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 .
Claims 1-15 are currently pending, and claims 7-13 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-6 and 14-15 considered.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement as set forth on 08/15/2025 is maintained, as iterated in the Office Action dated 12/02/2025.
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 1-2, 4-6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellet et al. (US 20100000149 A1), hereafter referred to as “Ouellet”, in view of Chen et al. (CN 115612144 A), hereafter referred to as “Chen”.
Regarding claim 1, Ouellet teaches a coir pot (30; figs. 3A-4) for indoor horticultural applications (abstract, title) having an inner surface wherein the inner surface is at least partially covered with a coating layer (paragraphs [0021], [0024]-[0036]),
wherein said coating layer (table 1 and claim 6) comprises at least a crosslinked latex (table 1 and claim 6 disclosing known crosslinking agents, e.g., sulfur, zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDC), and zinc-2-mercaptobenzothiazole; see also paragraphs [0023]-[0024] disclosing a curing process), clay (table 1 and claim 6) and a non-ionic surface-active agent (table 1 and claim 6, e.g., teaching Wettem, see also paragraph [0040] and the instant specification at page 6, lines 6-11),
wherein the weight-ratio of crosslinked latex to clay is between 3:1 and 1:1 (table 1 and claim 6 teaching a ratio of approximately 2.4:1), and
and the coating of crosslinked latex, clay and a non-ionic surface-active agent is formed from an aqueous mixture applied to the inner surface that is subsequently dried and cured to form the coating layer (table 1, claim 6, paragraphs [0023]-[0036], [0040]); Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966). However, Ouellet does not explicitly teach that the coating layer has a thickness of 0.3-0.7mm.
Chen teaches a pot (abstract, see attached machine translation) including a coating layer with a thickness between 0.3-0.7mm (machine translation, claim 1 and machine translation at page 7, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coir pot of Ouellet, such that the coating layer has a thickness of 0.3-0.7 mm, as taught by Chen, in order to provide a uniform coating that is optimized for durability (see Ouellet at paragraph [0023]), and because it is well settled, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 2, Ouellet in view of Chen teaches the coir pot according to claim 1, and Ouellet further teaches that the weight-ratio of crosslinked latex to clay is between 2.5:1 and 2:1 (table 1 and claim 6 teaching a ratio of approximately 2.4:1).
Regarding claim 4, Ouellet in view of Chen teaches the coir pot according to claim 1, and further teaches that the coating layer has a thickness of about 0.5mm (Chen at machine translation, claim 1 and machine translation at page 7, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ouellet in view of Chen teaches the coir pot according to claim 1, and Ouellet further teaches wherein the coir pot has a bottom (fig. 3B) and an upper end (figs. 3A-3B) and wherein the coating layer extends from the bottom to the upper end over at least 1/2 of the height (paragraphs [0023]- [0036]).
Regarding claim 6, Ouellet in view of Chen teaches the coir pot according to claim 5, and Ouellet further teaches wherein the crosslinked latex is crosslinked with crosslinking agent selected from the group consisting of sulfur (table 1 and claim 6), zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (table 1 and claim 6, disclosing ZDC), and zinc-2- mercaptobenzothiazole (table 1 and claim 6) or combinations thereof (table 1 and claim 6).
Regarding claim 14, Ouellet in view of Chen teaches the coir pot according to claim 1, and Ouellet further teaches that the coir pot is waterproof (paragraph [0004]).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Athalage (US 20230397744 A1), hereafter referred to as “Athalage”.
Regarding claim 3, Ouellet in view of Chen teaches the coir pot according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the coating layer further comprises an additive selected from the group consisting of fragrance, dye, tebuconazole and combinations thereof.
Athalage teaches a coir pot (abstract, fig. 1-5) including a coating layer with a dye (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coir pot of Ouellet in view of Chen, such that the coating layer includes dye, as taught by Athalage, in order to improve the aesthetics of the pot (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Ouellet in view of Chen teaches the coir pot according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the coating layer is waterproof.
Athalage teaches a coir pot (abstract, fig. 1-5) including a waterproof coating layer (claim 1, paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coir pot of Ouellet in view of Chen, such that the coating layer is waterproof, as taught by Athalage, in order to mitigate premature drying out of the plant and lack of needed water to plant roots (paragraphs [0002]-[0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Ouellet does not teach that the coir pot’s inner surface “is at least partially covered with a coating layer”, and that Ouellet’s “latex sprayed coir fibre” does not teach a coating layer covering.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not explained why they do not consider Ouellet’s “latex sprayed coir fibre” as a coating layer. Like applicant’s invention, both the instant invention and Ouellet’s invention describes a latex formulation of Wettem (crosslinked latex), clay, and a non-ionic surface-active agent applied to coir (Ouellet at paragraphs [0024]-[0036], table 1, and claim 6). Like the instant invention, Ouellet discloses spraying the coir the latex formulation (i.e., coating; paragraphs [0025], [0030] teaching steps D, F), drying the coated coir to crosslink the latex (i.e., curing; paragraphs [0029], [0031] teaching steps E, G). If applicant’s application of latex and heat curing is considered a coating, then Ouellet’s latex spraying and heat curing must also be considered a coating. It is also noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not discuss anywhere how the coating is applied (e.g., sprayed, brushed, dipped, etc.). Further, applicant’s disclosure does not give a special meaning to the term, “coating layer”, and in terms of broadest reasonable interpretation, the plain meaning of “coating layer” is understood to be a layer of substance applied to a surface.
In terms of the coating layer being applied on the interior surface of the pot, Ouellet still teaches this limitation as the resultant pot includes the latex coating on the interior inner surface of the pot. Applicant also argues that Ouellet does not teach the limitations of dependent claim 5. However, Ouellet teaches a coating layer on the entire surface, and thus teaches that the coating layer extends from the bottom to the upper end over at least ½ of the height (paragraphs [0023]- [0036] of Ouellet).
Applicant argues that there is not a motivation to combine the references nor a reasonable expectation of success regarding Chen’s teachings. Specifically, that Chen appears to teach an injection molded pot, and not porous coir fibers.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection above, Chen is directed to a plant container, and is only relied upon for the teaching of the coating layer thickness, not the pot. Chen teaches that a thickness of 0.3-0.7mm of a coating that has been sprayed is recognized as a workable range for a plant container (machine translation, claim 1 and machine translation at page 7, paragraph 2).
Applicant argues that Athalage does not teach a coating layer and state that there is no motivation to combine the references. Specifically, Applicant argues that the latex layer is “over-coating”, which is not considered a “coating layer”, because “the rubber liner of Athalage is located completely on top of (external to) the fiber layer of the container. In contrast, a skilled artisan would recognize that a coating layer applied as a liquid, as in the amended claims, not only conforms to the fiber layer but also binds and intercalates into at least a portion of the coir fiber layer.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the above rejection of claim 3, Athalage is only relied upon for its teaching of a coating layer including a dye additive (paragraph [0027]). Applicant’s disclosure does not give a special meaning to the term, “coating layer”, and in terms of broadest reasonable interpretation, the plain meaning of “coating layer” is understood to be a layer of substance applied to a surface, and thus a “over-coating” layer is a coating layer.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights