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 1-5 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 04/24/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Figs. 1-3) in the reply filed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-2 and 4-5 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 recites the phrases "a first coating layer coated" in line 4 and “a second coating layer coated” in line 6. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether it is the “coating layer” being “coated” with a substance or if the referenced “coating layer” is being used to coat another portion of the device. It seems that the paper member and the first coating layer are the portions being “coated” in each respective phrase. Corrections of verb and sentence structure are required, to point out which portions are being respectively “coated”.
Claim 5 recites the phrases “based on 100 parts by weight of water”. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear what exact amounts of material the “parts by weight” ratios in the claim are reciting. The phrase “based on 100 parts by weight of water” seems to be clarifying a reference point for the rest of the “parts by weight” ratios in the claim, but a lack of clarity remains. The office cannot determine whether the “parts by weight” ratios are equivalent to percentages relative to water mass or if there are 100 “parts by weight” of water added after including the previously mentioned amounts of material in the claim.
Claims 2 and 4-5 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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2022124422) in view of Seok (KR 20200109713), Ran (KR 20170111226), Jaeil (KR 2020030868), Jong et al. (KR 102505083), and Ho (KR 20210017141).
In regard to claim 1, Ito et al. discloses a naturally biodegradable functional seedling paper pot and seedbed, comprising: a paper member with an open top, a side portion, and a bottom portion (Figs. 9-10 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 1-31, where there is a paper member (“cup body 110 is preferably made of paper”) with an open top 106, a side portion 104, and a bottom portion 102); a first coating layer coated with a water resistant coating on inner and outer surfaces of the paper member (Figs. 9-10 and Translated Specification Page 4 line 1 – Page 5 line 13, where there is a first coating layer coated with a water resistant coating (“the surface of the paper may be coated… in order to impart good water resistance”) on inner and outer surfaces of the paper member); a second coating layer coated with a biodegradable coating composition on the first coating layer of the inner surface of the paper member (Figs. 9-10 and Translated Specification Page 4 line 1 – Page 5 line 13 and Page 7 lines 1-5, where there is a second coating layer 120 coated with a biodegradable coating composition (“biodegradable material”) on the first coating layer of the inner surface of the paper member); a coating which includes water, starch, and other beneficial additives (Figs. 9-10 and Translated Specification Page 4 line 1 – Page 5 line 13, where there is a coating which includes water, starch (“starch (starch paste)”), and other beneficial additives (“other additives”)). Ito et al. is silent on a plurality of holes (H) formed in the bottom portion (1B and 2B) of the paper member. Seok discloses a plurality of holes formed in the bottom portion of the paper member (Figs. 4-5, where there are a plurality of holes 24 formed in the bottom portion of the paper member). Ito et al. and Seok are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes agriculture. 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 Ito et al. such that a plurality of holes formed in the bottom portion of the paper member in view of Seok. The motivation would have been to increase the speed of drainage from the pot by providing more than one drainage hole.
Ito et al. is silent on an acrylic emulsion resin. Ran discloses an acrylic emulsion resin (Translated Specification Page 3 lines 7-38, where there is an acrylic emulsion resin used for water resistance). Ito et al. and Ran are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes agriculture. 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 Ito et al. such that there is an acrylic emulsion resin in view of Ran. The motivation would have been to use a commonly known, adhesive compound as a component of an agricultural paper pot, in order to provide water repellant qualities.
Ito et al. is silent on wherein the biodegradable coating composition of the second coating layer (20) includes activated carbon and minerals. Jaeil discloses the biodegradable coating composition includes activated carbon and minerals (Abstract and Claims, where there is a coating composition which includes activated carbon and other minerals). Ito et al. and Jaeil are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes agriculture. 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 Ito et al. such that the biodegradable coating composition of the second coating layer includes activated carbon and minerals in view of Jaeil. The motivation would have been to provide a coating which is “environmentally decomposes in soil”, “excellent adsorption and decomposition”, further moisture resistant, and provides carbon to the soil.
