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, 3-6, and 8-12 are pending and have been examined in this application.
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
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 and 10-12 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 5 recites the phrase "the side buckle hole" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the side buckle hole” to --the at least one side buckle hole--.
Claim 5 recites the phrase "the at least one side folding plate" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the at least one side folding plate” to --the side folding plate--.
Claim 11 recites the phrase "the top of the footer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the top of the footer” to --a top of each footer--.
Claim 11 recites the phrase "the bottom" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the bottom” to --a bottom--.
Claims 10-12 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
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, 3-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumpel (U.S. Pat. 6722515) in view of Hu et al. (CN 106758985) and Aguilar (WO 2016087687).
In regard to claim 1, Rumpel discloses a foldable stackable storage planter box structure, comprising: a box, comprising a base, two side panels, two end panels (Figs. 1-15 and Column 2 line 36 – Column 3 line 62, where there is a box 10 with a base 12, two side panels 20/22, two end panels 16/18); wherein two sides of the base are provided with the two side panels respectively which are inwardly folded to the top of the base and configured to be opposite to each other (Figs. 1-15 and Column 2 line 36 – Column 3 line 62, where two sides of the base 12 are provided with the two side panels 20/22 respectively which are inwardly folded (see Figs. 11-15) to the top of the base 12 and configured to be opposite to each other), two ends of the base are provided with the end panels which are disposed on the inner side of the side panel and inwardly folded and configured to be movable, the end panels are folded and disposed at the top of the base and the bottom of the side panel respectively (Figs. 1-15 and Column 2 line 36 – Column 3 line 62, where two ends of the base 12 are provided with the end panels 16/18 which are at least disposed on the inner side 20a/22a of the side panel 20/22 and inwardly folded (see Figs. 11-15) and configured to be movable and where the end panels 16/18 are folded and disposed at the top of the base 12 and the bottom of the side panel 20/22 respectively), the base comprises a plurality of penetrating drainage holes for permeating water (Fig. 2, where there are at least a plurality of penetrating drainage holes between members 13 of the base 12); the bottom edge of the two sides and two ends of the base are provided with at least a protrusion (Figs. 16-17 and Column 4 lines 27-34, where there the bottom edge of the two sides and two ends of the base 12 are provided with at least a protrusion 28 which allows for stacking of multiple unfolded boxes 10); snap connection mechanisms (Figs. 1-3 and Column 4 lines 16-34, where there are snap connection mechanisms 17/19/21/23 which at least connect two portions of the structure together); the base comprises a bottom recess formed at four corners of the bottom thereof (Figs. 7 and 16-17, where the base 12 comprises a bottom recess (external perimeter around bottom foot 28) formed at least at four corners of the bottom of the base 12). Rumpel is silent on a support stand, installed at the top of the base of the box and arranged on the inner side of the vertical side panels and an inner side of the end panels, and having a plurality of through holes for permeating water, and the bottom of the support stand comprising a plurality of lower supports for supporting the top of the base and defining a space; and at least one filter fabric, disposed at the top of the support stand. Hu et al. discloses the base comprises a plurality of penetrating drainage holes for permeating water (Figs. 1-2 and Translated Specification Page 5 line 1-2, where there are a plurality of penetrating drainage holes (covered by plugs 19) for at least permeating water on the base 4); a support stand, installed at the top of the base of the box and arranged on the inner side of the vertical side panels and an inner side of the end panels, and having a plurality of through holes for permeating water (Figs. 1-2 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 15-38, where there is a support stand 15 installed at the top of the base 4 of the box and arranged on the inner side of the vertical side panels and the end panel and having a plurality of through holes 16 for permeating water), and the bottom of the support stand comprising a plurality of lower supports for supporting the top of the base and defining a space; and at least one filter fabric, disposed at the top of the support stand (Figs. 1-2 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 15-38, where the bottom of the support stand 15 includes a plurality of lower supports (left and right side of support 15 which contacts the base 4 top) for supporting the top of the base 4 and defining a space (underneath arc shape) and where there is at least one filter fabric 14 disposed at the top of the support stand 15). Rumpel and Hu et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include box 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 Rumpel such that a support stand, installed at the top of the base of the box and arranged on the inner side of the vertical side panels and an inner side of the end panels, and having a plurality of through holes for permeating water, and the bottom of the support stand comprising a plurality of lower supports for supporting the top of the base and defining a space; and at least one filter fabric, disposed at the top of the support stand in view of Hu et al. The motivation would have been to have a mechanism which allows for excess water to flow through the soil and out of the structure. Furthermore, the filter prevents soil from being carried out of the structure with the excess water.
Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. is silent on the base comprises a plurality of bottom recesses formed at four corners of the bottom thereof, and the bottom edge of the two sides and two ends of the base are provided with at least one side snap protrusion and at least one end snap protrusion, respectively; wherein each side panel comprises at least one side top recess formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the at least one side snap protrusion of the base, and each end panel comprises at least one end top recess formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the at least one end snap protrusion of the base. Aguilar discloses the base comprises a plurality of bottom recesses formed at four corners of the bottom thereof (Figs. 1-12 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 1-2, where the base includes a plurality of bottom recesses 41 at least formed at four corners of the bottom of the base), and the bottom edge of the two sides and two ends of the base are provided with at least one side snap protrusion and at least one end snap protrusion, respectively (Figs. 1-12 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 23-26, where at least the bottom edge of the two sides and two ends of the base are provided with at least one side snap protrusion 28 and at least one end snap protrusion 28); wherein each side panel comprises at least one side top recess formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the at least one side snap protrusion of the base (Figs. 1-12 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 23-26, where the side panel 2 comprises at least one side top recess 29 formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the side snap protrusion 28 of the base), and each end panel comprises at least one end top recess formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the at least one end snap protrusion of the base (Figs. 1-12 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 23-26, where the end panel 2 comprises at least one end top recess 29 formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the end snap protrusion 28 of the base); snap connection mechanisms (Fig. 12 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 23-26, where there are snap connection mechanisms 28/29 which connect two structures together when the structures are stacked). Rumpel and Aguilar are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include box 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 Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. such that the base comprises a plurality of bottom recesses formed at four corners of the bottom thereof, and the bottom edge of the two sides and two ends of the base are provided with at least one side snap protrusion and at least one end snap protrusion, respectively; wherein each side panel comprises at least one side top recess formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the at least one side snap protrusion of the base, and each end panel comprises at least one end top recess formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the at least one end snap protrusion of the base in view of Aguilar. The motivation would have been to allow the structure to have legs connect to a bottom and allow for multiple structures to be stacked vertically (Aguilar, Figs. 11-12), in order to respectively increase mobility or height of the structure and create compact configurations of multiple structures to relatively conserve space. Additionally, a snapping connection mechanism allows for removable, yet secure attachment, which further prevents accidental detachment.
Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar is silent on a plurality of bottom snap recesses. 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 plurality of bottom snap recesses, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose that is not solved in Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the plurality of bottom recesses of Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar. The motivation would have been to use a secure and removable connection mechanism to attach legs to the bottom of the structure, in order to increase mobility or height of the structure.
In regard to claim 3, Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar discloses the foldable stackable storage planter box structure according to claim 1, wherein the base comprises a plurality of side embedding recesses formed at the upper edge of two sides thereof (Rumpel, Figs. 1-15, where there are a plurality of side embedding recesses (see element A in Annotated Fig. 2 below) formed at the upper edge of two sides of the base 12), a plurality of bosses formed between the side embedding recesses, and the boss comprises at least one positioning recess formed at the top thereof (Rumpel, Figs. 1-15, where there are a plurality of bosses (see element B in Annotated Fig. 2 below) formed between the side embedding recesses A and where each boss comprises at least one positioning recess (the recessed area between bosses B) formed at the top thereof); and the base comprises a plurality of end embedding recesses formed at the top edge of the two ends thereof (Rumpel, Figs. 1-15, where base 12 comprises a plurality of end embedding recesses (see element C in Annotated Fig. 2 below) formed at the top edge of the two ends thereof).
In regard to claim 4, Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar discloses the foldable stackable storage planter box structure according to claim 3, wherein the side panel comprises a plurality of side embedding parts protruded from the bottom thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the side embedding recess of the base (Rumpel, Figs. 1-15, where the side panel comprises a plurality of side embedding parts (see element D in Annotated Fig. 2 below) protruded from the bottom thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the side embedding recesses A of the base 12), and at least one positioning protrusion formed between the side embedding parts of the side panel and configured to be corresponsive to the positioning recess of the boss (Rumpel, Figs. 1-15, where there is at least one positioning protrusion (the connection feature between side embedding parts D) formed between the side embedding parts D of the side panel and configured to be corresponsive to the positioning recess (the recessed area between bosses B) of the boss); the side panel comprises a side folding plate bent from two ends thereof for blocking the end panel (Rumpel, Figs. 1-15 and Column 5 lines 26 – Column 6 line 13, where there is a side folding plate (bent portion of side panels near elements 33) bent from two ends thereof for at least blocking the end panels), the side folding plate comprises at least one side buckle hole, and the side panel comprises an inner retainer buckle disposed at the inner periphery of the side folding plate for blocking and fixing the end panel and providing elasticity (Rumpel, Figs. 1-15 and Column 5 lines 26 – Column 6 line 13, where the side folding plate (bent portion near elements 33) comprises at least one side buckle hole (between elements 33 which engages elements 32) and where the side panel comprises an inner retainer buckle (elements 27 which engages elements 25) disposed at the inner periphery of the side folding plate for at least blocking and fixing the end panel and providing elasticity).
In regard to claim 5, Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar discloses the foldable stackable storage planter box structure according to claim 4, wherein the end panel comprises a plurality of end embedding parts protruded from the bottom thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the end embedding recess of the base (Rumpel, Figs. 1-15, where the end panel comprises a plurality of end embedding parts (see element E in Annotated Fig. 3 below) protruded from the bottom thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the end embedding recesses (see element C in Annotated Fig. 2 below) of the base 12); and the end panel comprises at least one end side buckle disposed on two sides thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the side buckle hole of the side folding plate of the side panel (Rumpel, Figs. 1-15 and Column 5 lines 26 – Column 6 line 13, where the end panel comprises at least one end side buckle (elements 32 which engages between elements 33) disposed on two sides thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the side buckle hole (between elements 33) of the side folding plate (bent portion of side panels near elements 33) of the side panel).
In regard to claim 6, Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar discloses the foldable stackable storage planter box structure according to claim 1, wherein the height of the two sides of the base of the box is greater than the height of the two sides of the base two ends (Rumpel, Figs. 1-2, where a height of the two sides (base portions corresponding to side panels 20/22) of the base is greater than a height of the two ends (base portions corresponding to end panels 16/18) of the base).
In regard to claim 8, Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar discloses the foldable stackable storage planter box structure according to claim 3, wherein the height of the two sides of the base of the box is greater than the height of the two sides of the base two ends (Rumpel, Figs. 1-2, where a height of the two sides (base portions corresponding to side panels 20/22) of the base is greater than a height of the two ends (base portions corresponding to end panels 16/18) of the base).
In regard to claim 9, Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar discloses the foldable stackable storage planter box structure according to claim 4, wherein the height of the two sides of the base of the box is greater than the height of the two sides of the base two ends (Rumpel, Figs. 1-2, where a height of the two sides (base portions corresponding to side panels 20/22) of the base is greater than a height of the two ends (base portions corresponding to end panels 16/18) of the base).
In regard to claim 10, Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar discloses the foldable stackable storage planter box structure according to claim 5, wherein the height of the two sides of the base of the box is greater than the height of the two sides of the base two ends (Rumpel, Figs. 1-2, where a height of the two sides (base portions corresponding to side panels 20/22) of the base is greater than a height of the two ends (base portions corresponding to end panels 16/18) of the base).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
342
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumpel (U.S. Pat. 6722515) in view of Hu et al. (CN 106758985) and Aguilar (WO 2016087687) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Zak et al. (U.S. Pub. 20090101046).
In regard to claim 11, Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar discloses the foldable stackable storage planter box structure according to claim 5, wherein the base comprises four footers installed at the bottom of four corners thereof respectively (Aguilar, Figs. 6-7, where the base comprises four footers 61 installed at the bottom of four corners thereof respectively). Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar is silent on a plurality of latches installed at the top of the footer and configured to be corresponsive to the bottom of the bottom snap recesses respectively. Zak et al. discloses a plurality of latches installed at the top of the footer and configured to be corresponsive to the bottom of the bottom snap recesses respectively (Figs. 6-9B and Paragraph [0053], where there are plurality of latches 25 installed at the top of the footer 18/18A and configured to be corresponsive to the bottom of the bottom snap recesses 23 respectively). Rumpel and Zak et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include container 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 Rumpel as modified by Hu et al. and Aguilar such that a plurality of latches installed at the top of the footer and configured to be corresponsive to the bottom of the bottom snap recesses respectively in view of Zak et al. The motivation would have been to use a removable connection mechanism which has multiple latching portions to attach legs to the bottom of the structure, in order to relatively better secure the legs and further ensure that the legs do not easily detach during use.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumpel (U.S. Pat. 6722515) in view of Hu et al. (CN 106758985), Aguilar (WO 2016087687), and Zak et al. (U.S. Pub. 20090101046) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Jones et al. (U.S. Pub. 20030163894).
In regard to claim 12, Rumpel as modified by Hu et al., Aguilar, and Zak et al. discloses the foldable stackable storage planter box structure according to claim 11, wherein the foot has a flat bottom (Rumpel, Figs. 7 and 16-17, where the foot 28 has a flat bottom). Rumpel as modified by Hu et al., Aguilar, and Zak et al. is silent on wherein the footer comprises a bottom plate disposed at the bottom thereof. Jones et al. discloses each footer comprises a bottom plate disposed at the bottom thereof (Figs. 3-4 and Paragraph [0020], where there is a footer 22 which has a bottom plate 30 disposed at the bottom). Rumpel and Jones et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include modular 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 Rumpel as modified by Hu et al., Aguilar, and Zak et al. such that the footer comprises a bottom plate disposed at the bottom thereof in view of Jones et al. The motivation would have been to provide legs with a flat bottom which engages the ground surface, in order to relatively increase the stability of the device and further prevent the device from easily overturning, while also allowing for adjustment of the device’s height.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 10/28/2025) with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Rumpel (U.S. Pat. 6722515) in view of Hu et al. (CN 106758985) and Aguilar (WO 2016087687) disclose the applicant’s claim 1, as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above.
Specifically, Aguilar teaches the bottom edge of the two sides and two ends of the base are provided with at least one side snap protrusion and at least one end snap protrusion, respectively in Figs. 1-12 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 23-26, where at least the bottom edge of the two sides and two ends of the base are provided with at least one side snap protrusion 28 and at least one end snap protrusion 28.
Aguilar also teaches wherein each side panel comprises at least one side top recess formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the at least one side snap protrusion of the base in Figs. 1-12 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 23-26, where the side panel 2 comprises at least one side top recess 29 formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the side snap protrusion 28 of the base. Lastly, Aguilar teaches each end panel comprises at least one end top recess formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the at least one end snap protrusion of the base in Figs. 1-12 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 23-26, where the end panel 2 comprises at least one end top recess 29 formed at the top thereof and configured to be corresponsive to the end snap protrusion 28 of the base.
As written, the limitations encompassing the side and end protrusions and recesses are disclosed in Aguilar. The combination of the snap protrusion and receiving recess functions to provide a removable, yet secure attachment mechanism. The combination of Rumpel with Aguilar is maintained as proper, the rejection of claim 1 now reflecting appropriate mapping for the limitations added in from claim 2 (now cancelled).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of container structures and modular 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