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 1-18 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.
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. 1a-1f) in the reply filed on 07/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10, 13, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 8-10 and 13 are drawn to Species B, which includes tube 114b. Specifically, Species B is disclosed as having the open tube which is utilized as the watering means and is provided with the water level indicator (Specification Page 8, lines 3-7, “Instead of rod 114a, a tube may be configured which allows watering of the plant. The tube may be provided with a water level indicator indicating when the plant needs to be watered”). Claim 18 is drawn to Species C, which includes wall fasteners 401-403.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “third fastening means” in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests changing “body shell” in line 3 to --bodyshell--. Claim 17 is objected to for similar reasons.
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 1-7, 11-12, and 14-17 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 phrase "an enclosure" in line 6. This is a double inclusion of “an enclosure” in line 5. The Examiner suggests changing “an enclosure” to --the enclosure--.
Claim 3 recites the phrase "the lower side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the lower side” to --a lower side--.
Claim 3 recites the phrase "the vertical axis" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the vertical axis” to --a vertical axis--. Claim 4 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 4 recites the phrase "the bottom center point" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the bottom center point” to --a bottom center point--.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “a second fastening means” in line 3. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear what is being referenced as the “first” fastening means in the scope of this claim. There is no previous recitation of the “first” fastening means in claim 1, 4, or 6. Further clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the phrase “a third fastening means” in line 2. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since the specific structure referenced as the “third” fastening means is unclear in light of the Applicant’s Specification and Drawings. There is no element in the figures or description in the specification of a “third” fastening means on the upper bodyshell. Accordingly, the “third fastening means” has been interpreted as any fastening structure which is utilized to suspend the enclosure, for purposes of examination.
Claim 14 recites the phrase “and/or in line 2. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether the limitations referenced therein all need to be present or only one is required by the claim. Specifically, the terms “and” and “or” are conflicting in scope. Further clarification is required. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons. Accordingly, “and/or” has been interpreted as “or” for purposes of examination.
Claims 2-7, 11-12, and 14-17 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 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (JP 2005323520) in view of Roch (GB 2482654).
In regard to claim 1, Kitagawa discloses a pot for holding one or more plants, the pot configured with an opening arranged for a plant of the one or more plants to stick or to grow out of the pot (Figs. 1-6 and Translated Specification Page 3 lines 18-31, where there is a pot 1 configured with an opening 13 arranged for a plant of the one or more plants C/D to stick or to grow out of the pot 1), wherein the pot comprises an enclosure which comprises an upper bodyshell and a lower bodyshell which are arranged for being connected together to form an enclosure for the plant, whereby: the upper bodyshell comprises the opening (Figs. 1-6 and Translated Specification Page 3 lines 18-31, where wherein the pot comprises an enclosure which comprises an upper bodyshell 11a and a lower bodyshell 11b which are arranged for being connected together to form an enclosure for the plant C/D and where the upper bodyshell 11a comprises the opening 13). Kitagawa is silent on the bodyshells are arranged for being rotated relative to each other around a rotational axis, and the opening is positioned off-centered of the rotational axis. Roch discloses on the bodyshells are arranged for being rotated relative to each other around a rotational axis, and the opening is positioned off-centered of the rotational axis (Figs. 2-7, Abstract, and Attached Specification Page 4 lines 34-42, where the bodyshells 4/5 are arranged for being rotated relative to each other around a rotational axis (at least arranged for being rotated to “a predetermined angle of rotation”) and where the opening is positioned off-centered (“the mouth of each container is itself formed at an oblique angle to the axis of the container”) of the rotational axis). Kitagawa and Roch are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant holding 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 Kitagawa such that the bodyshells are arranged for being rotated relative to each other around a rotational axis, and the opening is positioned off-centered of the rotational axis in view of Roch. The motivation would have been to allow the plant to grow “at an angle to each of the containers so providing a denser and more even growth pattern to cover the surface against which the plating system is situated” (Roch, Attached Specification Page 4 lines 34-42).
In regard to claim 2, Kitagawa as modified by Roch discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the bodyshells are hemispheres and the enclosure is substantially spherical when the bodyshells are connected (Kitagawa, Figs. 1-6, where the bodyshells 11a/11b are at least hemispheres and the enclosure is substantially spherical when the bodyshells 11a/11b are connected).
In regard to claim 3, Kitagawa as modified by Roch discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the lower bodyshell comprises a bottom center point, whereby the lower body shell is arranged for being positioned with the bottom center point positioned substantially at the lower side of the lower body shell (Kitagawa, Figs. 1-6, where the lower body shell 11b is arranged for being positioned with a bottom center point 14 positioned substantially at the lower side of the lower bodyshell 11b; Roch, Figs. 2-7, where the lower bodyshell 5 at least has a bottom center point positioned substantially at the lower side of the lower bodyshell 5), in such a manner that the rotational axis is tilted relatively to the vertical axis of the enclosure (Roch, Figs. 2-7, Abstract, and Attached Specification Page 4 lines 34-42, where the rotational axis (relative rotation between bodyshells 4 and 5) is at least tilted relatively to the vertical axis of the enclosure (“The mouth 4a of the upper container 4 is held at an angle of rotation to the mouth 5a of the lower container 5 and the mouth of each container is itself formed at an oblique angle to the axis of the container”)).
In regard to claim 14, Kitagawa as modified by Roch discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the pot is arranged for holding soil, hydro granules and/or water (Roch, Figs. 2-7 and Attached Specification Page 5 lines 12-16, where the pot is at least arranged for holding soil (“planting medium could be soil”)).
In regard to claim 15, Kitagawa as modified by Roch discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the opening is configured as a circle, flower, or a configuration of multiple orifices (Kitagawa, Figs. 1-6, where the opening 13 is configured as a circle).
In regard to claim 16, Kitagawa as modified by Roch discloses the pot according to claim 1, wherein the upper and/or the lower bodyshell are arranged for being nested for storage or transport (Kitagawa, Figs. 1-6, where the upper bodyshell 11a is at least arranged for being nested in the lower bodyshell 11b, by vertically rotating either bodyshell 180 degrees).
Claims 4-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (JP 2005323520) in view of Roch (GB 2482654) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cho (KR 101877172).
In regard to claim 4, Kitagawa as modified by Roch discloses the pot according claim 1. Kitagawa as modified by Roch is silent on the lower bodyshell comprises an attachment means positioned at the bottom center point and arranged for attaching a rod and fixing said rod substantially in the vertical axis. Cho discloses the lower bodyshell comprises an attachment means positioned at the bottom center point and arranged for attaching a rod and fixing said rod substantially in the vertical axis (Figs. 13-15 and Translated Specification Page 5 lines 19-29, where the lower bodyshell has an attachment means 400 positioned at the bottom center point (near 120) and arranged for attaching a rod 200 and fixing said rod 200 substantially in the vertical axis (via threads)). Kitagawa and Cho are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant holding 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 Kitagawa as modified by Roch such that the lower bodyshell comprises an attachment means positioned at the bottom center point and arranged for attaching a rod and fixing said rod substantially in the vertical axis in view of Cho. The motivation would have been to hang the pot from a support structure, in order to facilitate drainage (Cho, Translated Abstract) or position the pot for desired aesthetics.
In regard to claim 5, Kitagawa as modified by Roch and Cho discloses the pot according to claim 4, wherein the rod is configured with a first fastening means at the top end, said fastening means arranged for suspending the enclosure (Cho, Figs. 13-15 and Translated Specification Page 5 lines 19-29, where the rod 200 is configured with a first fastening means 210 at the top end, said fastening means 210 arranged for suspending the enclosure).
In regard to claim 6, Kitagawa as modified by Roch and Cho discloses the pot according to claim 4, wherein the attachment means of the lower bodyshell comprises a hole configured for the rod to be inserted at least partly, whereby the rod is configured with a second fastening means at the lower end, said second fastening means arranged for suspending an object, such as a second enclosure below the pot (Cho, Figs. 13-15 and Translated Specification Page 5 lines 19-29, where the attachment means 400 of the lower bodyshell has a hole configured for the rod 200 to be inserted at least partly and where the rod 200 is configured with a second fastening means 310 at the lower end, said second fastening means 310 arranged for suspending an object 600).
In regard to claim 7, Kitagawa as modified by Roch discloses the pot according to claim 1. Kitagawa as modified by Roch is silent on the upper bodyshell comprises a third fastening means arranged for suspending the enclosure. Cho discloses the bodyshell comprises a fastening means arranged for suspending the enclosure (Figs. 13-15 and Translated Specification Page 5 lines 19-29, where the bodyshell has fastening means 210 arranged for suspending the enclosure). Kitagawa and Cho are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant holding 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 Kitagawa as modified by Roch such that the upper bodyshell comprises a third fastening means arranged for suspending the enclosure in view of Cho, since the fastening means of Cho could be used with the device of Kitagawa as modified by Roch. The motivation would have been to hang the pot from a support structure, in order to facilitate drainage (Cho, Translated Abstract) or position the pot for desired aesthetics.
In regard to claim 11, Kitagawa as modified by Roch and Cho discloses the pot according to claim 4, wherein the rod is configured with a thread, and the attachment means is configured with a matching thread for screwing the rod together (Cho, Figs. 13-15 and Translated Specification Page 5 lines 19-29, where the rod 200 is configured with a thread 220 and where the attachment means 400 is configured with at least a matching thread for screwing the rod 200 together).
In regard to claim 12, Kitagawa as modified by Roch and Cho discloses the pot according to claim 11, wherein the attachment means is configured for selectively attaching the rod (Cho, Figs. 13-15 and Translated Specification Page 5 lines 19-29, where the attachment means 400 is configured for at least selectively attaching the rod 200).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (JP 2005323520) in view of Roch (GB 2482654) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JP3138217.
In regard to claim 17, Kitagawa as modified by Roch discloses the pot according to claim 1. Kitagawa as modified by Roch is silent on the upper and lower bodyshell are provided with a thread configured for screwing the upper and the lower body shells together. JP3138217 discloses the upper and lower bodyshell are provided with a thread configured for screwing the upper and the lower body shells together (Figs. 1-4 and Translated Abstract, where the upper and lower bodyshell 10/20 are provided with a thread 12/21 configured for screwing the upper and the lower body shells 10/20 together). Kitagawa and JP3138217are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant holding 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 Kitagawa as modified by Roch such that the upper and lower bodyshell are provided with a thread configured for screwing the upper and the lower body shells together in view of JP3138217. The motivation would have been to use a well known connection mechanism, which enables quick and reliable attachment and detachment of the two halves of the enclosure. This would allow for easier access to the roots of the plant for replanting or related horticultural purposes (JP3138217, Translated Abstract).
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 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