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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 9, 11-16 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-8 have been canceled. This communication is the first action on the merits of these claims.
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 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 9, 11-16 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.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “at least one drainage hole positioned at a closed end of the spillway opposite to the base” renders the claim indefinite because having a drainage hole would, by definition, make the end not closed.
Claims 11-16 are dependent on claim 9 and do not correct the indefinite issues of claim 9.
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.
Claims 9, 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2013/0133255 by Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a self-watering pot, comprising:
A side wall (pot body 20 in Figure 12);
A base associated with the sidewall (bottom of receiving space 11);
A spillway associated with the base (protruding unit 131),
Wherein the spillway comprises at least one drainage hole (outlet hole 13) positioned at a closed end of the spillway opposite to the base (at the top end of protruding unit 131), wherein the pot internally comprises a bottom reservoir defined between the side wall, the spillway, the base, and the at least one drainage hole (receiving space 11), wherein the at least one drainage hole is configured to drain excess liquid present inside the pot (paragraph 29 discloses “When the accumulated water level is too high which may hinder the growth of the plantings, excessive water flows from the gap (23), the protruding unit (131) of the first pot body (10), and to the notches (141) to drain to achieve the goal of regulating water storage”); and
A movable lid (cap 220) associated with the spillway (see Figure 12), wherein the movable lid comprises a lid surface (top part of cap 220) and a lid wall associated with the lid surface (side walls of cap 220), wherein the lid wall extends from the perimeter of the lid surface (see Figure 12), and wherein the movable lid connects to the closed end of the spillway opposite to the base (see Figure 12) through a shoulder located on the lid surface (positioning ribs 222) and designed to attach to the closed end of the spillway end to create a drainage region (paragraph 32 discloses “the cap (220) has a plurality of positioning rigs (222) inside to enable the cap opening (221) of the cap (220) to space with the protruding unit (131) of the first pot body (10)”).
Wu does not disclose the at least one drainage hole comprises an oblong shape with a semicircular end. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the outlet hole 13 of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient to allow smooth flow of water out of the outlet. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Wu does not disclose the movable lid connected to the base through a snap shoulder. However, Wu discloses snap fittings to suggest different portions of the plant pot at 2123 in Figure 7. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu to use similar fittings to attach other parts of the pot such as cap 220 and protruding unit 131.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 9), Wu discloses the shape of the side wall being conical (see Figure 12).
Regarding claim 14 (dependent on claim 9), 15 (dependent on claim 9), 16 (dependent on claim 9), Wu does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the distance between the base and the top of the spillway and the distance between the base and the opposite end of the side wall is between 30% and 40%, the ratio of the distance between the base and the start of the drainage hole and the distance between the base and the opposite end of the side wall is between 22% and 32%, or the ratio of the base diameter and the top diameter is between 70% and 80%. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the plant pot of whatever ratio and size is needed to accommodate the desired types of plants and to hold the necessary amount of water within the reservoir to water the plants, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2013/0133255 by Wu in View of US Patent Application Number 2004/0144026 by Fan.
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 9), Wu discloses the spillway comprises a tubular body (see protruding unit 131 in Figure 12), in which the spillway is positioned concentrically at the base (see Figure 12).
Wu does not disclose the spillway having two drainage holes. However, this limitation is taught by Fan. Fan discloses a self-watering pot having a tubular aeration tunnel 12 with at least two holes 17. Although Fan does not explicitly disclose the slots 17 being drainage holes, water at the bottom of the pot at a higher level than the bottom of slots 17 would inherently drain out through slots 17, and claim 10 further suggests a tray for reserving drain water. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu using the teachings from Fan in order to provide additional holes for excess water to drain through quicker or to allow for drainage even if one hole is blocked.
Regarding claim 13 (dependent on claim 9), Wu discloses the spillway comprises a tubular body (see protruding unit 131 in Figure 12).
Wu does not disclose the spillway having two drainage holes, in which the spillway is positioned eccentrically at the base. However, this limitation is taught by Fan. Fan discloses a self-watering pot having a tubular aeration tunnel 12 with at least two holes 17, and Figure 2 shows an embodiment where aeration tunnels 12 are positioned eccentrically at the base. Although Fan does not explicitly disclose the slots 17 being drainage holes, water at the bottom of the pot at a higher level than the bottom of slots 17 would inherently drain out through slots 17, and claim 10 further suggests a tray for reserving drain water. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu using the teachings from Fan in order to provide additional holes for excess water to drain through quicker or to allow for drainage even if one hole is blocked.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding newly amended claim limitations are moot in view of the current grounds of rejection.
Regarding the argument that Wu’s protruding unit 131 extends upward from the periphery of the water outlet hole, not at a closed end opposite to the base as claimed, first, as discussed above, the newly amended claims cite a drainage hole positioned at the closed end, but the drainage hole would, by definition, make the end not closed, but rather having the drainage hole at the top end. Similarly, protruding unit 131 has an opening at its top end, as shown in Figure 12, and water is still retained at the bottom of the pot until the water level reaches the top of protruding unit 131, as shown in Figure 5.
Regarding the argument that the claimed ratios are not arbitrary dimensional changes but represents a specific functional relationship between components that achieves the inventive water retention and drainage function, Wu also provides a similar water retention (as shown in Figure 5) and drainage function (shown in Figure 4) to maintain optimal water levels while preventing over-saturation (discussed in paragraph 29). The specific ratios are therefore not required to achieve these functions.
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 MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights