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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/4/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1, 26 were amended, claim 2, 11-25, 36-56 were canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 26-35 are pending. Claims 4-10, 29, 31-35 were withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 5 reads "brace extends between and to be coupled" should read "brace extends between and is coupled". 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 10, 26-28, and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “a brace-receiving aperture" and "a brace-locking aperture” in claim 1 and 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a brace-receiving aperture" and "a brace-locking aperture” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims states that each aperture identified above is "formed through the opposed pair of sidewalls". Isn't each aperture considered multiple apertures? So instead of a brace-receiving aperture, it should be "brace-receiving apertures" (since there are two apertures, one for each side wall). A singular aperture wouldn’t be able to support the brace. There are seemingly multiple openings that comprise the term being identified as “aperture”. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that there can be multiple openings that comprise the term “aperture”. Claim 2, 10, 27-28, and 30 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a brace receiving aperture" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the brace" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this statement, a brace is not introduced. A brace is only discussed in terms of intended function.
The term “a plurality of braces” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a plurality of braces” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Does the plurality of braces relate to the singular brace introduced in claim 1? If so, as written, this is not clear by the claim language. Further the independent claim discusses a singular braces. Perhaps the independent claim should refer to this feature as "at least one brace"?.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "a brace receiving aperture" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "a opposed pair of sidewalls" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “a plurality of braces” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a plurality of braces” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Does the plurality of braces relate to the singular brace introduced in claim 1? If so, as written, this is not clear by the claim language. Further the independent claim discusses a singular braces. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the plurality of braces do refer to the singular introduced prior brace.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Dowling (US 5018693 A).
With respect to claim 1, Dowling discloses a packaging system comprising: a packaging container (4) comprising a lower wall and an opposed pair of sidewalls (fig 1 below); a brace receiving aperture (left most holes of 8 on each side wall) formed through the opposed pair of sidewalls, wherein a brace-receiving aperture is configured to receive a portion of a brace (2), such that the brace extends between and to be coupled to the opposed pair of sidewalls wherein the brace (2) is substantially parallel to the lower wall of the packaging container (figure 1), and a brace-locking aperture (right most holes of 8 on each side wall) formed through the opposed pair of sidewalls, wherein the brace-locking aperture is configured to receive and facilitate connection of the brace to the opposed pair of sidewalls.
Examiner Note: This does not claim the presence of a brace.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Dowling discloses the packaging system of Claim 1, further comprising a plurality of braces (2), wherein each one of the plurality of braces (2) is configured to extend between and be coupled to the opposed pair of sidewalls (fig 1) of the packaging container.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Billerbeck (US 2721022 A).
With respect to claim 1, Billerbeck discloses a packaging system comprising: a packaging container (fig 1) comprising a lower wall and an opposed pair of sidewalls (bottom most wall side walls 23); a brace receiving aperture (left most holes 37 each side wall) formed through the opposed pair of sidewalls, wherein a brace-receiving aperture is configured to receive a portion of a brace, such that the brace extends between and to be coupled to the opposed pair of sidewalls wherein the brace is substantially parallel to the lower wall of the packaging container (figure 1), and a brace-locking aperture (right most holes of 37 on each side wall) formed through the opposed pair of sidewalls, wherein the brace-locking aperture is configured to receive and facilitate connection of the brace to the opposed pair of sidewalls.
Examiner Note: This does not claim the presence of a brace.
PNG
media_image2.png
440
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 10, Billerbeck discloses the packaging system of Claim 1, wherein the packaging container further comprises an upper wall (top portion), wherein the upper wall, lower wall and the opposed pair of the sidewalls defines an internal volume.
With respect to claim 26, Billerbeck discloses a packaging system comprising: a packaging container comprising a lower wall, an upper wall, and a plurality of sidewalls and defining an internal volume; a potted plant located within the internal volume and supported by the lower wall; and a brace receiving aperture (leftmost holes 37 each side wall) formed through an opposed pair of sidewalls among the plurality of sidewalls, wherein the brace-receiving aperture is configured to receive a portion of a brace, such that the brace extends between and coupled to a opposed pair of sidewalls of the plurality of sidewalls within the internal volume, a brace-locking aperture (rightmost holes of 37 on each side wall) formed through the opposed pair of sidewalls, wherein the brace-locking aperture is configured to receive and facilitate connection of the brace to the opposed pair of sidewalls, and wherein the brace (38) engages a portion of the potted plant opposite the lower wall.
With respect to claim 27, Billerbeck discloses the packaging system of Claim 26, further comprising: a plurality of potted plants (33/36) located within the internal volume and supported by the lower wall; and a plurality of braces (38) coupled to select ones of the plurality of sidewalls, wherein each one of the plurality of braces engages a portion of at least two of the plurality of potted plants opposite the lower wall. (as evident in figure 3, the receptacle is engaged and col 3 lines 17-20)
With respect to claim 28, Billerbeck discloses the packaging system of Claim 27, wherein a second one of the plurality of braces (an adjacent 38) extends between and is coupled to the first opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls within the internal volume.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billerbeck (US 2721022 A) in view of Vallejo (US 9487345 B1).
With respect to claim 30, the references as applied to claim 27, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein: the packaging container further comprises a plurality of push-in panels configured to extend into the internal volume; and each one of the plurality of push-in panels engages a portion of one of the plurality of potted plants opposite the lower wall. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely potted plant carriers, Vallejo taught of potted plant carriers with push-in panels (aka indents 20, 28, 30) to help hold the contents towards the bottom (col 2 lines 56-52). Presently the braces also help with that structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of potted holders before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include push-in panels as taught by Vallejo in the system of Billerbeck since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Billerbeck teaches of braces as holding elements and adding additional holding elements (push-in panels) as taught by Vallejo would maintain the same functionality of Weder, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, applicant argues that Dowling fails to disclose the amended material (the apertures). However, Dowling dose, refer to claim 1 rejection above for further identification..
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 26 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 1993692 A, US 2721022 A, US 3028005 A, US 3035751 A, US 3606004 A, US 5018693 A, US 5029708 A, US 5134858 A, US 5407072 A, US 5427240 A, US 5692612 A, US 20030217942 A1, US 20050045496 A1, US 7926655 B1, US 9487345 B1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735