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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Figs. 1-2) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species B, Fig. 3), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests changing “each wall including a first end positioned and the base” in lines 4-5 to --each wall including a first end positioned at the base--.
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 4, 6, and 8 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 4 recites the phrase "a first volume, a second volume" in line 2. This is a double inclusion of “a first volume and a second volume” in line 9 of claim 1. The Examiner suggests changing “a first volume, a second volume” to --the first volume, the second volume--.
Claim 6 recites the phrase "a surface" in line 3. This is a double inclusion of “a surface” in line 2. The Examiner suggests changing “a surface” to --the surface--.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “and/or” in line 2. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether the recitation is referencing “and” or “or”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “or”.
Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Pat. 061479) in view of KrasterShorts (YouTube, “RAFT MADE OF 3000 PLASTIC BOTTLES”, 6/12/2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMo0fyqOnEM).
In regard to claim 1, Smith discloses a plant dock for growing plants, the plant dock comprising: a container portion including: a base; a plurality of walls positioned at the base, each wall including a first end positioned and the base and a second end positioned opposite the first end; a partially enclosed volume defined by the plurality of walls and the base (Figs. 1-2, where there is a plant dock for growing plants having a container portion with a base (bottom), a plurality of walls “A” positioned at the base with each wall including a first end (bottom end) positioned at the base (bottom) and a second end (top end) positioned opposite the first end, and a partially enclosed volume (where plants sit) defined by the plurality of walls “A” and the base (bottom)); and at least one divider positioned at the base and configured to divide the volume into a first volume and a second volume (Figs. 1-2, where there is at least one divider “a”/”b” positioned at the base (bottom) and at least configured to divide the volume into a first volume and a second volume). Smith does not disclose a buoyant portion positioned at the base of the container portion, the buoyant portion including: at least one buoyancy element; and a net coupled to the container portion and configured to contain the at least one buoyancy element; wherein the buoyant portion is configured to maintain the second end of each wall of the plurality of walls above a liquid surface level when the plant dock is positioned within a liquid. KrasterShorts discloses a buoyant portion positioned at the base of the platform portion, the buoyant portion including: at least one buoyancy element; and a net coupled to the platform portion and configured to contain the at least one buoyancy element; wherein the buoyant portion is configured to maintain the second end of each wall of the plurality of walls above a liquid surface level when the plant dock is positioned within a liquid (Time, 3:55-9:30, where there is a buoyant portion (net containing plastic bottles) positioned at the base of the platform portion which includes at least one buoyancy element (air contained in plastic bottles), a net (which contains plastic bottles) coupled to the platform portion and configured to contain the at least one buoyancy element (air contained in plastic bottles), and where the buoyant portion (net containing plastic bottles) is at least configured to maintain the second end of each wall of the plurality of walls above a liquid surface level when the plant dock is positioned within a liquid). Smith and KrasterShorts are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include support structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Smith such that a buoyant portion positioned at the base of the container portion, the buoyant portion including: at least one buoyancy element; and a net coupled to the container portion and configured to contain the at least one buoyancy element; wherein the buoyant portion is configured to maintain the second end of each wall of the plurality of walls above a liquid surface level when the plant dock is positioned within a liquid in view of KrasterShorts, since the buoyant portion of KrasterShorts could be used with the container portion of Smith. The motivation would have been to prevent the container portion from sinking into the water, if the user placed it on a body of water. This could be done for a variety of reasons, including aesthetics, efficient use of space, or plant cultivation strategy.
In regard to claim 4, Smith as modified by KrasterShorts discloses the plant dock of claim 1, wherein the at least one divider is further configured to divide the volume into a first volume, a second volume, a third volume, and a fourth volume (Smith, Figs. 1-2, where there is at least one divider “a”/”b” positioned at the base (bottom) and at least configured to divide the volume into a first volume, a second volume, a third volume, and a fourth volume).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Pat. 061479) in view of KrasterShorts (YouTube, “RAFT MADE OF 3000 PLASTIC BOTTLES”, 6/12/2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMo0fyqOnEM) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Scott et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190059240).
In regard to claim 2, Smith as modified by KrasterShorts discloses the plant dock of claim 1. Smith as modified by KrasterShorts does not disclose wherein a plurality of drainage holes is positioned within at least one wall of the plurality of walls. Scott et al. discloses a plurality of drainage holes is positioned within at least one wall of the plurality of walls (Figs. 1-5 and Claim 1, where there are a plurality of drainage holes 110 positioned within at least one wall of the plurality of walls 138). Smith and Scott et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Smith as modified by KrasterShorts such that a plurality of drainage holes positioned within at least one wall of the plurality of walls in view of Scott et al. The motivation would have been to allow excess water to drain out of the container and prevent over watering of the plants.
