath, see para 0097 and fig 11).
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 the system with the barrier being spaced above the bottom of the basin as taught by Kendall with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for fluid flow without the creation of waves or sloshing due to high flow of liquid (see Kendall para 0097).
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 16, and Zhan further discloses wherein the barrier, in a second position, allows water to flow from the planting area, over the barrier, and into the channel (see col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth), wherein the barrier in the second position causes pooling in the planting area at least to a height of a top of the barrier relative to a bottom of the planting area (see annotated fig 4a and col 13, lines 33-42, dam 150 can be mounted at different heights to change culture solution depth).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lin (US-20140069009-A1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 7, and Zhan further discloses wherein the tray comprises a substantially rectangular shape (see annotated fig 4a above), wherein the entry channel is disposed along a first side of the tray (see annotated fig 4a above), water flows across the planting area to a second side of the tray, opposite the first side of the tray (see annotated fig 4a above), and water returns along the at least one channel for returning water from the planting area (see annotated fig 4a).
The modified reference fails to teach water returns along the at least one channel for returning water from the planting area along a third side of the tray, wherein the ramp is disposed between the first side of the tray and the third side of the tray.
Lin teaches wherein the entry channel is disposed along a first side of the tray, water flows across the planting area to a second side of the tray (see annotated fig 6 below), opposite the first side of the tray, and water returns along the at least one channel for returning water from the planting area along a third side of the tray (see annotated fig 6 below), wherein the ramp is disposed between the first side of the tray and the third side of the tray (the inlet 141 of Zhan as modified with the ramp of Higgins in the rejection of claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 6
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 the planting area with the flow path of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the water is spread equally throughout the planting area before exiting, thereby ensuring all plants receive adequate hydration.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Adams (US 11337387 B2).
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according
to claim 10, and Zhan further discloses further comprising a pod (122), supported in the at least one aperture (plugs 122, see fig 7b and see col 15, lines 8-26).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the pod is configured to wick water from the planting area into the pod.
Adams teaches wherein the pod is configured to wick water from the planting area into the pod (plugs 309 in absorbent net cuts 301 that can wick water up to the plants, see col 13, lines 43-56 and figs 10a and 11a).
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 the plugs to wick water as taught by Adams with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plants receive adequate hydration regardless of their growth stage and root size.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2) and Adams (US 11337387 B2) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Franczuz (US-20190254240-A1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 11.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising flow directing fingers disposed between the lid and the planting area, wherein the flow directing fingers are configured to receive water from the water source and direct the water to pods received in each of the at least one aperture.
Franczuz teaches further comprising flow directing fingers disposed between the lid and the planting area (flow directing fingers 194 and 196, see figs 12-13), wherein the flow directing fingers are configured to receive water from the water source and direct the water to pods received in each of the at least one aperture (flow directing fingers 194 and 196, see figs 12-13, receive water and direct it to 216).
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 the planting area with the flow directing fingers of Franczuz with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure plants receive adequate and easily accessible hydration throughout their life cycle.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan (US 10010034 B2) in view of Higgins (US 10080336 B2) as applied to claim 19 above, and in further view of Stadie (US 20230263107 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Zhan discloses the tray for a hydroponics system according to claim 19.
Zhan fails to disclose wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a water-permeable barrier, wherein the water-permeable barrier is formed of a porous material.
Stadie teaches wherein the water flow control mechanism comprises a water-permeable barrier (water permeable barrier 202, see para 0266), wherein the water-permeable barrier is formed of a porous material (water permeable barrier 202 is inherently porous).
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 the barrier to be water-permeable and porous as taught by Stadie with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for a controlled fluid flow rate to ensure adequate irrigation needs (see Stadie para 0266).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues against the drawing objection and 112(a) and (b) rejections regarding the barrier in the first position, stating that “it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that, in light of the disclosure, the barrier would frictionally engage the slots, whether by virtue of the width between the opposing slots relative to the barrier or the thickness of the barrier relative to the slots for a frictional engagement.” Applicant’s explanation regarding the barrier is noted on the record as to how the barrier limitations are understood and the drawing objection and 112(a) and (b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3 and 16 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. Specifically, Applicants arguments regarding the barrier in the first position are moot as a new reference is being used to teach this limitation.
In regards to Applicant’s argument against the ramp feature cited by Higgins, the Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Higgins discloses a separate ramp feature “that is not integrated into the tray as recited by claim 1.” However, claim 1 as currently written does not require the ramp to be integrated into the tray. Claim 1 currently only requires a ramp configured for directing water from the pole to the planting area which is clearly taught by the Higgins reference.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that the spout is not disclosed, the Office respectfully disagrees. As cited above, the Higgins reference discuses a “reverse spout” for directing water back to the pole cup, that is positioned beneath pole apron 400 (which is used as the ramp).
Conclusion
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 KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights