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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “28”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
paragraph [0046], lines 1 and 3 list the reference number “26” for both “an opening” and “a first longitudinal edge”.
The term “outfit” and “garment” both use the reference number “20”, when garment is being used as referencing only one of the articles in the outfit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, “a planter” should be changed to --the planter--.
In claim 6, line 4, remove the second reference in the claim to “a necklace”.
In claim 7, line 4, remove the second reference in the claim to “a dress”.
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 1-20 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.
In claims 1-20, line 1 starts with either “An article of clothing” or “The article”. It is unclear what is being claimed when the independent claims then recite a first and second article. The examiner suggests amending to --An/The decorative system--, --An/The outfit-- (per the specification), or something similar that will additionally reflect that it is not always an article of clothing (see fashion accessory) that is being claimed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 12, 16-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 4914860) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2013240971, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Richardson discloses an article of clothing for a plant and a planter, comprising: a wearable article (70) that is configured to be fitted to at least a portion of a planter in which the plant is planted (Fig. 3).
Richardson does not explicitly disclose a wearable article that is configured to be worn by the plant.
Takahashi et al. teaches a wearable article that is configured to be worn by the plant (paragraph [0010] of the machine translation teaches that articles such as rhinestones, beads, ribbons, etc. can be adhered to the leaves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the article of Richardson to include a first wearable article worn by the plant as taught by Takahashi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a more colorful and attractive plant and planter combination to use in an ornamental or ceremonial purpose (Takahashi et al.: paragraph [0001] of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, and teaches (references to Takahashi et al.) wherein the first wearable article is a fashion accessory (paragraph [0010] of the machine translation teaches that articles such as rhinestones, beads, ribbons, etc. can be adhered to the leaves which are components of fashion accessories).
Regarding claim 4, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, and teaches (references to Richardson) wherein the second wearable article is an article of clothing (Fig. 3, pants).
Regarding claim 6, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, and teaches (references to Takahashi et al.) wherein the first wearable article is selected from the group consisting of: a shirt, a dress, a sweater, a jacket, swimwear, sleepwear, a bib, a cape, a scarf, a stole, a necklace, a uniform, a costume, a hat, a tiara, earmuffs, suspenders, a necklace, earrings, a bowtie, a necktie, eyeglasses, sunglasses, mittens, gloves, a handbag, a backpack, a briefcase, a tote bag, a fanny pack, a belt, a holiday decoration, a musical instrument, an umbrella, a tool, facial hair, a wig, an electronic device, a dining utensil, a pacifier, sporting equipment, a stuffed animal, a faux food item, and faux animal body parts (Figs. 1-2 show earring and necklace variations).
Regarding claim 7, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, and teaches (references to Richardson) wherein the second wearable article is selected from the group consisting of: pants, a belt, shorts, a dress, a skirt, a shirt, a sweater, a jacket, swimwear, sleepwear, a diaper, a cape, a scarf, a stole, a uniform, a costume, an apron, a dress, a bib, a necklace, a hat, a tiara, earmuffs, suspenders, a bowtie, a necktie, eyeglasses, sunglasses, mittens, gloves, a handbag, a backpack, a briefcase, a tote bag, a fanny pack, a holiday decoration, a musical instrument, a tool, at least one shoe, at least one sock, facial hair, a wig, sporting equipment, a faux food item, and faux animal body parts (Fig. 3 shows pants).
Regarding claim 9, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, and teaches (references to Takahashi et al.) wherein the first wearable article is configured to be attached to one or more branches, stems, or leaves of the plant with at least one connector selected from the group consisting of: bendable wires, flexible supports, rigid supports, ribbon, string, elasticized material, hook and loop fasteners, snaps, buttons, a zipper, a silicone surface, an adhesive-covered surface, a surface having enhanced friction, and magnets (paragraph [0011] teaches a solution that when dried adheres the first wearable article to the leaves).
