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 .
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 3, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 18 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 3 recites the limitation "the internal base ridge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is unclear if the drainage cutouts of claim 10 refer to previously claimed drainage cutouts or if a new cutout is being claimed.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bottomless cup" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the done" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the limitation is a typo and intended to read “the dome”, “the dome” still lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the vent hole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17 and 18 recite the limitation "the rim of the dome" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung US 8,474,179.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Jung discloses a plant container comprising: a cylindrical hollow body (11) comprising: a top opening and a bottom opening (Jung, Figure 2); an internal ridge (15) adjacent the bottom opening and between the top opening and the bottom opening; at least one runoff exit (26) in a bottom edge of the hollow body; and a removable bottom plate (20) configured to be retained atop the internal ridge, wherein the bottom plate forms a raisable bottom of the plant container.
Regarding claim 5, Jung further discloses the internal ridge being a ledge running around an internal circumference of the hollow body (Jung, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Jung further discloses the bottom plate including a drainage cutout (23) in a side of the bottom plate with the bottom plate includes a conical structure with a drainage angle.
Regarding claim 7 Jung further discloses the bottom plate including a perforation (23) passing between a top and a bottom of the bottom plate.
Regarding claim 8, Jung further discloses the bottom plate includes a conical structure with a drainage angle (Jung, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Jung further discloses the bottom plate being constructed of biodegradable material (Jung, column 65-67).
Regarding claim 10, Jung further discloses the hollow body further comprises at least one vertical ridge (14) configured to align with a drainage cutout (26) to align the bottom plate to a final position.
Regarding claim 11, Jung further discloses the runoff exit extending from the bottom edge up to or below the internal ridge (Jung, Figure 1).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Au US 2016/0150741.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Au discloses a plant container comprising: a hollow body (10) comprising: a top opening (12) and a bottom opening (surrounded by 13); an internal ridge (13) adjacent the bottom opening and between the top opening and the bottom opening; at least one runoff exit (30) in a bottom edge of the hollow body; and a removable bottom plate (20) configured to be retained atop the internal ridge, wherein the bottom plate forms a raisable bottom of the plant container.
Au fails to disclose the shape of the hollow body being cylindrical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the hollow body to be cylindrical, as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey. It would be obvious for the shape of the hollow body of Au to be cylindrical depending on the type of plnat it was intended to contain.
Regarding claim 3, Au further discloses the hollow body including one or more cutouts (30) above the internal base ridge.
Regarding claim 5, Au further discloses internal ridge is a ledge running around an internal circumference of the hollow body (Au, Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Au further discloses the bottom plate includes one or more perforations (Au, ¶0003) passing between a top and a bottom of the bottom plate.
Regarding claim 11, Au further discloses the runoff exit extends from the bottom edge up to or below the internal ridge (Au, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Au further discloses the runoff exit extending from the bottom edge through the internal ridge to above the bottom plate (Au, Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au US 2016/0150741 in view of KR 20230171116 (hereinafter KR ‘116).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Au discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose a dome. KR ‘116 teaches a transparent dome covering a top opening of a planting container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fiing date of the invention to modify the device of Au with a transparent dome having a ventilation hole (4) as taught by KR ‘116 as to provide a greenhouse effect for the plant container.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung US 8,474,179 in view of KR 20230171116 (hereinafter KR ‘116).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Jung discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose a dome. KR ‘116 teaches a transparent dome covering a top opening of a planting container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fiing date of the invention to modify the device of Jung with a transparent dome having a ventilation hole (4) as taught by KR ‘116 as to provide a greenhouse effect for the plant container.
Regarding claim 16, Jung in view of KR ‘116 further discloses the hollow body including a lock feature (rim of 11) on the top opening configured to engage a rim of the dome in an interference fit.
Regading claim 17, Jung in view of KR ‘116 further discloses the rim of the dome including a groove (14) for engaging the lock feature in an interference fit.
Regarding claim 18, Jung in view of KR ‘116 further discloses the rim of the dome includes a flared edge (KR ‘116, Figure 10).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung US 8,474,179 in view of Au US 2016/0150741.
Regarding claim 3, Jung discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose the hollow body includes one or more cutouts above the internal base ridge. Au teaches a plant container having cutouts above the internal base ridge. It would have been obvious to one of ordiarny skll in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the hollow body of Jung with cutouts as disclosed by Au and to place them above the internal base ridge as to provide air pruning of roots of plants within the container (Au, ¶0034).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15 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 does not disclose either alone or in combination the claimed plant container having a vertical ridge within the hollow body which aligns with a drainage cutout to align the bottom plate into position a moveable cover as best understood; or the runoff exit extending from the bottom edge through the internal ridge to above the plate.
The runoff exit of Jung is intended to provide communication of neck 14 with an exterior and is not intended to provide communication of the body interior to exterior.
Au discloses flanges (21) on plate (20) which align with vertical cutouts in the body; which teaches against drainage cutouts on the bottom plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 3,147,569.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights