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 Objections
Claims 2-3, 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims should have status identifiers even if they have not been amended, examples include (Original) if the claims have not been amended at all during prosecution or (Previously Presented) if the claims had been amended previously. Appropriate correction is required.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/05/2024 has been entered.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutschmann (US 5107621 A) in view of Colovic (US 6079156 A).
Regarding claim 1: Deutschmann discloses a plant container system (abstract), comprising; a. a bottom surface (13); said bottom surface including a central area (29) and peripheral area (31) surrounding said central area; said peripheral area extending from said central area to a perimeter of said bottom surface (Fig. 2); said peripheral area further equipped with drainage openings (33) arranged along said peripheral area of said bottom surface; b. a container side wall (11) with a first and second end, said container side wall having a height and extending substantially unbroken from said first end to said second end (Fig. 5); said container side wall attached at said first end to said bottom surface to form an opening opposite said bottom surface (Fig. 5); said sidewall height and said bottom surface form an interior space (Fig. 5); said sidewall forming an exterior surface of a container (Fig. 5).
Deutschmann fails to explicitly teach an insert located on the bottom surface of the container, said insert having a height less than the height of the container, said insert having a conical or frustoconical shape with insert sidewalls extending unbroken to a base.
However, Colovic teaches an insert (116,156,170) located on the bottom surface of the container (168, Fig. 10), said insert having a height less than the height of the container, said insert having a conical or frustoconical shape (see Fig. 4) with insert sidewalls extending unbroken to a base (Fig. 4).
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 plant pot as disclosed by Deutschmann with the protrusion as taught by Colovic with a reasonable expectation of success because such protrusion would direct the roots within the plant cultivation chamber and decrease the likelihood that the roots become tangled with each other.
Regarding claim 2: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above and Deutschmann further teaches wherein the container sidewalls extend from said perimeter of said bottom surface to form an interior (Fig. 5),
Modified Deutschmann does not explicitly teach wherein the opening has a larger dimension than the bottom surface.
However Colovic teaches wherein the opening has a larger dimension than the bottom surface (Fig. 10).
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 plant container as disclosed by modified Deutschmann with the tapering shape as taught by Colovic with a reasonable expectation of success because tapering the container so that the opening at the top is larger than the bottom surface of the container would allow for the plant to grow freely without the leaves obstructing or interfering with the edges of the plant container.
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Deutschmann as modified further teaches wherein the bottom surface (13) further includes at least one opening (holes 33) through the bottom surface to permit water to drain away from the container (Fig. 2).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutschmann (US 5107621 A) in view of Colovic (US 6079156 A) and Watkins (US 5787641 A).
Regarding claim 4: Deutschmann discloses a plant container (abstract), comprising; a. a bottom surface (13); said bottom surface including a central area (29) and peripheral area (31) surrounding said central area; said peripheral area extending from said central area to a perimeter of said bottom surface (Fig. 2); said peripheral area further equipped with drainage openings (33) arranged along said peripheral area of said bottom said perimeter of said bottom surface; b. a container side wall (11) having a height and extending substantially unbroken from said bottom surface to form an opening opposite said bottom surface (Fig. 5); said container sidewall height and said bottom surface form an interior space and an exterior of a container (Fig. 5).
Deutschmann fails to teach an insert integral with the bottom surface and extending along the periphery of the bottom surface and extending at least partially the height of the container sidewall wherein the insert is substantially conical or frustoconical shape with insert sidewalls extending unbroken to a base.
Colovic teaches an insert (116,156,170) located on the bottom surface of the container (168, Fig. 1) and extending along the periphery of the bottom surface and extending at least partially the heigh t of the container sidewall wherein the insert is substantially a conical or frustoconical shape (Fig. 4).
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 plant pot as disclosed by Deutschmann with the protrusion as taught by Colovic with a reasonable expectation of success because such protrusion would direct the roots within the plant cultivation chamber and decrease the likelihood that the roots become tangled with each other.
However, Watkins teaches an insert (20) integral with the bottom surface (Col 9 lines 45-46, “Protrusion 20 is preferentially integrally formed or molded with container 10 so that they are a single unit. “) and extending along the periphery of the bottom surface and extending at least partially the height of the container sidewall wherein the insert is substantially conical or frustoconical shape (Fig. 6A).
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 plant pot as disclosed by modified Deutschmann with the integral protrusion as taught by Watkins with a reasonable expectation of success because the integration of the protrusion decreases the likelihood of the protrusion’s being displaced from its position as a result of movement of roots or external conditions such as high winds.
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 4 as shown above.
Modified Deutschmann does not explicitly teach wherein the container sidewalls extend from said container bottom perimeter to form a frustoconical interior, wherein the opening has a larger dimension than the bottom surface
However Watkins teaches wherein the container sidewalls extend from said container bottom perimeter to form a frustoconical interior, wherein the opening has a larger dimension than the bottom surface (Fig. 6A).
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 plant container as disclosed by modified Deutschmann with the tapering shape as taught by Watkins with a reasonable expectation of success because tapering the container so that the opening at the top is larger than the bottom surface of the container would allow for the plant to grow freely without the leaves obstructing or interfering with the edges of the plant container.
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 4 as shown above and Deutschmann further teaches wherein said container sidewalls (11) extend from said perimeter of said bottom surface (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 4 as shown above and Deutschmann further teaches wherein said bottom surface is equipped with a raised portion (29) for the insert and at least one recessed portion (31) for the drainage openings (33).
Regarding claim 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 4 as shown above and Deutschmann further teaches wherein the bottom surface (13) is located between said first and second end of said container sidewall (Fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks about the limitation of the “unbroken” sidewalls has been addressed above with relied upon prior art Colovic, which teaches inserts that are solid to the base as currently required by the claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon is related to Applicant’s art of planter inserts and includes integral protrusions for the purpose of diverting roots.
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 on 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
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647