DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on June 11, 2026, the objections to the drawings, specifications and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 01/13/2026), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 5-6, 13, 17 and 18 have been amended,
Claims 3-4, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 19 and 20 were previously presented,
Claims 2 and 10 have been cancelled, and
Claim 11 was and still is withdrawn from further consideration.
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 12-20 are currently pending.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “first deformable structure” and “second deformable structure” in claims 1 and 17, respectively.
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 5-6 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 5, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…one or both of the package housing or the root system assembly…” renders the claims to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) are being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
In claim 6, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…one or both of the package housing or the root system assembly…” renders the claims to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) are being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required. An art rejection is provided below as best understood by the examiner; emphasis added.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-7 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 – art of record; 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; and
wherein the root system assembly includes a bottom base that is configured to support the plant thereon and includes a shock absorbing assembly including a first deformable structure (examiner equates the upper surface of the sheet on which the potted plant is placed on to be the claimed first deformable structure; as shown in annotated Mast Fig. 6a below) and a second deformable structure (examiner equates the respective bottom surface of the folded legs or channels to be the claimed second deformable structure; as shown in annotated Mast Fig. 6a below) spaced from the first deformable structure and arranged between the first deformable structure and the package housing, wherein the first deformable structure and the second deformable structure are capable of dissipating impact forces applied to the package housing through sequential deformation prior to transmission of the impact forces to a plant (Mast [0016-0024] and Figs. 1-9b).
PNG
media_image1.png
779
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 at least one of said root system assembly or the plant pot and the top edges rest against the top wall of the package housing, thereby arresting at least one of the root system assembly 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 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 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 the root system assembly is made of multi-sheet material (i.e. corrugated cardboard; see Mast [0006-0008] and Figs. 2b).
Regarding claim 6, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the root system assembly includes board material, and the board material of one the root system assembly is made of corrugated cardboard (see Mast Abstract and [0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mast as above further teaches wherein the root system assembly is erected out of a single development sheet of board material (i.e. in the form a single blank; see Mast Figs. 2b and 4).
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 assembly is configured to accommodate a shoot system of a plant 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 (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 at least one of a plant pot or plant roots therein;
wherein the root system assembly includes a bottom base that is configured to support the plant thereon and includes a shock absorbing assembly including a first deformable structure (examiner equates the upper surface of the sheet on which the potted plant is placed on to be the claimed first deformable structure; as shown in annotated Mast Fig. 6a above) and a second deformable structure (examiner equates the respective bottom surface of the folded legs or channels to be the claimed second deformable structure; as shown in annotated Mast Fig. 6a above) spaced from the first deformable structure and arranged between the first deformable structure and the package housing, wherein the first deformable structure and the second deformable structure are capable of dissipating impact forces applied to the package housing through sequential deformation prior to transmission of the impact forces to a plant (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 box adjacent to the first region of the interior space, the shoot system assembly including two panel walls angling towards one another and including a bottom edge positioned or positionable in the interior space 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 box 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 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 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, and between sidewalls of the housing box and the shoot system assembly (see annotated Mast Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
679
1015
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, Mast fails to teach an insulating material between a bottom wall of the housing box and the root system assembly, and between the sidewalls of the housing box and the root system assembly, and the insulating material including a front flap sized to be positioned over the root system assembly and the shoot system assembly.
With that 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 insulating material between a bottom wall of the housing box and the root system assembly, and between the sidewalls of the housing box and the root system assembly (of Mast) to further enhance the thermal insulative properties of the overall modular packing assembly (of Mast) and to provide additional protection from impacts.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach any one of the four side insulating material with the top insulating material to create a front flap AND make it longitudinal longer such that it covers the shoot system assembly AND the root system assembly. By doing so, this reduces the overall number of components or parts the insulating material is made of while still providing the same thermal insulation protection. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A) and §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
Claim 8 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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (filed on June 11, 2026) with respect to the pending claims have been considered but ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues that the applied art (specifically Mast) fails to teach certain features of amended ind claims 1 and 17, specifically, “…a first deformable structure and a second deformable structure spaced from the first deformable structure and arranged between the first deformable structure and the package housing, wherein the first deformable structure and the second deformable structure are configured to dissipate impact forces applied to the package housing through sequential deformation prior to transmission of the impact forces to a plant…” (see Remarks pg. 7-8, items a & b, under item D).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion. Examiner further clarified in the art rejection above, as to what structure(s) of Mast is construed and/or considered to be the “first deformable structure” and “the second deformable structure”; emphasis added.
With respect to the following limitations, “…dissipate impact forces applied to the package housing through sequential deformation prior to transmission of the impact forces to a plant…” is considered to be functional limitation(s) to which no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Applicant is reminded of the following with regards to functional or intended-use limitation(s): a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114
With that in mind, the bottom base structure (of the root system assembly of Mast – as shown in annotated Fig. 6a above) which clearly shows two layers or sheets being spaced from one another much like the claimed bottom base of the claimed root system assembly. Since, the two structure(s) are arranged in the same manner, the bottom base structure (of Mast) will be capable of “dissipate impact forces applied to the package housing through sequential deformation prior to transmission of the impact forces to a plant”; emphasis added.
Applicant’s argument: applicant further argues that 103 rejections of the pending dependent claims are improper for the same reasoning as applied to ind. claims 1 and 17 (i.e. Mast is deficient is teaching the new limitation(s) above; see Remarks pg. 9, items c, II, III and IV).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion(s) because examiner explained as to how Mast still discloses or teaches the new limitation(s) in the art rejection(s) above. Therefore, examiner maintains the previous rejection(s).
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
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.
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 on 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 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights