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 .
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-13 are currently pending, with claims 7-13 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-6 considered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/15/2025. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 8-15-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully submits that the USPTO asserts that the product can be made by a process different from the claimed process, but has failed to allege a specific process or establish that the alleged process would produce the same product. Additionally, claim 6 has been amended to recite the crosslinking agents utilized in process claim 7. Accordingly, claim 6 now functions as a linking claim and renders moot the assertion that a search of Group II would require an additional search of that subject matter not required for the search of Group I”. This is not found persuasive because examiner maintains that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially difference process (e.g., a process that does not require drying coated coir pots of step c) for 30-120min at 90-150 degrees C to crosslink the latex, and repeating steps c) and d) once).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the coating layer has a thickness of 0.3-0.7mm, and the claim also recites “and more preferably about 0.5mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouellet et al. (US 20100000149 A1), hereafter referred to as “Ouellet”.
Regarding claim 1, Ouellet discloses 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 (paragraph [0021]),
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).
Regarding claim 2, Ouellet discloses the coir pot according to claim 1, and further discloses 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 5, Ouellet discloses the coir pot according to claim 1, and further discloses 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]-[0024] and [0036]).
Regarding claim 6, Ouellet discloses the coir pot according to claim 5, and further discloses 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).
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.
Claim 3 is 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 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, such that the coating layer includes dye, as taught by Athalage, in order to improve the aesthetics of the pot (paragraph [0027]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 115612144 A), hereafter referred to as “Chen”.
Regarding claim 4, Ouellet teaches the coir pot according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the coating layer has a thickness of 0.3 - 0.7mm and more preferably about 0.5mm.
Chen teaches a pot (abstract, see attached machine translation) including a coating layer with a thickness of 0.3 - 0.7mm and more preferably about 0.5mm (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, 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)).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims.
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
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643