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 .
Continued Prosecution Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/18/2023 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “side walls”, which should be “sidewalls” to be consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 17 recites “The planter box of claim 8”, which has a capitalized letter in the middle of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a pair of sidewalls” in bullet point c and e but it is unclear if they are referring to the same pair of sidewalls or separate sidewalls. The “a pair of sidewalls” in bullet point e seem to be referring to a new pair of sidewalls due to the article “a”. Claim 3 also recites “a pair of side walls” and has the same problem. Claim 1 also recites “the sidewalls” and it is unclear if it is referring back to the “pair of sidewalls”. It is also unclear if this pair of side walls are part of the “four side walls” in bullet point a. It seems to be worded as if there are four sidewalls and additionally a pair of sidewalls. Are the pair of sidewalls only two of the four side walls? The claim also appears to be missing a limitation to claim another pair of sidewalls to encompass all four sidewalls. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim to be referring back to the four side walls and the same pair of sidewalls.
Claim 1 recites “(b) a joint structure for joining opposite ends of respective side walls together in a right angled wall structure defining an upwardly open frame;” and “(d) a plurality of L-shaped corner flanges defined by a pair of plates disposed at right angles to one another, the inner surface of the plates being abutted against and releasably connected to the outward facing end portions of the pair of sidewalls to form one right angled wall structure;” but does not claim that the plurality of L-shaped corner flanges are part of the joint structure as cited in para. 0011 in the specification. The claims seem to be saying that the joint structure is separate from the L-shaped corner flanges when in actuality, the L-shaped corner flanges are part of the joint structure. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the L-shaped corner flanges to be part of the joint structure.
Dependent claims 3-6 and claim 7 that relies upon claim 1 fail to solve these deficiencies.
Claims 3 and 6 recites “corner flange” but it is unclear if it refers back to the L-shaped corner flange due to the inconsistent terminology. Similarly, claim 10 recites “corner member’ and it is unclear if it refers back to the L-shaped corner member in claim 8. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claims to be referring to the same components.
Claims 13-16 recites the limitation "the soil pouch". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The soil pouch is first introduced in claim 12 but claims 13-16 do not depend upon claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 7-8, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bacon (US 1184505).
Regarding claim 1, Bacon teaches (fig. 1) of a planter box (Examiner notes MPEP §2111.02(II) with regard to intended use; Examiner notes that while the box is meant to be used as a beehive, the box can be used for anything else, including being a plantar box by putting soil and growing plants in the box), comprising:
a substantially rectangular frame including four side walls (side and end walls 2, 3);
a joint structure (sheet metal corner-pieces 6) for joining opposite ends of respective side walls together in a right angled wall structure defining an upwardly open frame (seen in fig. 1);
a pair of sidewalls (a pair of walls 2, 3) normal to each other (seen in fig. 1);
a plurality of L-shaped corner flanges (6) defined by a pair of plates disposed at right angles to one another (seen in fig. 1), the inner surface of the plates being abutted against and releasably connected to the outward facing end portions of the pair of sidewalls (2, 3) to form one right angled wall structure (seen in fig. 1);
a pair of keyholes (fig. 2, kerfs 4, 5) formed in the outward facing end portions of a pair of sidewalls (fig. 2, lines 35-51, each side wall is provided with a kerf 4 and each end wall is also provided with a kerf 5),
a pair of outwardly extending stems (fig. 7, vertical flanges 12) disposed on the inner surfaces of each plate (fig. 6, extends from an inner surface of each plate); and
wherein the outwardly projecting stems (12) are received in respective keyholes (4, 5) formed in the sidewalls (2, 3), and
wherein an exterior surface of each side wall (2, 3) is in line with an exterior surface of an adjacent L-shaped corner flange (6) (seen in fig. 1).
With regard to the intended use of claim 1 in the preamble, Examiner notes "if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction", such that the intended use does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP §2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 3, Bacon teaches of claim 1, and which further comprises:
(fig. 1) an L- shaped gusset (end offsets 8 and 9) disposed downwardly (disposed down on top of the side walls 2, 3) and seated about the upper brackets of a respective pair of the L-shaped flanges (seated above flanges 6), the gusset (8, 9) having a stop (perforations 16) and seated atop the associated corner flange (6) (seen in fig. 1) and engaging the upper ends of a pair of side walls (2, 3) (seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Bacon teaches of a kit for forming a planter box (Examiner notes MPEP §2111.02(II) with regard to intended use; Examiner notes that while the box is meant to be used as a beehive, the box can be used for anything else, including being a plantar box by putting soil and growing plants in the box) without tools (can be assembled without tools by attaching the flanges 6 to the kerfs 4, 5; the nail in fig. 2 is not essential to forming the box as the box can be held together by flanges 6 being in kerfs 4, 5), the kit comprising: the planter box of Claim 1 in disassembled form (components of Bacon as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Bacon teaches of (fig. 1) a planter box (Examiner notes MPEP §2111.02(II) with regard to intended use; Examiner notes that while the box is meant to be used as a beehive, the box can be used for anything else, including being a plantar box by putting soil and growing plants in the box), comprising:
(a) four side walls forming a substantially rectangular frame (side and end walls 2, 3 forming a substantially rectangular frame), each side wall having a pair of opposed ends where each end includes at least one keyhole (fig. 2, lines 35-51, each wall 2, 3 has kerfs 4, 5);
(b) four generally L-shaped corner members (four sheet metal corner-pieces 6) each having a pair of flange plates positioned at right angles to one another (seen in fig. 1), each flange plate including at least one keeper stem (fig. 7, vertical flanges 12) extending from an inner surface thereof (fig. 6, extends from an inner surface of each plate), and
wherein each keyhole (4, 5) receives one of the keeper stems (12) such that each L-shaped corner member joins adjacent side walls (2, 3) to form the substantially rectangular frame without the aid of tools (fig. 2, each keyhole 4, 5 holes the keeper stems 12 to join adjacent side walls 2, 3 to form the box without the aid of tools).
Regarding claim 10, Bacon teaches of claim 8, and wherein (fig. 2) each pair of a connecting keeper stem (12) and keyhole (4, 5) provide an expedient for rapidly joining one corner member and two adjacent side walls (pushing stems 12 into keyholes 4, 5 expediates joining the corner members 6 and two adjacent side walls 2, 3) such that an exterior surface of each side wall (2, 3) end abuts against the inner surface of the associated L-shaped corner member (6) (seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Bacon teaches of a kit for forming a planter box (Examiner notes MPEP §2111.02(II) with regard to intended use; Examiner notes that while the box is meant to be used as a beehive, the box can be used for anything else, including being a plantar box by putting soil and growing plants in the box) without tools (fig. 2, each keyhole 4, 5 holes the keeper stems 12 to join adjacent side walls 2, 3 to form the box without the aid of tools), the kit comprising:
the planter box of claim 8 in disassembled form (rejection of claim 8 above, separate components to have the invention in disassembled form).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon (US 1184505) in view of Hawkins (U.S. 2,814,161).
Regarding claim 4, Bacon teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of which further comprises: a soil receiving liner, the liner forming a base for the frame.
Hawkins teaches of (fig. 3) of a soil receiving liner (10), the liner forming a base for the frame (12) (Col. 2 lines 1-6).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Hawkins of a soil receiving liner, the liner forming a base for the frame in order to provide an inner covering of the box.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon, as modified by Hawkins, as applied in claims 4 and 8 above, and in further view of Setzer (U.S. 2015/0334925).
Regarding claim 5, Bacon as modified teaches of claim 4, but does not appear to teach of wherein the liner comprises:
a first layer of polymeric material and a second layer of cloth, the liner having a plurality of drainage openings therethrough.
Hawkins teaches of wherein the liner comprises:
the liner (10) having a plurality of drainage openings (perforations 20, 22) therethrough (col. 2 lines 9-14, bottom 12 is provided with perforations 20, 22).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Hawkins of a plurality of drainage openings therethrough in order to provide openings to allow excess water to flow out and to provide openings through which the roots of a plant may protrude as motivated by Hawkins in col. 2 lines 10-14.
