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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1 – Figs. 1a-b, 1e-j (specifically 140) and Species B1 – Figs. 1a-b, 1n and 10 (specifically 160) in the reply filed on October 7, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant further notes that claims 1-20 are associated with the elected species (see election pg. 2).
Upon further review, examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant assertion that claim 11 is associated with the elected species A1 (i.e. figs. 1a-b and 1e-j).
For instance, the claimed limitations or features of claim 11, “…the root system is configured with pot cradling liner…” IS NOT shown in the elected species NOR any of non-elected species. Therefore, examiner withdraws claim 11; emphasis added.
Claim 11 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
In summary, examiner has determined that the associated for the elected species are claims 1-10 and 12-20 and they will be examined on their merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore
“the package housing is configured with one or more carrying handles” as in claim 10
Must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. 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 1-10 and 12-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 15-17, the phrases in each instance, “…and/or…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because of the indefinite meaning of the slash. Therefore, examiner suggests the following change, “…[[and/]]or…”
In claim 5, ln. 2, the phrase, “…and/or…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because of the indefinite meaning of the slash. Therefore, examiner suggests the following change, “…[[and/]]or…”
In claim 6, ln. 2, the phrase, “…and/or…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because of the indefinite meaning of the slash. Therefore, examiner suggests the following change, “…[[and/]]or…”
In claim 13, ln. 1, the phrase, “…the shoot system of a plant…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant established “…a shoot system assembly” in reference to “a shoot system of the plant…” which HAS NOT BEEN POSITIVELY RECITED (claim 1, ln. 12-13 and specifically “configured to”). Whereas (in claim 13, which depends from claim 1), the applicant has positively recited “the shoot system of a plant”; therefore, it is unclear if the applicant intends to claim the shoot system of plant as a part of the claimed invention (i.e. a modular plant package) OR not? In this office action, the “shoot system of a plant” is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to “the shoot system of a plant” are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim is required.
In claim 17, ln. 5, the phrase, “…and/or…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because of the indefinite meaning of the slash. Therefore, examiner suggests the following change, “…[[and/]]or…”
In claim 17, ln.8, the phrase, “…the housing assembly…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “a housing assembly” per se in claim 17. Rather applicant established “a housing box” (claim 17, ln. 2). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 17, ln. 10, the phrase, “…the interior region…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20, due to their dependencies from claims 1 and 17 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-6 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast (US 20190315565 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Mast) in view of Keller et al. (US 20080099356 A1; hereinafter Keller).
Regarding claim 1, Mast teaches a modular plant package, comprising:
a package housing (i.e. in the form of outside box; as shown in Figs. 2a, 3 and 5-9b) made of board material and defining a package space therewithin, the package housing, when in a folded closed position, comprising a base wall, a top wall opposite the base wall, two opposite side walls, a back wall and an opposite front wall;
a root system assembly (i.e. in the form of pot tray; as shown in Figs. 2b-9b); and
wherein the root system assembly is positionable within the package space of the package housing;
wherein said root system assembly is configured to support a plant thereon and comprises a retention member being configured to support a root system of the plant in a plant pot and prevent at least lateral displacement thereof (Mast [0016-0024] and Figs. 1-9b).
However, Mast fails to teach a shoot system assembly that is positionable within the package space of the package housing; wherein said shoot system assembly comprises at least two panel walls configured to accommodate a shoot system of the plant; and wherein free bottom edges of the at least two panel walls of the shoot system assembly partially rest against top edges of said root system assembly and/or the plant pot and the top edges rest against a top wall of the package housing, thereby arresting the root system assembly and/or the plant pot within the root system assembly and prevent at least axial displacement thereof.
Keller is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Mast, which is a modular plant packaging or package. Keller teaches a modular plant package (10) comprising:
a package housing (i.e. in the form of a hat box (11)) defining a package space therewithin, the package housing comprising a base wall, a top wall (i.e. in the form of a hatbox lid) opposite the base wall, and a sidewall extending from the base wall;
a root system assembly (i.e. in the form of a vase support (20)); and
a shoot system assembly (i.e. in the form of a bouquet support (40));
wherein the root system assembly and the shoot system assembly are positionable within the package space of the package housing;
wherein said root system assembly is configured to support a plant thereon and comprises a retention member (i.e. in the form of a sub-chamber (30)) being configured to support a root system of the plant in a plant pot and prevent at least lateral displacement thereof;
wherein said shoot system assembly comprises at least two panel walls (41-48) configured to accommodate a shoot system of the plant; and
wherein free bottom edges of the at least two panel walls of the shoot system assembly partially rest against top edges of said root system assembly and the top edges rest against a top wall of the package housing (as shown in Keller Fig. 6), thereby arresting the root system assembly and/or the plant pot within the root system assembly and prevent at least axial displacement thereof (Keller [0026-0039] and Figs. 1-6).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall modular plant package (of Mast) with a similar shoot system assembly (as taught by Keller) to further constrict the movement or shifting of the upper portion of a plant (or bouquet) during transport.
Regarding claim 2, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the root system assembly includes a bottom based that is configured to support the plant thereon and includes a shock absorbing assembly.
Examiner’s note: since the root system assembly is made from the claimed material, specifically cardboard – which is a shock absorbing material; emphasis added. Therefore, the root system assembly (of Mast) has shock-absorbing material or property (as claimed); emphasis added.
Regarding claim 3, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the root system assembly is configured for accommodating a plant's root system with the plant pot (see Mast Figs. 3-9b).
Regarding claim 4, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein side members of the root system assembly are configured for at least partially embracing side wall portions of the plant pot received therein (see Mast Figs. 4-9b).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the root system assembly includes board material, and the board material of one or both of the package housing and/or the root system assembly is made of multi-sheet material (see Mast Figs. 2a-2b).
Regarding claim 6, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the root system assembly includes board material, and the board material of one or both of the package housing and/or the root system assembly is made of cardboard (see Mast Abstract and [0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the shoot system assembly is configured with a longitudinal back support (i.e. any of the panels between the first panel (41) and the last panel (48) of Keller; see Keller Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 13, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the shoot system of a plant receivable in the plant package is received in a protective sleeve (i.e. in the form of a plastic bag (75; see Keller Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the root system assembly has a shape corresponding with that of the package housing, or has a shape with a cross section having an inscribed polygon supported by inside wall surfaces of the package housing (see Mast Figs. 4 and 6a-9b).
Regarding claim 15, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the root system assembly has a shape corresponding with that of the package housing, or has a shape with a cross section having an inscribed circle supported by inside wall surfaces of the package housing (see Mast Figs. 4 and 6a-9b).
Regarding claim 16, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the root system assembly has a shape at least partially corresponding with that of the plant pot, or has a shape with a cross section supporting the walls of the plant pot (see Mast Fig. 4 and 6a-9b).
Regarding claim 17, Mast teaches a modular plant package assembly, comprising:
a housing box (i.e. in the form of outside box; as shown in Figs. 2a, 3 and 5-9b) defining an interior space;
a root system assembly (i.e. in the form of pot tray; as shown in Figs. 2b-9b) positioned or positionable in a first region of the interior space of the housing box, the root system assembly including a retention member having one or more members at least partially defining an open space sized to receive a plant pot and/or plant roots therein (Mast [0016-0024] and Figs. 1-9b).
However, Mast fails to teach a shoot system assembly positioned or positionable in a second region of the interior space of the housing assembly adjacent to the first region of the interior space, the shoot system including two panel walls angling towards one another and including a bottom edge positioned or positionable in the interior region to engage with the plant pot when the plant pot is received in the open space of the root system assembly.
