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 .
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, the base of the saucer being equal to the base of the pot as recited in claim 5, and the arrangement recited in claim 15 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any details as to how to provide the arrangement recited in claim 15.
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 17-20 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 claims 17-20, it is unclear what method steps are being performed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 13-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellers US 5,727,347.
Regarding claim 1, Sellers teaches a plant pot system, the plant pot system comprising:
A pot (14 figure 7) substantially filled with root components of a plant and a volume of soil (inherent),
the pot positioned within an overflow saucer (shown in figure 7 with saucer 18),
the pot comprising one or more weep holes at or near its base for releasing water from the pot into the overflow saucer (15),
the pot elevated within the overflow saucer by a riser (16), and
water (inherent);
but does not specify the saucer comprising a base with a size that is equal to or up to 1/3 larger than a size of the base of the pot; water at a ratio of a water volume to a pot volume of between 1:10 and 1:15; and wherein a ratio of a height of the riser to a height of the pot is between 1:20 and 1:24.
However, the dimensional limitations (the saucer comprising a base that is equal to or up to 1/3 larger than the base of the pot and a ratio of a height of the riser to a height of the pot is between 1:20 and 1:24) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to accommodate visual design preferences; since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Furthermore, such dimensional limitations are not far off from the dimensional relationships taught within the Sellers reference and inherently known to those with ordinary skill in the art. Even further, applicant describes each iteration within the range as merely optional; therefore, these dimensions are not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to “provide water, at a ratio of a water volume to a pot volume of between 1:10 and 1:15” in order to meet various watering requirements of various types of plants; since 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 2, Sellers teaches the system of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the ratio of the water volume to the pot volume is 1:12.5.
However, again, 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 ratio, in order to meet various watering requirements of various types of plants; since 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 3, Sellers teaches the system of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the ratio of the height of the riser to the height of the pot is 1:22.
However again, such dimensional limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to accommodate visual design preferences; since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Furthermore, such dimensional limitations are not far off from the dimensional relationships taught within the Sellers reference.
Regarding claim 4, Seller teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the water volume to pot volume is 1:12.5 and the ratio of the height of the riser to the height of the pot is 1:22 (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 6, Sellers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the size of the base of the saucer is no more than 1/3 larger than the base of the pot (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 7, Sellers teaches the system of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the riser amounts to 20% or less than the volume of the overflow saucer below the base of the pot.
However, such dimensions would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to accommodate water flow requirements for various types of plants; since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Furthermore, such dimensional limitations are not far off from the dimensional relationships taught within the Sellers reference.
Regarding claim 8, Sellers teaches the system of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the riser amounts to 10% or less than the volume of the overflow saucer below the base of the pot.
However again, such dimensions would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to accommodate water flow requirements for various types of plants; since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Furthermore, such dimensional limitations are not far off from the dimensional relationships taught within the Sellers reference.
Regarding claim 9, Sellers teaches the method of claim 16, wherein by maintaining the ratio of water volume to pot volume and the ratio of the height of the riser to a height of the pot the water volume released from the one or more weep holes never reaches an underside of the pot within the saucer over a period of 1 to 3 years (where 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 10, Sellers teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the volume of water released from the one or more weep holes into the saucer does not accumulate to greater than a volume of the saucer below the base of the pot over a period of 1 to 3 years (where 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 13, Sellers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the pot is separated from the saucer by the riser (figure 7).
Regarding claim 14, Sellers teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a height of the saucer is equal to or greater than the height of the riser (figure 7).
Regarding claim 16, Sellers teaches a method of operating a plant pot system of claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
assembling the pot within the overflow saucer on top of the riser (see previous rejections);
adding a plant with the root components of the plant positioned within the pot and substantially filling the remainder of the pot with a volume of soil (inherent);
but does not specify adding the water at the ratio of the water volume to the pot volume of between 1:10 and 1:15 to the pot weekly on a continuous and consistent basis for a period of 1 to 3 years; maintaining the assembly of the pot, the saucer, and the riser without interruption or adjustment for the period of 1 to 3 years.
However, such steps would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to meet various maintenance requirements for various type of plants; since 1 to 3 years is a well-known lifespan of some types of plants, etc.
Regarding claim 17, Sellers teaches the method of claim 16, but does not specify wherein the overflow saucer is never emptied of water over the period of 1 to 3 years.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to not empty the saucer, in order to meet various maintenance preferences for various type of plants.
Regarding claim 18, Sellers teaches the method of claim 16, but does not specify wherein no water accumulates week-to-week in the overflow saucer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to water according to various user preferences, in order to meet various maintenance preferences for various type of plants.
Regarding claim 19, Sellers teaches the method of claim 18, but does not specify wherein water accumulates week-to-week in the overflow saucer in year 2.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to water according to various user preferences, in order to meet various maintenance preferences for various type of plants.
Regarding claim 20, Sellers teaches the method of claim 19, but does not specify wherein more water accumulates week-to-week in the overflow saucer in year 3 than in year 2.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to water according to various user preferences, in order to meet various maintenance preferences for various type of plants.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellers in view of Liffers US 2006/0032132.
Regarding claim 5, Sellers teaches the system of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the size of the base of the saucer is equal to the base of the pot.
Liffers; however, does teach such type of dimensional relationship (figures 1-2). 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 dimensions, in order to accommodate visual design preferences; since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 15, Sellers teaches the system of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the riser is within a closed environment between the pot and saucer that is inaccessible from outside of the pot and saucer.
Liffers; however, does teach such type of dimensional relationship (figures 1-2), as best understood by the Examiner. 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 dimensions, in order to accommodate visual design preferences; since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not operate differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellers in view of Salen US 20120255226.
Regarding claim 11, Sellers does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the riser material is a porous material supporting evaporation of the water released from the one or more weep holes into the saucer.
Salen; however, does teach such a material (15 figure 3 paragraph 0027). 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 material, in order to avoid spillage out of the saucer.
Regarding claim 12, the references teach the system of claim 11, wherein the porous material additionally absorbs the water (as previously described).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments towards the drawing objections are not convincing at least because “The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.”
Applicant’s arguments towards the teachings of the figures of the prior art are not convincing at least because “the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.”
Applicant’s argument that “Yet, the base of the saucer is more comparative to 'B' of Liffers Figure 3” is not convincing at least because the claims refer to the base of the saucer, not the “top rim” of the saucer which applicant points to in this argument.
Applicant’s arguments towards the 112(a) rejection of claim 15 are not convincing at least because applicant merely recites the claim limitations again without pointing to where in the disclosure and figures this arrangement is described/explained.
Applicant’s arguments towards the 112(b) rejections of claims 17-20 are not convincing at least because the argument directed towards an amendment to claim 17 is moot since no amendment was made to claim 17.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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