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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 8/5/2026, wherein claims 1 were amended, claims 3, 11-25 are cancelled, claims 56-57 are new. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 26-35 and 56-57 are pending. Claims 4-9, 29, 31-35 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2,10,26-28,30 and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 states “wherein each of the brace-receiving apertures receives at least one brace ” Claims 2, 10, 56 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 26 states “wherein each of the brace-receiving apertures is configured to receive at least one brace ”. Each brace-receiving aperture can only receive a singular brace. The phrase "at least one brace" is improperly used as it is not taught that multiple braces can be received in each brace-receiving aperture. Claims 27-28, 30, 57 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
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 26-28, 30, 57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the brace" in line 24. 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. It is also referred to as at least one brace. Claims 27-28, 30, 57 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
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, 56 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, an opposed pair of sidewalls (fig 1 below); two or more brace receiving apertures (left most holes of 8 on each side wall) formed through the opposed pair of sidewalls, wherein each of the brace-receiving apertures receives at least one 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), wherein the brace comprises a first connecting tab (one end of 10 containing both 8s) located at a first end of the brace and a second connecting tab (other end of 10 containing both 8s) located at second end of the brace such that the first connecting tab (one end containing both 8s) is configured to engage a first one of the opposed pair of sidewalls (front facing wall of figure 1) to connect the brace to the first one of the opposed pair of sidewalls and the second connecting tab (other end of 10 containing both 8s) is configured to engage a second one (back facing wall of figure 1) of the opposed pair of sidewalls to connect the brace to the second one of the opposed pair of sidewalls; and two or more brace-locking apertures (right most holes of 8 on each side wall) formed through the opposed pair of sidewalls, wherein each of the brace-locking apertures of the first one of the opposed pair of sidewalls is configured to receive and engage with the first connecting tab (see figure 1) of the brace and each of the brace-locking apertures of the second one of the opposed pair of sidewalls is configured to receive and engage with the second connecting tab of the brace to facilitate connection of the brace to the opposed pair of sidewalls (figure 1).
Examiner Note: This does not claim the presence of a brace.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
382
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.
With respect to claim 56, Dowling discloses the packaging system of claim 1 wherein the brace further comprises a retainer portion (central portion of 8) extending between the first connecting tab and the second connecting tab and is configured to extend between the opposed pair of sidewalls.
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) 10 , 26-28, 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowling (US 5018693 A) in view of Weder (US 5692612 A).
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the packaging container further comprises an upper wall and a plurality of the sidewalls and defines an internal volume. Dowling does teach of a plurality of sidewalls. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers for plants, Weder taught of a container for plants that included braces and lid flaps (upper wall) to substantially enclose the container (col 4 lines 28-36). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Dowling to include a upper wall as taught by Weder in order to allow for enclosing of the retaining space.
With respect to claim 26, Weder discloses a packaging system comprising: a packaging container comprising a lower wall, an upper wall, and a plurality of sidewalls (figure 1 above) and defining an internal volume; and a two or more brace-receiving apertures (left most holes of 8 on each side wall) formed through an opposed pair of sidewalls among the plurality of sidewalls, wherein each of the brace-receiving apertures is configured to receive at least one brace, such that the brace extends between and is coupled to the opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls within the internal volume, wherein the brace comprises a first connecting tab located at a first end of the brace and a second connecting tab located at second end of the brace such that the first connecting tab is configured to engage a first one of the opposed pair of sidewalls to connect the brace to the first one of the opposed pair of sidewalls and the second connecting tab is configured to engage a second one of the opposed pair of sidewalls to connect the brace to the second one of the opposed pair of sidewalls; two or more brace-locking apertures (right most holes of 8 on each side wall) formed through the opposed pair of sidewalls, wherein each of the brace-locking apertures of the first one of the opposed pair of sidewalls is configured to receive and engage with the first connecting tab of the brace and each of the brace-locking apertures of the second one of the opposed pair of sidewalls is configured to receive and engage with the second connecting tab of the brace to facilitate connection of the brace to the opposed pair of sidewalls; wherein the brace engages a portion of the potted plant opposite the lower wall.
Dowling failed to disclose of a potted plant located within the internal volume and supported by the lower wall. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely plant containers with braces, Weder (US 5692612 A) taught of a container with braces that is intended to store potted plants. Currently, Dowling teaches of a similar structure and would be able to store potted plants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of plant containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include potted plants as taught by Weder in the container of Dowling 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, Dowling teaches of a plant container with braces and adding potted plants as taught by Weder would maintain the same functionality of the combination of Dowling, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Examiner Note: The brace is not being positively recited. However, the brace and its nomenclature is identified in figure 1 and claim 1.
With respect to claim 27, the references as applied to claim 26, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach further comprising: a plurality of potted plants (potted plants taught by the Weder reference) located within the internal volume and supported by the lower wall; and a plurality of braces (structure taught by Dowling) 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. (engagement is taught by Weder, refer to figure 9 and claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 28, the references as applied to claim 27, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein a second one of the plurality of braces (another of 8 Dowlings, as seen in figure 1) extends between and is coupled to the first opposed pair of the plurality of sidewalls within the internal volume.
With respect to claim 57, the references as applied to claim 26, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Dowling further discloses wherein the brace further comprises a retainer portion extending between the first connecting tab and the second connecting tab and is configured to extend between the opposed pair of sidewalls and engage with a pot of the potted plant.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowling (US 5018693 A) in view of Weder (US 5692612 A) and 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 Dowling and Weder teaches of braces as holding elements and adding additional holding elements (push-in panels) as taught by Vallejo would maintain the same functionality of Dowling and Weder, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, applicant believes the amendments overcome the Dowling reference. However, it is believed that applicant has taken a narrowed view of the term . Further it is noted that the amendments to claim 26 fail to positively recite the brace as part of the invention and the tab is not positively recited.
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. Claim 26 is now rejected in part using the Dowling reference, similar rationale is used as claim 1 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights