Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application No. 16/318,743, filed on 1-18-19.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology in particular the term “said”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 5-41 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claims cannot depend from other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 5-41 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 2, 3/2 and 4 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 1 is 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. It is unclear to whether the water detailed in line 5 is the same or different than the moisture detailed in line 4.
Claim 2 is 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. It is unclear to how the rounded ball shape of the cap claimed, can conform to the tapered sidewall of the drain opening as required by parent claim 1.
Claim 4 is 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 4 discloses the entire structure is made of paper which would include the cap of parent claim 1 and it is unclear to how the paper material detailed in claim 4 would be of sufficient weight so that the claimed cap is heavier than a volume of water of the same volume as the cap as required by parent claim 1 in that applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not provide any details on the specifics of the paper material claimed and paper materials are known to be lightweight and not heavier than water.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,676,988 to Bradley in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0215909 to Hoff and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0214347 to Zhang.
Referring to claim 1, Bradley discloses a structure for cultivating one or more plants, comprising a generally flat upper surface – at – 87 see figure 14, provided with a cavity – at one of items 22, see figure 14, for receiving plant material – see for example figure 14 and column 5 lines 50-64, a drain opening – see at 106, provided with a sidewall extending downwardly in a tapered manner – see at 106 in figure 14, for entering moisture that is received on the generally flat upper surface – at 87, downwardly – see figure 14, a cap – other of items 22 not used for the cavity, located freely in the drain opening – see 22 located/disposed freely in items 106 with no obstructions as seen in figure 14, so as to allow water to seep down between the cap and the sidewall of the drain opening – see via items 48 as seen in figure 14 allowing water to flow between items 22 and 106, the cap – at 22 not used for the cavity, having a weight – see figure 14, the cap – at 22 not used for the cavity, having an outer contour that is in conformity with a cross sectional geometry of the downwardly tapered sidewall of the drain opening – see same tapered shape of 22 and 106 in figure 14. Bradley does not disclose the structure is plate-shaped. Hoff does disclose the structure is plate-shaped – see figures 1-4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bradley and add the structure being any suitable shape including the plate-shaped as disclosed by Hoff, so as to yield the predictable result of making the structure more low-profile and easier to move around as desired. Bradley further discloses the device can be made of various materials as seen in column 7 lines 52-62, but does not disclose the cap having a weight greater than the weight of a body of water with the same volume of the cap. Zhang does disclose a plant growing tray structure than can be made of heavy materials such as tungsten carbide – see for example paragraph [0098], and tungsten carbide has a much greater density at 15.6 g/cm3 than that of water at 1 g/cm3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bradley and make the cap out of any suitable material including heavy materials such as the tungsten carbide disclosed by Zhang, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device stronger and more durable for repeated use.
Referring to claim 2, Bradley as modified by Hoff and Zhang does not disclose the cap has a ball shape. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bradley as modified by Hoff and Zhang and make the cap any suitable shape including the claimed ball shape, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for a desired amount of fluid and a desired amount of fluid flow in the device as desired for the plant being grown in the device.
Referring to claims 3/1 and 3/2, Bradley as modified by Hoff and Zhang further discloses the side wall of the drain opening – at 106, is entirely formed from paper material – see column 7 lines 3-31 of Bradley.
Referring to claim 4, Bradley as modified by Hoff and Zhang further discloses the structure is entirely formed from paper material – see paragraphs [0031]-[0032] of Hoff. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Bradley as modified by Hoff and Zhang and make the entire device out of paper as disclosed by Hoff, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device environmentally friendly by making the device biodegradable.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to plant growing devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,336,666 to Caso – shows plant growing device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,529,232 to Laubsch – shows plant growing device
U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0288640 to Leithold – shows plant growing device
U.S. Pat. No. 7,251,9012 to McGough – shows plant growing device
U.S. Pat. No. 8,555,547 to Hashimoto et al. – shows plant growing device
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at (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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643