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 .
Election/Restrictions
In light of the latest claim amendments, the previous requirement for restriction is withdrawn.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The figures are nearly, with some being completely, illegible.
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.
Claims 29-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claim 29, the metes and bounds of “reversible” connection is unclear. The metes and bounds of the phrase “up to three other modular planters” is also unclear.
Regarding claim 31, the metes and bounds of the term “reversibly” is unclear.
Claim limitation “means for reversible connection” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide any details pertaining to structure performing a “reversible” connection. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 29-30, 32, 37-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Bokmiller US 6134832.
Regarding claim 29, Bokmiller discloses a planter module comprising:
a body comprising an open top portion and a lower base portion, the lower base portion having a diameter smaller (near reference number 10 in figure 2) than an inner diameter of the upper open top portion (near reference number 42 in figure 2), and
wherein the lower base portion comprises means for reversible connection to an upper side wall of up to three other modular planters (28/42 figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 30, Bokmiller discloses the planter module of claim 29, wherein the means for reversible connection comprises a Y-shaped channel system (figure 5).
Regarding claim 32, Bokmiller discloses the planter module of claim 30, wherein the Y-shaped channel system partitions the lower base portion into separate reservoirs (figures 1-3), wherein the separate reservoirs are configured for collecting (inherent during normal use) and draining water (by way of openings 27 best shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 37, Bokmiller discloses the planter module of claim 32, wherein one or more of the separate reservoirs comprises a pluggable drainage hole, wherein the drainage hole prevents overflow of water (27 figure 3).
Regarding claim 38, Bokmiller discloses the planter module of claim 29, wherein the modular planter is integrally formed (column 2 lines 59-61) or formed from parts.
Regarding claim 39, Bokmiller discloses the planter module of claim 38, wherein the modular planter is made by injection molding (column 2 lines 59-61), double injection molding, over-molding, gas-assisted molding or microcellular injection molding.
Regarding claim 40, Bokmiller discloses the planter module of claim 29, wherein the planter comprises plastic (column 2 lines 59-61), wood and/or metal, optionally one or more of the plastic, wood and metal is from a recycled source.
Regarding claim 41, Bokmiller discloses the planter module of claim 40, comprising polyethylene (see previous rejections where at least polyethylene is a type of plastic substance), polypropylene, polystyrene polybutene, polyisoprene, polypentene, and mixtures thereof.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 31, 44, 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokmiller in view of O’Brien US 2022/0354065.
Regarding claim 31, Bokmiller teaches the planter module of claim 30, but does not specify wherein the Y-shaped channel system is further configured for reversibly receiving support legs around a periphery of the lower base portion.
O’Brien; however, does teach such arrangement (18 figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such legs, in order to enhance plantar arrangements according to design preferences; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 44, Bokmiller teaches the planter module of claim 29, but does not specify wherein the planter module is hexagonally shaped.
O’Brien; however, does teach a hexagonal shape (figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a shape, in order to meet design preferences; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 47, Bokmiller and O’Brien teach a kit for assembling a modular expandable planter system, comprising a plurality of planter modules according to claim 29 (Bokmiller figure 4),
and wherein the lower base portion is configured for collecting water (see previous rejections) and/or
the lower base portion is further configured for reversibly receiving and supporting legs around the periphery of the lower base portion (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 48, the references teach the kit of claim 47, further comprising: a plurality of support legs for attachment to the lower base portion, and optional instructions (see previous rejections); and/or a reservoir insert shaped to fit and be supported within the lower base portion.
Claim(s) 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokmiller in view of Ryan US 20190183065.
Regarding claim 33, Bokmiller teaches the planter module of claim 30, but does not specify further comprising a reservoir insert shaped to fit and be supported on a ledge formed by the Y-shaped channel system.
Ryan; however, does teach such a type of insert (200 figures 3-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such an insert, in order to further assist a user with avoiding over watering.
Additionally, any various shapes of the insert would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to most effectively assist the user; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 34, the references teach the planter module of claim 33, wherein Ryan further teaches the reservoir insert is a substantially flat perforated tray comprising downwardly projecting drainage cups into each of the reservoirs (figure 3).
Regarding claim 35, the references teach the planter module of claim 34, wherein Ryan further teaches each of the downwardly projecting cups have sidewalls comprising openings for movement of water therethrough (218 figure 4).
Regarding claim 36, the references teach the planter module of claim 33, wherein the reservoir insert functions to separate water from soil and allow for plant roots and/or the soil to wick water from each of the compartments (a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Claim(s) 42-43, 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokmiller.
Regarding claim 42, Bokmiller teaches the planter module of claim 41, but does not specify further comprising crumb rubber comprising a synthetic rubber selected from styrene-butadiene rubber, ethylene propylene diene rubber, ethylene propylene rubber (EPR), butadiene rubber (BR) and mixtures thereof.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such types of material combinations, in order to simply meet design preferences; since it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use.
Regarding claim 43, Bokmiller teaches the planter module of claim 40, but does not specify further comprising: an ultraviolet radiation inhibitor; and/or up to about 10% by weight additives selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide, UV stabilizers, calcium carbonate, talc, flame retardants and combinations thereof; and/or up to about 10% by weight colorant.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such types of material combinations, in order to simply meet design preferences; since it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use.
Regarding claim 45, Bokmiller teaches the planter module of claim 29, but does not specify a single layer garden bed comprising a honeycomb arrangement of a plurality of the planter modules of claim 29.
However, a plurality of Bokmiller’s planter modules are capable of being arranged into numerous shapes, including a honeycomb type shape, by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a plurality of the planters in order to enable a user to create a design of a multitude of plants; since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 46, Bokmiller teaches a multilevel garden bed comprising a plurality of the planter modules of claim 29 (figure 4), wherein each raised level of the multilevel garden bed comprises a honeycomb arrangement that is offset with respect to a honeycomb arrangement in a lower level (see claim 45 rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644