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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 21-35 are pending and have been examined in this application.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 06/14/2022 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/29/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-25) and Species A (Figs. 1-11) in the reply filed on 05/08/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 is generic to the plant tray parts. This is not found persuasive because stating that claim 1 is generic to all the species does not serve as a proper ground for traversal of the restriction requirement. The Applicant’s note, that claim 1 recites a “kit” which includes multiple different components including the drip tray and optionally the overflow pipe and slot recited in claims 12-13, is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, the required election of species seems to be improper. Therefore, the requirement for election of an invention is maintained, however the requirement for election of a species is withdrawn.
Claims 26-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement for election of an invention, specified above, is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “each lip is level with the other lips… such that the lips of the inlets closest to the at least one drain channel are farther from the first surface than the lips of the inlets furthest from the at least one drain channel” in claims 1 and 35 as described in the specification. The Applicant’s Drawings do not clearly show this structure. It seems that the “lips” are level with each other, but the lips closest to the “drain channel” are not clearly shown to be “farther from the first surface than the lips of the inlets” further from the “drain channel”. Further clarification is needed.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff (WO 2016118011).
In regard to claim 1, Hoff discloses a kit for use in watering a plant, the kit including a drip tray comprising a base having a length being a distance between a first set of two parallel planes and a width being a distance between a second set of two parallel planes defined at sides of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where there is a drip tray 1 that has a base having a length being at least a distance between a first set of two parallel planes (left and right sides of base) and a width being at least a distance between a second set of two parallel planes (front and back sides of base) defined at sides of the base), each plane of the second set being substantially perpendicular to the planes of the first set (see Figs. 4-5, where two sides of the base are at least perpendicular to the other two sides of the base), the base having a height being a distance between a first surface and a second surface of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where the base at least has a height being a distance between a first surface 30 and a second surface (opposite side of 30 at bottom of drip tray 1) of the base), wherein a wall upstands from the first surface around an edge at each side of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where a wall upstands (at edge 81) from the first surface 30 around an edge at each side of the base) and a plurality of channels is defined through the base from the first surface to the second surface (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where there are a plurality of channels 31/32/33 defined through the base from the first surface 30 to the second surface (opposite side of 30 at bottom of drip tray 1)), each of the plurality of channels being configured to have an inlet and an outlet (Figs. 4-5 and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where each of the plurality of channels31/32/33 is configured to have at least an inlet (at opening of the channels) and an outlet 61/62/63), wherein each inlet has a lip projecting from the first surface (Figs. 4-5 and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where each inlet has a lip 46/47/48 projecting from the first surface 30) and each lip is level with the other lips (Figs. 4-5 and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where the lips 46/47/48 of each inlet are at least level with each other), and wherein at least one drain channel is defined in the base between the first surface and the second surface of the base, each drain channel being configured to have a drain inlet and a drain outlet, wherein each drain inlet has a lip which is flush with the first surface of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11 and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where at least one drain channel 35 is defined in the base between the first surface 30 and the second surface of the base and the drain channel 35 is configured to have a drain inlet and a drain outlet with a lip which is at least flush with the first surface 30 of the base), the first surface of the base is configured to slope to each drain inlet (Figs. 4-5, Claim 15, and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where the first surface of the base is at least configured to slope to the drain inlet, since there must be some slope between the higher and lower portions of the first surface to provide for the structure disclosed by “the drain opening is located at a lower portion of the generally flat upper surface to minimize any moisture remaining on the plate-shaped structure 1”). Hoff is silent on the lips of the inlets closest to the at least one drain channel are farther from the first surface than the lips of the inlets furthest from the at least one drain channel. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Hoff to have the lips of the inlets closest to the at least one drain channel be farther from the first surface than the lips of the inlets furthest from the at least one drain channel, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the first surface and drain inlet position shown in Hoff. The motivation would have been to minimize any moisture remaining on the first surface by positioning the drain inlet on a lower portion of the first surface, thereby allowing gravity to drain any excess water on the first surface.
In regard to claim 2, Hoff discloses the kit according to claim 1, wherein the wall extends substantially perpendicularly from the first surface of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where the wall (at edge 81) extends substantially perpendicularly from the first surface 30 of the base).
In regard to claim 3, Hoff discloses the kit according to claim 1, wherein the wall has a height extending from the first surface of the base greater than a height of the lip of each inlet from the first surface of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where the wall (at edge 81) has a height extending from the first surface 30 of the base greater than a height of the lip 46/47/48 of each inlet from the first surface 30 of the base).
In regard to claim 6, Hoff discloses the kit according to claim 1, wherein the first surface of the base is substantially parallel with the second surface of the base, the base being substantially planar, and the lips of the inlets project substantially equidistant from the first surface of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11 and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where the first surface 30 of the base is substantially parallel with the second surface (opposite 30 at bottom) of the base, substantially planar, and the lips 46/47/48 of the inlets project substantially equidistant from the first surface 30 of the base).
In regard to claim 10, Hoff discloses the kit according to claim 1, wherein the channels are located in frustoconical projections which project from the second surface of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where the channels 31/32/33 are located in frustoconical projections 41/42/43 which at least project from the second surface of the base).
In regard to claim 11, Hoff discloses the kit according to claim 10, wherein each frustoconical projection has a base set into a recess in the second surface of the base of the drip tray (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where each frustoconical projection 41/42/43 at least has a base 51/52/53 set into a recess in the second surface of the base of the drip tray 1).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff (WO 2016118011) in view of Marshall (GB 2557757).
In regard to claim 4, Hoff discloses the kit according to claim 1. Hoff does not disclose a substantially U-shaped recess is defined in one of the sides of the base for receiving a stem of a plant and the wall extends around an edge of the recess. Marshall discloses a substantially U-shaped recess is defined in one of the sides of the base for receiving a stem of a plant and the wall extends around an edge of the recess (Figs. 1-3 and 8, where there is a substantially U-shaped recess 42/44 defined in one of the sides of the base 10 for receiving a stem of a plant (see Fig. 8) and the wall 18 extends around an edge of the recess 42/44). Hoff and Marshall are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Hoff such that a substantially U-shaped recess is defined in one of the sides of the base for receiving a stem of a plant and the wall extends around an edge of the recess in view of Marshall. The motivation would have been to allow the user to easily remove the cover by sliding it horizontally, without damaging the plant which may have branches and extensions larger than the circular opening.
In regard to claim 5, Hoff as modified by Marshall discloses the kit according to claim 4, wherein the recess extends approximately half of a distance from a first side of the base to an opposite side of the base (Marshall, Figs. 1-3 and 8, where the recess 42/44 at least extends approximately half of a distance from a first side of the base to an opposite side of the base).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff (WO 2016118011) in view of Varjus et al. (EP 2347646).
In regard to claim 12, Hoff discloses the kit according to claim 1. Hoff does not disclose an overflow slot is located in the wall of the drip tray. Varjus et al. discloses an overflow slot is located in the wall of the drip tray (Fig. 5 and Paragraph [0052], where there is an overflow slot 11 located in the wall of the tray 1). Hoff and Varjus et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Hoff such that an overflow slot is located in the wall of the drip tray in view of Varjus et al. The motivation would have been to allow excess water to flow away from the area near the stem of the plant, thereby better preventing overwatering near the stem and associated plant diseases.
Claims 21-25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff (WO 2016118011) in view of Chappell (GB 2541862).
In regard to claim 21, Hoff discloses the kit according to claim 1. Hoff does not disclose a fabric felt pot and a rigid pot. Chappell discloses a fabric felt pot and a rigid pot (Figs. 1-3 and Specification Page 2 line 38 – Page 3 line 5 and Page 4 lines 8-16, where there is at least a fabric pot 7 which sits inside a rigid pot 4). Hoff and Chappell are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Hoff such that a fabric felt pot and a rigid pot in view of Chappell. The motivation would have been to use a liquid permeable container nested in a rigid, liquid tight container to hold the plant and medium, thereby more efficiently providing water or nutrient solution to the plant and medium (Chappell, Figs. 1-2).
In regard to claim 22, Hoff as modified by Chappell discloses the kit according to claim 21, wherein a rooting medium is held in the fabric felt pot which is placed inside the rigid pot (Chappell, Figs. 1-3 and Specification Page 2 line 38 – Page 3 line 5 and Page 4 lines 8-16, where a rooting medium is held in the fabric pot 7 which is placed inside the rigid pot 4).
In regard to claim 23, Hoff as modified by Chappell discloses the kit according to claim 22, wherein the rigid pot has a base and a wall extending upwardly therefrom and a drain channel is located in the base (Chappell, Figs. 1-3, where the rigid pot 4 has a base 14 and a wall 15 extending upwardly therefrom and a drain channel (which runs along 18) is located in the base 14).
In regard to claim 24, Hoff as modified by Chappell discloses the kit according to claim 23, wherein a platform of raised blocks is provided adjacent the base of the rigid pot to prevent the fabric felt pot from sitting directly on the base of the rigid pot and blocking the drain channel (Chappell, Figs. 1-3, where a platform of raised blocks 19 is provided adjacent the base 14 of the rigid pot to at least prevent the fabric pot 7 from sitting directly on the base 14 of the rigid pot and blocking the drain channel (which runs along 18)).
In regard to claim 25, Hoff as modified by Chappell discloses the kit according to claim 24, wherein a surface of the platform is angled towards the drain channel so that, in use, no liquid remains in the base of the pot (Chappell, Figs. 1-3, where a surface of the platform 19 is angled towards (slopes shown on the sides of projections 17) the drain channel (which runs along 18) so that, in use, no liquid remains in the base of the pot 4).
In regard to claim 35, Hoff discloses a kit for use in watering a plant, the kit comprising a drip tray comprising a base having a length being a distance between a first set of two parallel planes and a width being a distance between a second set of two parallel planes defined at sides of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where there is a drip tray 1 that has a base having a length being at least a distance between a first set of two parallel planes (left and right sides of base) and a width being at least a distance between a second set of two parallel planes (front and back sides of base) defined at sides of the base), each plane of the second set being substantially perpendicular to the planes of the first set (see Figs. 4-5, where two sides of the base are at least perpendicular to the other two sides of the base), the base having a height being a distance between a first surface and a second surface of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where the base at least has a height being a distance between a first surface 30 and a second surface (opposite side of 30 at bottom of drip tray 1) of the base), wherein a wall upstands from the first surface around an edge at each side of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where a wall upstands (at edge 81) from the first surface 30 around an edge at each side of the base) and a plurality of channels is defined through the base from the first surface to the second surface (Figs. 4-5 and 11, where there are a plurality of channels 31/32/33 defined through the base from the first surface 30 to the second surface (opposite side of 30 at bottom of drip tray 1)), each of the plurality of channels being configured to have an inlet and an outlet (Figs. 4-5 and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where each of the plurality of channels31/32/33 is configured to have at least an inlet (at opening of the channels) and an outlet 61/62/63), wherein each inlet has a lip projecting from the first surface (Figs. 4-5 and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where each inlet has a lip 46/47/48 projecting from the first surface 30) and each lip is level with the other lips (Figs. 4-5 and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where the lips 46/47/48 of each inlet are at least level with each other), and wherein at least one drain channel is defined in the base between the first surface and the second surface of the base, each drain channel being configured to have a drain inlet and a drain outlet, wherein each drain inlet has a lip which is flush with the first surface of the base (Figs. 4-5 and 11 and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where at least one drain channel 35 is defined in the base between the first surface 30 and the second surface of the base and the drain channel 35 is configured to have a drain inlet and a drain outlet with a lip which is at least flush with the first surface 30 of the base), and the first surface of the base is configured to slope to each drain inlet (Figs. 4-5, Claim 15, and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where the first surface of the base is at least configured to slope to the drain inlet, since there must be some slope between the higher and lower portions of the first surface to provide for the structure disclosed by “the drain opening is located at a lower portion of the generally flat upper surface to minimize any moisture remaining on the plate-shaped structure 1”), such that the lips of the inlets closest to the at least one drain channel are farther from the first surface than the lips of the inlets furthest from the at least one drain channel. Hoff is silent on a drain fitting configured for mating with a drain of a rigid pot having a drain wall upstanding from an annular drain base having an inner surface defining a channel and an outer surface which is threaded, and wherein the drain fitting includes one or more conduits defined though the drain wall between the inner surface and the outer surface adjacent the drain base. Chappell discloses a drain fitting configured for mating with a drain of a rigid pot having a drain wall upstanding from an annular drain base having an inner surface defining a channel and an outer surface which is threaded (Figs. 1-3, where there is at least a drain fitting 20 configured for mating with a drain (aperture of 4 through which 20 is attached) of a rigid pot 4 having a drain wall upstanding from an annular drain base (at least a wall upstanding from an annular drain base near the threaded end of 20) having an inner surface defining a channel (see a channel underneath threads in Fig. 3) and an outer surface which is threaded (see threads in Fig. 3)), and wherein the drain fitting includes one or more conduits defined though the drain wall between the inner surface and the outer surface adjacent the drain base (Figs. 1-3, where the drain fitting 20 at least includes one or more conduits (liquid at least flows through a closable conduit when 4 is drained) defined though the drain wall between the inner surface and the outer surface adjacent the drain base (the closable conduit is present in a portion of drain wall between the inner surface and the outer surface near the drain base)). Hoff and Chappell are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include agricultural devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Hoff such that a drain fitting configured for mating with a drain of a rigid pot having a drain wall upstanding from an annular drain base having an inner surface defining a channel and an outer surface which is threaded, and wherein the drain fitting includes one or more conduits defined though the drain wall between the inner surface and the outer surface adjacent the drain base in view of Chappell, since the channel of Chappell has a conduit which can be opened and closed by the float of Chappell. The motivation would have been to allow the rigid pot to drain thoroughly, as is required by various plant care regimens.
Hoff as modified by Chappell is silent on the lips of the inlets closest to the at least one drain channel are farther from the first surface than the lips of the inlets furthest from the at least one drain channel. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Hoff to have the lips of the inlets closest to the at least one drain channel be farther from the first surface than the lips of the inlets furthest from the at least one drain channel, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the first surface and drain inlet position shown in Hoff as modified by Chappell. The motivation would have been to minimize any moisture remaining on the first surface by positioning the drain inlet on a lower portion of the first surface, thereby allowing gravity to drain any excess water on the first surface
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 07/29/2025) with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Hoff (WO 2016118011) discloses the applicant’s claim 1, as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above. Hoff (WO 2016118011) in view of Chappell (GB 2541862) discloses the applicant’s claim 35, as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above.
Specifically, Hoff also teaches the first surface of the base is configured to slope to each drain inlet in Figs. 4-5, Claim 15, and Provided Specification Page 6 line 35 – Page 7 line 40, where the first surface of the base is at least configured to slope to the drain inlet. There must be some slope between the higher and lower portions of the first surface to provide for the structure disclosed by “the drain opening is located at a lower portion of the generally flat upper surface to minimize any moisture remaining on the plate-shaped structure 1” in Hoff.
Furthermore, each lip of Hoff is shown in Figs. 4-5 as at least level with the other lips. From the figures and disclosure of Hoff, at least some portion of the lips 46/47/48 are shown to lie on the same plane. They are not shown to be positioned on separate planes.
Lastly, the limitation of “the lips of the inlets closest to the at least one drain channel are farther from the first surface than the lips of the inlets furthest from the at least one drain channel” would have been an obvious design choice, which does not serve a specific purpose or solve a stated problem regarding the function of the invention. The invention would function equally as well with the first surface and drain inlet position disclosed by Hoff and detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of agricultural devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647