In regard to claim 3, Smith as modified by KrasterShorts and Scott et al. discloses the plant dock of claim 2, wherein the base includes at least one sloped portion which extends outward from a center of the base and is configured to encourage liquid present within the partially enclosed volume towards the plurality of drainage holes (Scott et al., Figs. 1-5 and Claim 1, where the base includes at least one sloped portion which extends outward from a center of the base (“a bottom surface having an elevated center region that is gradually sloped down towards a depressed perimeter region… thereby allowing extra liquid in the tray to drain out through a plurality of drain holes disposed at the perimeter region”) and is configured to encourage liquid present within the partially enclosed volume towards the plurality of drainage holes 110).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Pat. 061479) in view of KrasterShorts (YouTube, “RAFT MADE OF 3000 PLASTIC BOTTLES”, 6/12/2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMo0fyqOnEM) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Pub. 20050044788).
In regard to claim 5, Smith as modified by KrasterShorts discloses the plant dock of claim 1. Smith as modified by KrasterShorts is silent on an attachment mechanism is positioned at at least one wall of the plurality of walls and is configured to secure the plant dock to at least one additional plant dock. Tang et al. disclose an attachment mechanism is positioned at at least one wall of the plurality of walls and is configured to secure the plant dock to at least one additional plant dock (Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0043], where there is an attachment feature (“cable ties, ropes, string, wires, or other means”) is positioned at at least one wall of the plurality of walls and is configured to secure the plant dock to at least one additional plant dock). Smith and Tang et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Smith as modified by KrasterShorts such that an attachment mechanism is positioned at at least one wall of the plurality of walls and is configured to secure the plant dock to at least one additional plant dock in view of Tang et al. The motivation would have been to tie together multiple docks to create a large scale floating platform, in order to adjust the size of the growing operation, as desired by the user.
Smith as modified by KrasterShorts and Tang et al. is silent on a hook is positioned at at least one wall of the plurality of walls. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a hook be positioned at at least one wall of the plurality of walls, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the attachment mechanism of Tang et al. The motivation would have been to use a well known and common attachment mechanism, to secure multiple docks together. This would allow for easy substitution or utilization of any type of rope or line to secure the docks together.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Pat. 061479) in view of KrasterShorts (YouTube, “RAFT MADE OF 3000 PLASTIC BOTTLES”, 6/12/2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMo0fyqOnEM) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Morandini et al. (U.S. Pub. 20050044791).
In regard to claim 6, Smith as modified by KrasterShorts discloses the plant dock of claim 1. Smith as modified by KrasterShorts is silent on a wick, wherein the wick extends through the base and includes a first end positioned above a surface of the base and a second end positioned beneath a surface of the base. Morandini et al. discloses a wick, wherein the wick extends through the base and includes a first end positioned above a surface of the base and a second end positioned beneath a surface of the base (Fig. 4 and Paragraph [0023], where there is a wick 21 extending through the base and includes a first end positioned above a surface of the base and a second end positioned beneath a surface of the base). Smith and Morandini et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Smith as modified by KrasterShorts such that an attachment mechanism is positioned at at least one wall of the plurality of walls and is configured to secure the plant dock to at least one additional plant dock in view of Tang et al. The motivation would have been to carry water from a lower location onto the container portion to provide the plants with water.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Pat. 061479) in view of KrasterShorts (YouTube, “RAFT MADE OF 3000 PLASTIC BOTTLES”, 6/12/2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMo0fyqOnEM) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim (KR 100824272).
In regard to claim 7, Smith as modified by KrasterShorts discloses the plant dock of claim 1. Smith as modified by KrasterShorts is silent on a flood sensor secured to the container portion and configured to provide a visual indication that a water level has exceeded a specified threshold. Kim discloses a flood sensor secured to the container portion and configured to provide a visual indication that a water level has exceeded a specified threshold (Fig. 2 and Translated Specification Page 3 lines 29-33, where there is a flood sensor 40 secured to the container portion and configured to provide a visual indication 42 that a water level has exceeded a specified threshold via buoyant object 41). Smith and Kim are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Smith as modified by KrasterShorts such that a flood sensor secured to the container portion and configured to provide a visual indication that a water level has exceeded a specified threshold in view of Kim. The motivation would have been to prevent over watering of the plant in the container portion.
In regard to claim 9, Smith as modified by KrasterShorts and Kim discloses the plant dock of claim 7, wherein the flood sensor comprises a hollow cylindrical tube housing a buoyant object, wherein the buoyant object is configured to travel within a length of the hollow cylindrical tube in response to raising or lowering of the water level (Kim, Fig. 2 and Translated Specification Page 3 lines 29-33, where the flood sensor 40 comprises a hollow cylindrical tube housing a buoyant object 41which is configured to travel within a length of the hollow cylindrical tube in response to raising or lowering of the water level).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Pat. 061479) in view of KrasterShorts (YouTube, “RAFT MADE OF 3000 PLASTIC BOTTLES”, 6/12/2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMo0fyqOnEM) and Kim (KR 100824272) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Butler et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150282444).