Keller is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Mast, which is a modular plant packaging or package. Keller teaches a modular plant package (10) comprising:
a package housing (i.e. in the form of a hat box (11)) defining a package space therewithin, the package housing comprising a base wall, a top wall (i.e. in the form of a hatbox lid) opposite the base wall, and a sidewall extending from the base wall;
a root system assembly (i.e. in the form of a vase support (20)); and
a shoot system assembly (i.e. in the form of a bouquet support (40));
wherein the root system assembly and the shoot system assembly are positionable within the package space of the package housing (specifically a second region of the interior space of the housing assembly adjacent to a first region of the interior space);
wherein said root system assembly is configured to support a plant thereon and comprises a retention member (i.e. in the form of a sub-chamber (30)) being configured to support a root system of the plant in a plant pot and prevent at least lateral displacement thereof;
wherein said shoot system assembly including two panel walls (41-48) angling towards one another and including a bottom edge positioned or positionable in the interior region to engage with the plant pot when the plant pot is received in the open space of the root system assembly; Keller [0026-0039] and Figs. 1-6).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall modular plant package (of Mast) with a similar shoot system assembly (as taught by Keller) to further constrict the movement or shifting of the upper portion of a plant (or bouquet) during transport.
Regarding claim 18, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein:
the two panel walls of the shoot system assembly include a top edge interfacing a top wall of the housing box;
the root system assembly includes a bottom base interfacing a base wall of the housing box, the bottom base including a top plate positioned to at least partially define open space to receive the plant pot, one or more bottom plates spaced from the top plate, and one or more walls extending between the top plate and the one or more bottom plates (see Keller Fig.6 and Mast Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the retention member includes multiple columns or multiple side members extending between the bottom edge of the two panel walls and the bottom base, the multiple columns or the multiple side members positioned to interface a portion of the plant pot when the plant pot is received in the open space (see Mast Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, modified Mast as above further teaches further comprising an insulating material (i.e. in the form of honeycomb insulation) disposed between a top wall of the housing box and a top edge of the two panel walls, a bottom wall of the housing box and the root system assembly, and between sidewalls of the housing box and the root system assembly and the shoot system assembly, the insulating material including a front flap sized to be positioned over the root system assembly and the shoot system assembly (see Mast Figs. 2c and 5-7b).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of Yoon (KR 20130121298 A – art of record; hereinafter Yoon).
Regarding claim 7, Mast as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein one or both of the package housing and the root system assembly is erected out of a single development sheet of board material.
Yoon is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Mast and Keller, which is a plant packaging or package. Yoon teaches a plant package embodiment (as shown in Figs. 7-9) comprising:
a package housing (i.e. in the form of outer packaging box (40)) defining a package space therewithin, the package housing, when in the folded closed position, comprising a base wall, a top wall opposite the base wall, two opposite side walls, a back wall and an opposite front wall;
a root system assembly (i.e. in the form of upper support plate (1 and 3)); and
wherein both the package housing and the root system assembly is erected out of a single development sheet of material (Yoon middle of pg. 3 to middle of pg. 4).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of having the package housing and the root system assembly being from a single sheet of material (as taught by Yoon) to the overall package structure (of Mast) to reduce the number of overall parts or components (by doing so makes the overall manufacturing process or operation more efficient).
Further, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(V)(B)
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of Rhodes et al. (US 20020134698 A1; hereinafter Rhodes).
Regarding claim 9, Mast as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein at least portions of one or both of the package housing and root system assembly are made of, or coated with, liquid impermeable or liquid repelling or hydrophobic material.
Rhodes is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Mast and Keller, which is a packaging or package. Rhodes teaches a packaging or package comprising: a housing (10) made from a material which is impervious to liquid (i.e. liquid impermeable membrane or coating; Rhodes Abstract, [0012, 0028]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall package (of Mast) with a similar liquid impermeable membrane or coating (as taught by Rhodes) to prevent or substantially reduce leakage of liquids from within the package.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Claims 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of Saul (US 4071064 A; hereinafter Saul).
Regarding claim 8, Mast as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein at least portions of one or both of the package housing and root system assembly are made of transparent or translucent material.
Saul is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Mast and Keller, which is a plant packaging or package. Saul teaches a package (1) comprising:
a package housing (i.e. in the form of a central shell body (2)) made from a transparent material and defining a package space therewithin;
a root system assembly (i.e. in the form of a bottom part (3)), wherein the root system assembly is positionable within the package space of the package housing (Saul Col. 4 ln. 25 – Col. 5 ln. 61 and Figs. 1-9).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the package housing (of Mast) out of a similar transparent material (as taught by Saul) to allow the user to view the content within the overall package without opening the overall package.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 10, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the package housing is configured with one carry handle (10; see Saul Fig. 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736