DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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, 4, 6-11, 13, 15-22 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the light reflector has an arc-shaped convex surface extending upward from the elastic band”, this does not seem to be supported by the drawings as the drawings do not illustrate an arc-shape of the light reflector and the specifications does not disclose this configuration.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the light reflector has an arc-shaped convex surface extending upward from the outer edge surface of the reflective ring”, this does not seem to be supported by the drawings as the drawings do not illustrate an arc-shape of the light reflector and the specifications does not disclose this configuration.
Claims 2, 4, 6-11, 13, 15-22 are rejected due to dependency on a rejected claim above.
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, 4, 6-9, 21 are 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 1 recites the limitation "a circular elastic band" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this means there are two elastic bands for the light reflector, as only one is discussed in the specifications. The Office has proceeded with the interpretation that there is only one elastic band and the applicant intended to reference the band that was originally introduced in line 5.
Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 21 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 113748877 A) in view of Monnes (US 20100218421 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses light reflector (3) for plants being grown in a planter pot (1), comprising: the planter pot having a circular base and side walls which extend up from the base to a rim which extends around the top opening of the pot (Fig. 1); the light reflector having a circular shape (3) which forms a circular opening which grips the side walls and engages the bottom surface of the rim whereby the light reflector extends outward from the sidewalls to reflect light on a bottom surface of the plants (Fig. 1), wherein the light reflector is constructed of a reflective insulation (the heat associated with the light will be reflected away from the plant pot therefore it can be said that the reflector is constructed of a reflective insulation),
Chen fails to teach wherein the light reflector has a circular elastic band formed on the inner side of the circular opening of the reflective insulation and wherein the light reflector has an arc-shaped convex surface extending upward from the elastic band.
However, Monnes teaches a circular elastic band (cord 17, para 19) on the inner side of the circular opening (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 provided the reflector as disclosed by Chen with the elastic band as taught by Monnes with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an elastic band within the inner side of the opening would allow for it to better secured onto the outside of the plant receptacle, increasing the amount of reflecting light directed toward the plant.
Chen as modified teaches wherein the light reflector (Chen 3) has an arc-shaped convex surface extending upward from the elastic band (Chen’s light reflector 3 extends upward from the elastic band as modified by Monnes cord 17).
Regarding claim 2: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches with an opening through a circular base of the planter pot (Chen Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the light reflector can be various sizes dependent on the type of plant receptacle. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to modify the size of the reflector, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Changing the size would achieve the predictable result of having reflectors that are better fits dependent on the size of the plant receptacle, achieving the predictable result of ensuring better light redirection.
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the light reflector (Chen 3) is formed as a circle projecting out from the elastic band (Monnes 17).
Regarding claim 7: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the light reflector (Chen 3) is installed on a flower pot (Chen 1) whereby light which projects downward toward the planter pot reflects upward and off of a top surface of the reflective ring toward plants being grown in the pot (Chen, from lamp 2 or other sources).
Regarding claim 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the light which projects downward toward the planter pot is from a light fixture (Chen 2).
Regarding claim 9: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the light which projects downward toward the planter pot is sunlight (intended use could be met by having the plant pot subjugated to sunlight).
Regarding claim 10: Chen discloses a light reflector (3) for plants being grown in a planter pot (1), comprising: the light reflector being a reflective ring of reflective insulation (reflector 3 would reflect heat associated with light); the reflective ring having split extending from an outer edge surface of the reflective ring to a central opening through reflective ring (opening 30); an upper surface of the reflective ring is installed on the planter pot whereby light which projects downward toward the pot reflects upward and off of the top surface of the reflective ring toward plants being grown in the pot (Figs 1-2).
Chen fails to teach the reflective ring can be various sizes dependent on the type of plant receptacle, wherein the light reflector has a circular elastic band formed on the inner side of the circular opening of the reflective insulation, and wherein the light reflector has an arc-shaped convex surface extending upward from the outer edge surface of the reflective ring.
It would have been an obvious matter of choice to modify the size of the reflector, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Changing the size would achieve the predictable result of having reflectors that are better fits dependent on the size of the plant receptacle.
Monnes teaches a circular elastic band (cord 17, para 19) on the inner side of the circular opening (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 provided the reflector as disclosed by modified Chen with the elastic band as taught by Monnes with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an elastic band within the inner side of the opening would allow for it to better secured onto the outside of the plant receptacle, increasing the amount of reflecting light directed toward the plant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the shape of the reflector so that the light reflector has an arc-shaped convex surface extending upward from the outer edge surface of the reflective ring, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. The modifications would be done to the shape of the light reflector in order to direct the light supplied in a desired manner in order to achieve desired growth conditions for the plant.
Regarding claim 11: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, and Chen further teaches an opening through the circular base of the planter pot (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the reflective ring (Chen 3) is formed as a circle projecting out from the elastic band (Monnes 17).
Regarding claim 15: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the light which projects downward toward the planter pot is from a light fixture (Chen light from lamp 2).
Regarding claim 16: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the light which projects downward toward the planter pot is sunlight (intended use could be met by having the plant pot subjugated to sunlight).
Regarding claim 17: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, and further teaches a ring (Chen inner ring) assembly mounted to the underside of the reflective ring (Chen Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the ring assembly is constructed of an outer ring and an inner ring of wire (Chen outermost ring of 3 and innermost ring of 3).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Monnes as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Adams (US 20160174468 A1).
Regarding claim 19: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 18 as shown above.
Chen as modified fails to teach wherein the outer ring (12) and the inner ring of wire (11) are interconnected by four connecting strips of wire (13-16).
However, Adams teaches wherein the outer ring (12) and the inner ring of wire (11) are interconnected by four connecting strips of wire (13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reflector rings as disclosed by Chen with the connecting wire as taught by Adams with a reasonable expectation of success because providing connecting wires will further secure the reflector as it can provide resistance to force increasing the durability of the reflector.
Regarding claim 20: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 19 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the ring assembly has a plurality of prongs (Chen buckles/fasteners 31) to secure the ring assembly in place when the prongs are inserted into a medium in the planter pot (Chen Fig. 1).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Monnes as applied to claims 1,10 above, and further in view of Callaway (US 20110265378 A1).
Regarding claim 21: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Chen as modified fails to teach wherein the arc-shaped convex surface of the light reflector covers and overlaps the top opening of the pot.
However Callaway teaches wherein the arc-shaped convex surface of the light reflector (101) covers and overlaps the top opening of the pot (313).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reflector as disclosed by modified Chen with the overlapping as taught by Callaway with a reasonable expectation of success so as to ensure that all of the light is reflected toward the plant, as described in paragraph 26 of Callaway.
Regarding claim 22: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Chen as modified fails to teach wherein the arc-shaped convex surface of the light reflector covers and overlaps the top opening of the pot.
However Callaway teaches wherein the arc-shaped convex surface of the light reflector (101) covers and overlaps the top opening of the pot (313).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reflector as disclosed by modified Chen with the overlapping as taught by Callaway with a reasonable expectation of success so as to ensure that all of the light is reflected toward the plant, as described in paragraph 26 of Callaway.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of JP does not teach the elastic band as it is not analogous material. The Office has replaced the art of JP in favor of Monnes which teaches an elastic cord. The art of Monnes is closer to the field of endeavor as it is directed to attaching an accessory onto a plant pot, as such the limitations are considered to be met.
Applicant argues for claims 1, 10 the prior art does not teach the arc-shaped convex. The Office respectfully disagrees as the art of Chen is illustrated in Fig. 2 to be extending upward from the circular opening. Should applicant disagree, the Office maintains that this would be a simple design choice as there is no description of how such shape could be beneficial within the disclosure. Furthermore the disclosure does not discuss an arc-shape and as such cannot be interpreted to support this claim, and has been considered new matter as seen in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642