Regarding claim 12, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, and teaches (references to Richardson) wherein the second wearable article is configured to be fitted to at least a portion of the planter with at least one connector selected from the group consisting of: elasticized material, hooks, hook and loop fasteners, snaps, buttons, bendable wires, flexible supports, rigid supports, ribbon, string, a zipper, an adjustable strap, a buckle, a slider and ring, and magnets (Fig. 3, col. 5, lines 14-21, by elastic tie string (72)).
Regarding claim 16, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, and teaches (references to Takahashi et al.) the article further comprising an additional first wearable article that has the same visual appearance as the first wearable article, wherein the additional first wearable article is configured to be worn by a human or by a pet (intended use language, Figs. 1-2 show earring and necklace variations which would be capable of being worn by a human or a pet if a multiple version was produced). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding an additional copy of the first wearable article would be attached and hang from where it is being worn.
Regarding claim 17, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, and teaches (references to Richardson) the article further comprising an additional second wearable article that has the same visual appearance as the second wearable article, wherein the additional second wearable article is configured to be worn by a human or by a pet (intended use language, Fig. 3 shows pants which would be capable of being worn by a human or a pet if a multiple version was produced). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding an additional copy of the second wearable article would be worn as expected by a human or pet.
Regarding claim 19, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, and teaches (references to Richardson) wherein the second wearable article covers at least a portion of a bottom surface of the planter (Fig. 3 shows the bottom surface of the planter covered by the pants (70)).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 4914860) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2013240971, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morgan (US 2020/0323298).
Regarding claim 2, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, wherein Richardson teaches pants on a hanging planter (Fig. 3). Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first wearable article is an article of clothing.
Morgan teaches a set of suspenders (100) attached to a pair of pants (10) at the waist band (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first wearable article of the article of Richardson modified by Takahashi et al. to be suspenders as taught by Morgan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to attach to the pants of Richardson and replace the ropes (56) of Richardson with the suspenders as a full outfit, allowing the suspenders to contact the plant in the planter as a first wearable article.
Regarding claim 8, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, wherein Richardson teaches pants on a hanging planter (Fig. 3). Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first wearable article and the second wearable article are connected to one another.
Morgan teaches a set of suspenders (100) attached to a pair of pants (10) at the waist band (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first wearable article of the article of Richardson modified by Takahashi et al. to be suspenders as taught by Morgan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to attach to the pants of Richardson and replace the ropes (56) of Richardson with the suspenders as a full outfit, allowing the suspenders to connect to the pants as a first wearable article.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 4914860) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2013240971, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bloodworth et al. (GB 2093408).
Regarding claim 5, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1, wherein Takahashi et al. teaches earrings or a necklace (Figs. 1-2). Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the second wearable article is a fashion accessory.
Bloodworth et al. teaches a decorated planter (Fig. 4) wherein a wearable article is a fashion accessory (the caricature of a dog is shown in Fig. 4 with the appearance of a stuff animal, fitted to a least a portion of the planter, and according to the instant specification, a stuff animal counts as a fashion accessory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the article of Richardson modified the second wearable article of the article of Richardson modified by Takahashi et al. to be a stuffed animal as taught by Bloodworth et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a more comedic, or another kid friendly, version of the second wearable article.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 4914860) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2013240971, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Honkawa et al. (US 5735075).
Regarding claim 10, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1. However, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first wearable article is attached to a first end of at least one support, and a second end of the at least one support opposite the first end is configured for insertion into a medium in the planter in which roots of the plant are situated.
Honkawa et al. teaches a floral arrangement (10) including a first wearable article ((16), an electronic device and holiday decoration, touching the plant without applying pressure) and a second wearable article (24), wherein the first wearable article is attached to a first end of at least one support (12), and a second end of the at least one support opposite the first end is configured for insertion into a medium (14) in the planter in which roots of the plant (20) are situated (Fig. 2 shows the first wearable article at one end of the support (12) and the other end in the medium the plant (20) is positioned within).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first wearable article of the article of Richardson modified by Takahashi et al. with the electrical device/holiday decoration as taught by Honkawa et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to possibly provide a larger presentation and to better secure the first wearable article within the planter.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 4914860) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2013240971, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Belokin et al. (US 4949486).