In regard to claim 8, Smith as modified by KrasterShorts and Kim discloses the plant dock of claim 7. Smith as modified by KrasterShorts and Kim is silent on the flood sensor provides the visual indication using a light and/or flag. Butler et al. discloses the flood sensor provides the visual indication using a light and/or flag (Figs. 11 and 16 and Paragraph [0047], where there is a flood sensor 84’ which provides the visual indication using a flag (“a float with a flag”)). Smith and Butler et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Smith as modified by KrasterShorts and Kim such that the flood sensor provides the visual indication using a light and/or flag in view of Butler et al. The motivation would have been to utilize a flag attached to a float, which is relatively more visible than just a pole, to notify the user of the water level in the container portion.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Pat. 061479) in view of KrasterShorts (YouTube, “RAFT MADE OF 3000 PLASTIC BOTTLES”, 6/12/2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMo0fyqOnEM) and Scott et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190059240).
In regard to claim 20, Smith discloses a plant dock for growing plants, the plant dock comprising: a container portion including: a base; a plurality of walls positioned at the base, each wall including a first end positioned and the base and a second end positioned opposite the first end; a partially enclosed volume defined by the plurality of walls and the base (Figs. 1-2, where there is a plant dock for growing plants having a container portion with a base (bottom), a plurality of walls “A” positioned at the base with each wall including a first end (bottom end) positioned at the base (bottom) and a second end (top end) positioned opposite the first end, and a partially enclosed volume (where plants sit) defined by the plurality of walls “A” and the base (bottom)); at least one divider positioned at the base and configured to divide the volume into a first volume, a second volume, a third volume, and a fourth volume (Figs. 1-2, where there is at least one divider “a”/”b” positioned at the base (bottom) and at least configured to divide the volume into a first volume, a second volume, a third volume, and a fourth volume). Smith does not disclose a buoyant portion positioned at the base of the container portion, the buoyant portion including: at least one buoyancy element; and a net coupled to the container portion and configured to contain the at least one buoyancy element; wherein the buoyant portion is configured to maintain the second end of each wall of the plurality of walls above a liquid surface level when the plant dock is positioned within a liquid. KrasterShorts discloses a buoyant portion positioned at the base of the platform portion, the buoyant portion including: at least one buoyancy element; and a net coupled to the platform portion and configured to contain the at least one buoyancy element; wherein the buoyant portion is configured to maintain the second end of each wall of the plurality of walls above a liquid surface level when the plant dock is positioned within a liquid (Time, 3:55-9:30, where there is a buoyant portion (net containing plastic bottles) positioned at the base of the platform portion which includes at least one buoyancy element (air contained in plastic bottles), a net (which contains plastic bottles) coupled to the platform portion and configured to contain the at least one buoyancy element (air contained in plastic bottles), and where the buoyant portion (net containing plastic bottles) is at least configured to maintain the second end of each wall of the plurality of walls above a liquid surface level when the plant dock is positioned within a liquid). Smith and KrasterShorts are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include support structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Smith such that a buoyant portion positioned at the base of the container portion, the buoyant portion including: at least one buoyancy element; and a net coupled to the container portion and configured to contain the at least one buoyancy element; wherein the buoyant portion is configured to maintain the second end of each wall of the plurality of walls above a liquid surface level when the plant dock is positioned within a liquid in view of KrasterShorts, since the buoyant portion of KrasterShorts could be used with the container portion of Smith. The motivation would have been to prevent the container portion from sinking into the water, if the user placed it on a body of water. This could be done for a variety of reasons, including aesthetics, efficient use of space, or plant cultivation strategy.
Smith does not disclose a plurality of drainage holes positioned within at least one wall of the plurality of walls, wherein the base includes at least one sloped portion which extends outward from a center of the base and is configured to encourage liquid present within the partially enclosed volume towards the plurality of drainage holes. Scott et al. discloses a plurality of drainage holes positioned within at least one wall of the plurality of walls, wherein the base includes at least one sloped portion which extends outward from a center of the base and is configured to encourage liquid present within the partially enclosed volume towards the plurality of drainage holes (Figs. 1-5 and Claim 1, where there are a plurality of drainage holes 110 positioned within at least one wall of the plurality of walls 138 and where the base includes at least one sloped portion which extends outward from a center of the base (“a bottom surface having an elevated center region that is gradually sloped down towards a depressed perimeter region… thereby allowing extra liquid in the tray to drain out through a plurality of drain holes disposed at the perimeter region”) and is configured to encourage liquid present within the partially enclosed volume towards the plurality of drainage holes 110). Smith and Scott et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Smith such that a plurality of drainage holes positioned within at least one wall of the plurality of walls, wherein the base includes at least one sloped portion which extends outward from a center of the base and is configured to encourage liquid present within the partially enclosed volume towards the plurality of drainage holes in view of Scott et al. The motivation would have been to allow excess water to drain out of the container and prevent over watering of the plants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, for the full list of prior art made of record. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of support structures and plant care devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647