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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Grassi fails to teach a receiving part as claimed but does not specifically point out why the cited receiving part (stationary part 62 of support arm 60 – figure 4) of Grassi fails to meet the claimed limitations. The claim requires “a receiving part between the hooked holding profile and the holding element of the flower-box holder and closable around a lower end portion of a roller shutter”. It is first noted that the “roller shutter” is not a claimed part of the device and is not required by the claim. With respect to the term “closable” the claim will be interpreted as best understood (see below under 35 USC 112). As best understood, the part of Grassi (stationary part 62 of support arm 60 – figure 4) is between the hooked holding part profile (at brackets 30 less arm 60) and the holding element (64) and is capable of receiving a window shutter if the device is mounting to a window ledge (in gap between 50 and 64 capable of receiving a shutter – figure 3).
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 1-5, 8-14 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 requires “a receiving part between the hooked holding profile and the holding element of the flower-box holder and closable around a lower end portion of a roller shutter” and it is not clear what is required by the limitation “closable” which would seem to require a moving or locking closure part or feature which is not consistent with the specification of the receiving part and further, as written, it is not even clear if the “and closable” limitation is referring to the receiving part. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 13 recite “the flower box” in such a manner that it is unclear if the flower box is being positively claimed as part of the flower-box holder device or not. If applicant is not desiring to positively claim the flower box it should be recited only in functional language limitations (e.g. “capable of”, “configured to”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “the window frame profile” in such a manner that it is unclear if the window frame profile is being positively claimed as part of the flower-box holder device or not. If applicant is not desiring to positively claim the window frame profile it should be recited only in functional language limitations (e.g. “capable of”, “configured to”). Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 10-11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Grassi (US 5,738,319).
Regarding claim 1, Grassi (hereafter “D1”) discloses a holder (20; title) for a flower box on a window frame (capable of use on a window frame – disclosed use on a fence top – col. 1, lines 4-7), the flower-box holder comprising a hooked holding profile (bracket 30 less support arm 60) that can be brought into engagement with a window frame profile (configured to hook over a top of a fence or similar and could function similarly at a window ledge), at least one holding element (movable portion 64 of support arm 60) that can be fixedly connected to the hooked holding profile (at 30 less 60) of the flower-box holder and that can hold at least one flower box (col. 3, line 56 – col. 4, line 13), and a receiving part (stationary part 62 of support arm 60 – figure 4) between the hooked holding profile (at 30 less 60) and the holding element (64) of the flower-box holder (20) and that is closable around a lower end portion of a roller shutter associated with a window shutter frame (gap between 50 and 64 capable of receiving a shutter – figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the receiving part (62) is one piece with the hooked holding profile (col. 3, lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses wherein the receiving part (62) has a holding slot (detent 66 – figure 8) that can attach the holding element (64) to the receiving part (62) or to the hooked holding profile (col. 3, lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 4, D1 discloses wherein the holding element (64) is a holding bracket (64 is an L-shaped bracket as best seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, D1 discloses wherein at least two holding brackets (64) are provided that are on both end portions of the hooked holding profile (considering the holding profile to comprise both members 30, two holding elements or brackets 64 are present on end portions; cross member 84 joins the members 30 such that it can be considered a single holding profile).
Regarding claim 10, D1 discloses further comprising an edge protecting profile element (cross member 84) between the hooked holding profile (bracket 30 less support arm 60) or the receiving part (62) of the flower-box holder and the window frame profile (cross member 84 is used to abut the support surface of the fence or other support to which the holder is mounted, whereby the member 50 is prevented from touching the fence/support; the same function would exist when mounting to a window frame profile and thereby being configured to protect both the edge of both 50 and the window frame profile – figure 4; col. 4, lines 31-49).
Regarding claim 11, D1 discloses wherein the receiving part (62) is formed between an outer surface (outer surface of 50 faces toward the flower box as in figure 4) of the hooked holding profile (30 less 60) facing the flower box (22) and an outer surface (not indexed – see figure 4) of the flower box (22) facing the hooked holding profile (left facing surface of 22 in figure 4).
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassi (US 5,738,319).
Regarding claims 8-9, D1 does not teach a height-adjustment device between the hooked holding profile on the one side and the holding element on the other that can vary the vertical spacing between an upper edge of the hooked holding profile and a support surface of the holding element.
D1 does teach horizontal adjustment devices with use of sliding slot and wingnut (42) means, slot and teeth arrangement (figure 7), and detent and notch (66/70) means (figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify D1 in light of the desire of D1 to incorporate adjustability by adding a vertical/height adjustment arrangement similar to the detent/teeth and notch locking horizontal adjustment feature, by making the leg member (50) into two overlapping leg members having the teeth and corresponding notch.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassi (US 5,738,319) in view of Emsa GmbH (DE 202015104529).
Regarding claim 12, D1 does not teach at least one securing element on the hooked holding profile of the flower-box holder and that can grip around an upper edge of the outer surface of a flower box facing the hooked holding profile.
The document to Emsa GmbH teaches a flower box holder (100) comprising a securing hook element (40) which is configured to hook over the top of a mounted flower box ([0015] – translation discloses securing hook 40 over top of a flower box).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add a hook element arrangement as taught by Emsa GmbH, attached to the hooked holding profile of D1 for the purpose of securing the tops of flower boxes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassi (US 5,738,319) in view of Lippert (EP 1645180).
Regarding claim 13, D1 discloses a projection (74) but does not teach the projection accommodated in an accommodating recess in a bottom panel of the flower box (22) between the proximal and the distal end portions of the holding part.
Lippert teaches a flower box support (figure 3) and a flower box (1) having an accommodating recess (10) for receiving projection (16) of the support holding the flower box in place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize a flower box similar to that taught by Lippert with D1 for securing the flower box in place by use of the projection and recess arrangement.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassi (US 5,738,319) in view of Rosser et al. (US 7,229,056).
Regarding claim 14, D1 discloses wherein the hooked holding profile (30 less 60) has a U-shaped recess (formed by hook portion at 52, 36, 32, 38, 34 – figure 3) made of a connecting bar (at top portion 32) and two vertical legs (at 34 and 52) projecting at right angles from the connecting bar for the purpose of engaging with the window frame profile (configured for engaging a window frame profile), the outer vertical leg (34) forming the end of the hooked holding profile which would be placed on a window frame profile side.
D1 does not teach the vertical outer leg on its free end having a bend that is smaller, in comparison to the corresponding dimension of the connecting bar parallel to the connecting bar.
Rosser et al. teaches a flower holder support (arm 16) comprising a hooked end portion having a downward vertical leg (short portion 26) with a bent in end portion providing clearance for the vertical leg from a mounted object (support 22) (figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add the inward bent portion taught by Rosser et al. to the end of the outer vertical leg of D1 for the purpose of providing spacing to the mounted object (fence/window).
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 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 PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631