Regarding claim 11, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. teaches the article of claim 1. However, Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first wearable article is attached to a first end of at least one support, and a second end of the at least one support opposite the first end is configured for attachment to the planter.
Belokin et al. teaches an article for plants and planters, wherein the wearable article ((50), faux animal body parts) is attached to a first end of at least one support (W), and a second end of the at least one support opposite the first end is configured for attachment to the planter (through the motor housing (17) of the planter (P), see Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the article of Richardson as modified by Takahashi et al. to include at least one support connected to the planter as is taught by Belokin et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce any potential wear of the plant itself.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloodworth et al. (GB 2093408) in view of Kritzner et al. (DE 20219329, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 20, Bloodworth et al. discloses an article of clothing for a plant and a planter, comprising: a planter (7) for housing a plant; a medium (shown in planter in Fig. 4) for holding the plant in place within the planter; a wearable article (the caricature of a dog is shown in Fig. 4 with the appearance of a stuff animal, fitted to a least a portion of the planter, and according to the instant specification, a stuff animal counts as a wearable article) that is configured to be fitted to at least a portion of the planter (Fig. 4) with at least one connector selected from the group consisting of: elasticized material, hook and loop fasteners, snaps, buttons, bendable wires, flexible supports, rigid supports, ribbon, string, a zipper, magnets, hook and loop fasteners, snaps a silicone surface, an adhesive-covered surface, a surface having enhanced friction, and buttons (the groove (6) creates a rigid support that allows the wearable article to be fitted to at least a portion of the planter).
Bloodworth et al. does not explicitly disclose the plant; a wearable article that is configured to be attached to one or more branches, stems, or leaves of the plant with at least one support having at least one connector selected from the group consisting of: bendable wires, flexible supports, rigid supports, ribbon, string, elasticized material, hook and loop fasteners, snaps, buttons, a zipper, a silicone surface, an adhesive-covered surface, a surface having enhanced friction, and magnets, wherein the at least one support includes a first end attached to the first wearable article and a second end that can be wrapped one or more times around the one or more branches, stems, or leaves.
Kritzner et al. teaches a wearable article ((12) and/or (14)) that is configured to be attached to one or more branches, stems, or leaves of a plant ((18), stem) with at least one support having at least one connector selected from the group consisting of: bendable wires, flexible supports, rigid supports, ribbon, string, elasticized material, hook and loop fasteners, snaps, buttons, a zipper, a silicone surface, an adhesive-covered surface, a surface having enhanced friction, and magnets (Figs. 1-2, bendable wires), wherein the at least one support includes a first end attached to the first wearable article (Figs. 1-2, top of wires in figures, see heart shape (as a valentine’s holiday decoration)) and a second end that can be wrapped one or more times around the one or more branches, stems, or leaves (end of bendable wires are wrapped around the stem as shown in Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the article of Bloodworth et al. to include a first wearable article worn by the plant as taught by Kritzner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a more colorful and attractive plant and planter combination to use in an ornamental or ceremonial purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious an article of clothing for a plant and a planter as claimed in detail, especially the features “wherein at least one of the first and second wearable articles comprises a refastenable attachment element for attaching at least one fashion accessory to the at least one of the first and second wearable articles” in addition to the other limitations.
Richardson (US 4914860) and Takahashi et al. (JP 2013240971) teach the article, however, lack the additional refastenable attachment element for attaching an additional fashion accessory to one of the wearable articles. Thus, the prior art does not fairly teach these features as specifically required by the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Burns (US 7351128), Chuang (US 7108391), Brisson et al. (US 6085461), Maddox (US 5003725), Redyke (US 3153301), Lawson (US 2021/0196060), Seibel et al. (US 2007/00285519), Pravettoni (US 2006/0026895), Zhang (CN 104188140), Kitahigashi (CN 202826927), Motohashi (JP 2005040049), and Asaoka (JP 2006001210) teach an article for a plant and/or planter.
Crouch et al. (US 8052534) and Powers et al. (US 2017/0006945) teach connections for wearable articles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643