Ito et al. is silent on wherein the biodegradable coating composition of the second coating layer (20) includes detoxified sulfur. Jong et al. discloses the use of detoxified sulfur in agricultural applications (Translated Specification Page 8 lines 11-31, where detoxified sulfur is used to provide antibacterial benefits and further fertilization to the soil). Ito et al. and Jong et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes agriculture. 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 Ito et al. such that the biodegradable coating composition of the second coating layer (20) includes detoxified sulfur in view of Jong et al. The motivation would have been to provide a vital nutrient and soil conditioner which has the “advantage of exhibiting antibacterial activity”.
Ito et al. is silent on wherein the biodegradable coating composition of the second coating layer (20) includes black mica and liquid microorganisms. Ho discloses the use of black mica and liquid microorganisms in agricultural applications (Translated Specification Page 3 lines 40-52, where black mica and liquid microorganisms are used to promote beneficial microorganisms and provide better soil conditions during crop cultivation). Ito et al. and Ho are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes agriculture. 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 Ito et al. such that the biodegradable coating composition of the second coating layer (20) includes black mica and liquid microorganisms in view of Ho. The motivation would have been to provide beneficial microorganisms to the soil, supply minerals “necessary for maintaining the neutralization of soil”, and increase the “viability of microorganisms”.
In regard to claim 2, Ito et al. as modified by Seok, Ran, Jaeil, Jong et al., and Ho discloses the naturally biodegradable functional seedling paper pot and seedbed according to claim 1, wherein the paper member has a cup shape with the open top, the side portion, and the bottom potion (Figs. 9-10 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 1-31, where the paper member at least has a cup shape).
In regard to claim 4, Ito et al. as modified by Seok, Ran, Jaeil, Jong et al., and Ho discloses the naturally biodegradable functional seedling paper pot and seedbed according to claim 1, wherein the acrylic emulsion resin of the first coating layer (10) includes an acrylic monomer, a room-temperature self-crosslinking monomer, a reactive emulsifier, and water (Ran, Translated Specification Page 3 lines 7-38, where the acrylic emulsion resin includes an acrylic monomer, a room-temperature self-crosslinking monomer (“a monomer (eg, methyl acrylate, , Acrylic ester monomers such as butyl acrylate and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, methacrylic monomers such as methyl methacrylate and ethyl methacrylate, styrene monomers and the like)”), a reactive emulsifier (“an emulsifier (eg, a Triton emulsifier, a NP type, an OP type nonionic surfactant)”), and water and where the acrylic emulsion resin can be produced using any techniques known in the art).
In regard to claim 5, Ito et al. as modified by Seok, Ran, Jaeil, Jong et al., and Ho discloses the naturally biodegradable functional seedling paper pot and seedbed according to claim 1. Ito et al. as modified by Seok, Ran, Jaeil, Jong et al., and Ho is silent on the biodegradable coating composition of the second coating layer (20) includes 2 to 10 parts by weight of black mica, 1 to 3 parts by weight of activated carbon, 0.5 to 2 parts by weight of detoxified sulfur, 1 to 3 parts by weight of minerals, 1 to 3 parts by weight of liquid microorganisms, and 5 to 10 parts by weight of starch, based on 100 parts by weight of water. 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 modify the device body of Ito et al. as modified by Seok, Ran, Jaeil, Jong et al., and Ho to have the biodegradable coating composition of the second coating layer include 2 to 10 parts by weight of black mica, 1 to 3 parts by weight of activated carbon, 0.5 to 2 parts by weight of detoxified sulfur, 1 to 3 parts by weight of minerals, 1 to 3 parts by weight of liquid microorganisms, and 5 to 10 parts by weight of starch, based on 100 parts by weight of water, 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 biodegradable coating composition of the second coating layer of Ito et al. as modified by Seok, Ran, Jaeil, Jong et al., and Ho. The motivation would have been to provide the paper pot with a composition which makes it biodegradable, water repellant, nutrient rich, antibacterial, and encourages beneficial microorganism growth.
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 agriculture.
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