Setzer teaches of a first layer of polymeric material and a second layer of cloth (¶0022, planters 12 are made from material that is air and moisture permeable, non-woven, needle-punched, polymeric geotextile fabric, preferably a polypropylene).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Setzer of a first layer of polymeric material and a second layer of cloth in order to have an air and moisture permeable liner as motivated by Setzer in para. 0022.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon in view of Risley et al. (US 2013/0128558), hereinafter Risley.
Regarding claim 6, Bacon teaches of claim 3, and each gusset (8, 9) having a stop (16);
the stop connecting to the corners on two respective side walls (2, 3) (on the top surface of the corners of side walls 2, 3), when connected together by the corner flange (6) (seen in fig. 1).
Bacon does not appear to teach of which further comprises:
an inwardly turned bracket, the stop connecting to the bracket on two respective side walls.
Risley is in the field of constructing rectangular objects and teaches of an inwardly turned bracket (Fig. 14 and 17, side walls 16 and end walls 18 has an inwardly turned bracket at the top and bottom edges).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Risley of an inwardly turned bracket such that when incorporated the stop connects to the bracket on two respective side walls due to the stop being positioned on top of the corners in order to protect the user against sharp edges on the top of the box and provide more stability and durability to the edges of the walls.
Regarding claim 9, Bacon teaches of claim 8, and (fig. 1) four generally right-angled gussets (four right-angled end offsets 8, 9) each having a pair of downwardly open channels (opens downwardly) adapted to seat atop corners formed on two joined side walls (seen in fig. 1).
Bacon does not appear to teach of a pair of downwardly open channels adapted to seat atop brackets formed on two joined side walls
Risley teaches of brackets formed on two joined side walls (Fig. 14 and 17, side walls 16 and end walls 18 has an inwardly turned bracket at the top and bottom edges).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Risley of brackets formed on two joined side walls such that the pair of downwardly open channels from Bacon is adapted to seat atop brackets formed on two joined side walls in order to protect the user against sharp edges on the top of the box and provide more stability and durability to the edges of the walls.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon in view of DeBlanco et al. (US 20140155182), hereinafter DeBlanco.
Regarding claim 11, Bacon teaches of claim 8, and wherein (fig. 2) each keeper stem (12) includes a head (pointed end of flange 12) and a shank (elongated part of flange 12), and each keyhole (4, 5) includes an opening (inside opening of keyholes 4, 5) and a slot (entrance of the keyholes 4, 5 to hold the stems 12),
wherein the opening is configured to receive the head (seen in fig. 2), and the shank is configured to move vertically into the slot (the stems 12 are moved perpendicularly to the surface of the sidewalls such that the stems 12 are moved vertically into the slot).
Bacon does not appear to teach of wherein the head is larger than the slot such that the keeper stem is retained within the keyhole while the shank is disposed within the slot.
DeBlanco is in the field of constructing rectangular objects and teaches of (fig. 3) wherein the head (circular head of the stem) is larger than the slot (narrow slit of the corner piece) such that the keeper stem (stem of side wall into the corner piece) is retained within the keyhole while the shank is disposed within the slot (seen in fig. 8).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of DeBlanco of wherein the head is larger than the slot such that the keeper stem is retained within the keyhole while the shank is disposed within the slot in order to have a snug interference fit to hold the pieces together.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon in view of Hawkins.
Regarding claim 12, Bacon teaches of claim 8, but does not appear to teach of further comprising a soil pouch disposed within the substantially rectangular frame and configured for receiving soil, the soil pouch sized to be coextensive with and extend between opposite pairs of the four side walls.
Hawkins teaches of further comprising (fig. 3) a soil pouch (10) disposed within the substantially rectangular frame (3) (seen in fig. 3) and configured for receiving soil (fig. 2, earth E), the soil pouch sized to be coextensive with and extend between opposite pairs of the four side walls (seen in fig. 2).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Hawkins of further comprising a soil pouch disposed within the substantially rectangular frame and configured for receiving soil, the soil pouch sized to be coextensive with and extend between opposite pairs of the four side walls in order to provide an inner covering of the box.
Regarding claim 13, Bacon teaches of claim 8, but does not appear to teach of wherein the soil pouch forms a base of the substantially rectangular frame to further define the planter box.
Hawkins teaches of wherein (fig. 2) the soil pouch (11) forms a base of the substantially rectangular frame to further define the planter box (forms as a base of the box frame).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Hawkins of wherein the soil pouch forms a base of the substantially rectangular frame to further define the planter box in order to have an inner covering of the box and to have a stable bottom to the box.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon in view of Glasser (US 20100092240).
Regarding claim 14, Bacon teaches of claim 8, but does not appear to teach of wherein the soil pouch is formed from a layered construction including an inner layer of polymeric material and an outer layer of cloth.
Glasser teaches of (fig. 4) wherein the soil pouch (fig. 1, structure 20 holds soil S above it) is formed from a layered construction including an inner layer of polymeric material (polymeric sheet 10) and an outer layer of cloth (cloth filter 16, 18).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Glasser of wherein the soil pouch is formed from a layered construction including an inner layer of polymeric material and an outer layer of cloth in order to collect excess water from the soil and to aspirate excess water from below and carry it away to a storage facility for reuse as motivated by Glasser in paras. 0006-0007.
Regarding clam 15, Bacon as modified teaches of claim 14, but does not appear to teach of wherein the soil pouch includes a plurality of orifices for allowing excess water to escape from soil in the soil pouch.
Glasser teaches of (fig. 2) wherein the soil pouch (20) includes a plurality of orifices for allowing excess water to escape from soil in the soil pouch (¶0015-0016, channels in sheet 10 to carry excess water away and water pervious cloth filter 16 for allowing excess water to escape from the soil).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Glasser of wherein the soil pouch includes a plurality of orifices for allowing excess water to escape from soil in the soil pouch in order to collect excess water from the soil and to aspirate excess water from below and carry it away to a storage facility for reuse as motivated by Glasser in paras. 0006-0007.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon as modified by Glasser, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hawkins.
Regarding claim 16, Bacon as modified teaches of claim 14, but does not appear to teach of wherein the soil pouch includes a pair of handles to facilitate disposal in or removal from the substantially rectangular frame.
Hawkins teaches of wherein (fig. 3) the soil pouch (10) includes a pair of handles (supporting flange 18) to facilitate disposal in or removal from the substantially rectangular frame (a user can use it to help move the liner in and out of the frame 3).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Hawkins of wherein the soil pouch includes a pair of handles to facilitate disposal in or removal from the substantially rectangular frame in order to help support the soil pouch when placed in containers and to help a user place the soil pouch in these containers.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (U.S. 2,814,161) in view of Bacon (US 1184505).
Regarding claim 1, Hawkins teaches (fig. 3) of a planter box (3 in the drawings but 30 in specifications), comprising:
a substantially rectangular frame including four side walls (side walls 34)
opposite ends of respective side walls together in a right angled wall structure defining an upwardly open frame (container 3 is a right angled wall structure with an upwardly open frame)
(c) a pair of sidewalls normal to each other (seen in fig. 3);
Hawkins does not appear to teach of (b) a joint structure for joining opposite ends of respective side walls together in a right angled wall structure defining an upwardly open frame;
(d) a plurality of L-shaped corner flanges defined by a pair of plates disposed at right angles to one another, the inner surface of the plates being abutted against and releasably connected to the outward facing end portions of the pair of sidewalls to form one right angled wall structure;
(e) a pair of keyholes formed in the outward facing end portions of a pair of sidewalls,
(f) a pair of outwardly extending stems disposed on the inner surfaces of each plate; and
wherein the outwardly projecting stems are received in respective keyholes formed in the sidewalls, and
wherein an exterior surface of each side wall is in line with an exterior surface of an adjacent L-shaped corner flange.
Bacon is in the field of container construction and teaches of (fig. 1) (b) a joint structure (sheet metal corner-pieces 6) for joining opposite ends of respective side walls together in a right angled wall structure defining an upwardly open frame (seen in fig. 1);
(d) a plurality of L-shaped corner flanges (sheet metal corner-pieces 6) defined by a pair of plates disposed at right angles to one another (seen in fig. 1), the inner surface of the plates being abutted against and releasably connected to the outward facing end portions of the pair of sidewalls (walls 2 and 3) to form one right angled wall structure (seen in fig. 1);
(e) a pair of keyholes (fig. 2, kerfs 4, 5) formed in the outward facing end portions of a pair of sidewalls (fig. 2, lines 35-51, each side wall is provided with a kerf 4 and each end wall is also provided with a kerf 5),
(f) a pair of outwardly extending stems (fig. 7, vertical flanges 12) disposed on the inner surfaces of each plate (fig. 6, extends from an inner surface of each plate); and
wherein the outwardly projecting stems (12) are received in respective keyholes (4, 5) formed in the sidewalls (2, 3), and
wherein an exterior surface of each side wall (2, 3) is in line with an exterior surface of an adjacent L-shaped corner flange (6) (seen in 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 modified Hawkins to incorporate the teachings of Bacon of (b) a joint structure for joining opposite ends of respective side walls together in a right angled wall structure defining an upwardly open frame;
(d) a plurality of L-shaped corner flanges defined by a pair of plates disposed at right angles to one another, the inner surface of the plates being abutted against and releasably connected to the outward facing end portions of the pair of sidewalls to form one right angled wall structure; (e) a pair of keyholes formed in the outward facing end portions of a pair of sidewalls, (f) a pair of outwardly extending stems disposed on the inner surfaces of each plate; and wherein the outwardly projecting stems are received in respective keyholes formed in the sidewalls, and wherein an exterior surface of each side wall is in line with an exterior surface of an adjacent L-shaped corner flange in order to protect the corners of the wall and hold them in position as motivated by Bacon in lines 97-104 and to assemble the planter box more easily and quickly as compared to using nails or screws.
Regarding claim 3, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of which further comprises:
an L- shaped gusset disposed downwardly and seated about upper brackets of a respective pair of the L-shaped flanges, the gusset having a stop and seated atop the associated corner flange and engaging the upper ends of a pair of side walls.
Bacon teaches of further comprises: (fig. 1) an L- shaped gusset (end offsets 8 and 9) disposed downwardly (disposed down on top of the side walls 2, 3) and seated about upper brackets of a respective pair of the L-shaped flanges (seated above flanges 6), the gusset (8, 9) having a stop (perforations 16) and seated atop the associated corner flange (6) (seen in fig. 1) and engaging the upper ends of a pair of side walls (2, 3) (seen in 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 modified Hawkins to incorporate the teachings of Bacon of which further comprises: an L- shaped gusset disposed downwardly and seated about upper brackets of a respective pair of the L-shaped flanges, the gusset having a stop and seated atop the associated corner flange and engaging the upper ends of a pair of side walls in order to protect the top of the corners of the frame as motivated by Bacon in lines 97-104.
Regarding claim 4, Hawkins as modified teaches of the invention in claim 1, and teaches (fig. 3) of a soil receiving liner (10), the liner forming a base for the frame (12) (Col. 2 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, Hawkins as modified by Bacon teaches of a kit for forming a planter box (fig. 3, box 3 in the drawings but 30 in the specifications) without tools (as modified by Bacon in claim 1, the box 3 can be assembled without tools by attaching the flanges 6 to the kerfs 4, 5 and the nail seen in fig. 2 is not essential to forming the box as the box can be held together by the flanges being in kerfs 4, 5), the kit comprising: the planter box of Claim 1 in disassembled form (Hawkins as modified by Bacon).
Regarding claim 8, Hawkins teaches of (fig. 3) a planter box (3 in the drawings but 30 in specifications), comprising:
(a) four side walls forming a substantially rectangular frame (side walls 3, 4 from a rectangular frame), each side wall having a pair of opposed ends (seen in fig. 3)
Hawkins does not appear to teach of each side wall having a pair of opposed ends where each end includes at least one keyhole,
(b) four generally L-shaped corner members each having a pair of flange plates positioned at right angles to one another, each flange plate including at least one keeper stem extending from an inner surface thereof, and
wherein each keyhole receives one of the keeper stems such that each L-shaped corner member joins adjacent side walls to form the substantially rectangular frame without the aid of tools.
Bacon teaches of (fig. 1) each side wall having a pair of opposed ends where each end includes at least one keyhole (fig. 2, lines 35-51, each wall 2, 3 has kerfs 4, 5),
(b) four generally L-shaped corner members (four sheet metal corner-pieces 6) each having a pair of flange plates positioned at right angles to one another seen in fig. 1), each flange plate including at least one keeper stem (fig. 7, vertical flanges 12) extending from an inner surface thereof (fig. 6, extends from an inner surface of each plate), and
wherein each keyhole (4, 5) receives one of the keeper stems (12) such that each L-shaped corner member joins adjacent side walls (2, 3) to form the substantially rectangular frame without the aid of tools (fig. 2, each keyhole 4, 5 holes the keeper stems 12 to join adjacent side walls 2, 3 to form the box without the aid of tools).
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 Hawkins to incorporate the teachings of Bacon of each side wall having a pair of opposed ends where each end includes at least one keyhole, (b) four generally L-shaped corner members each having a pair of flange plates positioned at right angles to one another, each flange plate including at least one keeper stem extending from an inner surface thereof, and wherein each keyhole receives one of the keeper stems such that each L-shaped corner member joins adjacent side walls to form the substantially rectangular frame without the aid of tools in order to protect the corners of the wall and hold them in position as motivated by Bacon in lines 97-104 and to assemble the planter box without the requirement of tools.
Regarding claim 17, Hawkins teaches of a kit for forming a planter box without tools (as modified by Bacon), the kit comprising:
the planter box of claim 8 in disassembled form (as modified by Bacon, separate components to have the invention in disassembled form).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins, as modified by Bacon, as applied in claim 4 above, and in further view of Setzer (U.S. 2015/0334925).
Regarding claim 5, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein the liner comprises:
the liner having a plurality of drainage openings (perforations 20, 22) therethrough (col. 2 lines 9-14, bottom 12 is provided with perforations 20, 22).
Hawkins does not appear to teach of a first layer of polymeric material and a second layer of cloth.
Setzer teaches of a first layer of polymeric material and a second layer of cloth (¶0022, planters 12 are made from material that is air and moisture permeable, non-woven, needle-punched, polymeric geotextile fabric, preferably a polypropylene).
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 Hawkins to incorporate the teachings of Setzer of a first layer of polymeric material and a second layer of cloth in order to have an air and moisture permeable liner as motivated by Setzer in para. 0022.
Claim 6, 9, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins, as modified by Bacon, as applied in claim 3 above, and in further view of Risley.
Regarding claim 6, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 3, and Bacon further teaches of each gusset (8, 9) having a stop (16);
the stop connecting to the corners on two respective side walls (2, 3) (on the top surface of the corners of side walls 2, 3), when connected together by the corner flange (6) (seen in fig. 1).
Hawkins does not appear to teach of which further comprises:
an inwardly turned bracket, the stop connecting to the bracket on two respective side walls.
Risley is in the field of constructing rectangular objects and teaches of an inwardly turned bracket (Fig. 14 and 17, side walls 16 and end walls 18 has an inwardly turned bracket at the top and bottom edges).
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 Bacon to incorporate the teachings of Risley of an inwardly turned bracket such that when incorporated, the stop connects to the bracket on two respective side walls due to the stop being positioned on top of the corners in order to protect the user against sharp edges on the top of the box and provide more stability and durability to the edges of the walls.
Regarding claim 9, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 8, but does not appear to teach of four generally right-angled gussets each having a pair of downwardly open channels adapted to seat atop brackets formed on two joined side walls.
Bacon teaches of (fig. 1) four generally right-angled gussets (four right-angled end offsets 8, 9) each having a pair of downwardly open channels (opens downwardly) adapted to seat atop corners formed on two joined side walls (seen in 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 modified Hawkins to incorporate the teachings of Bacon of four generally right-angled gussets each having a pair of downwardly open channels adapted to seat atop corners formed on two joined side walls in order to protect the corners of the walls as motivated by Bacon in lines 97-104.
Risley teaches of brackets formed on two joined side walls (Fig. 14 and 17, side walls 16 and end walls 18 has an inwardly turned bracket at the top and bottom edges).
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 Hawkins to incorporate the teachings of Risley of brackets formed on two joined side walls such that the pair of downwardly open channels from Bacon is adapted to seat atop brackets formed on two joined side walls in order to protect the user against sharp edges on the top of the box and provide more stability and durability to the edges of the walls.
Regarding claim 10, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 8, and Bacon further wherein (fig. 2) each pair of a connecting keeper stem (12) and keyhole (4, 5) provide an expedient for rapidly joining one corner member and two adjacent side walls (pushing stems 12 into keyholes 4, 5 expediates joining the corner members 6 and two adjacent side walls 2, 3) such that an exterior surface of each side wall (2, 3) end abuts against the inner surface of the associated L-shaped corner member (6) (seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 8, and further comprising (fig. 3) a soil pouch (10) disposed within the substantially rectangular frame (3) (seen in fig. 3) and configured for receiving soil (fig. 2, earth E), the soil pouch sized to be coextensive with and extend between opposite pairs of the four side walls (seen in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 8, and wherein (fig. 2) the soil pouch (10) forms a base of the substantially rectangular frame to further define the planter box (forms as a base of the box frame).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins, as modified by Bacon, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of DeBlanco et al. (US 20140155182), hereinafter DeBlanco.
Regarding claim 11, Hawkins teaches of claim 8, and Bacon further teaches of (fig. 2) wherein each keeper stem (12) includes a head (pointed end of flange 12) and a shank (elongated part of flange 12), and each keyhole (4, 5) includes an opening (inside opening of keyholes 4, 5) and a slot (entrance of the keyholes 4, 5 to hold the stems 12),
wherein the opening is configured to receive the head (seen in fig. 2), and the shank is configured to move vertically into the slot (the stems 12 are moved perpendicularly to the surface of the sidewalls such that the stems 12 are moved vertically into the slot).
Hawkins does not appear to teach of wherein the head is larger than the slot such that the keeper stem is retained within the keyhole while the shank is disposed within the slot.
DeBlanco is in the field of constructing rectangular objects and teaches of (fig. 3) wherein the head (circular head of the stem) is larger than the slot (narrow slit of the corner piece) such that the keeper stem (stem of side wall into the corner piece) is retained within the keyhole while the shank is disposed within the slot (seen in fig. 8).
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 Hawkins to incorporate the teachings of DeBlanco of wherein the head is larger than the slot such that the keeper stem is retained within the keyhole while the shank is disposed within the slot in order to have a snug interference fit to hold the pieces together.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins, as modified by Bacon, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Glasser (US 20100092240).
Regarding claim 14, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 8, and a soil pouch.
Hawkins does not appear to teach of wherein the soil pouch is formed from a layered construction including an inner layer of polymeric material and an outer layer of cloth.
Glasser teaches of (fig. 4) wherein the soil pouch (fig. 1, structure 20) is formed from a layered construction including an inner layer of polymeric material (polymeric sheet 10) and an outer layer of cloth (cloth filter 16, 18).
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 Hawkins to incorporate the teachings of Glasser of wherein the soil pouch is formed from a layered construction including an inner layer of polymeric material and an outer layer of cloth in order to collect excess water from the soil as motivated by Glasser in para. 0006.
Regarding claim 15, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 14, and of wherein (fig. 3) the soil pouch (10) includes a plurality of orifices (perforations 22) for allowing excess water to escape from soil in the soil pouch (perforations allow excess water to escape from the soil in the soil pouch).
Regarding claim 16, Hawkins as modified teaches of claim 14, and wherein (fig. 3) the soil pouch (10) includes a pair of handles (supporting flange 18) to facilitate disposal in or removal from the substantially rectangular frame (a user can use it to help move the liner in and out of the frame 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 3-17 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 cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm 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, Tien Dinh can be reached on 571-272-6899. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights