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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a plant care system, classified in A47B 11/00.
II. Claim 19 and 20, drawn to a method of using a plant care system, classified in 47G 7/041.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product, such as the plant care system of CN 108739307.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The invention requires separate fields of search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Lori Woodward on 12/23/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 bars separating negative spaces 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 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 8-14 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 8 recites the limitation "said at least one host plant" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A host plant is previously functionally claimed and is not a positively recited element of the claims. Claim 8 goes on to further limit the relation of branches of the plant in relation to a canopy, making it unclear if branches of the plant and plant are positively recited and included in the invention of the plant care system. Claim 1 recites the plant care system is “configured for use to elevate at least one host plant”, indicating that a host plant is not included in the system.
The term “light” in claims 7 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites the limitation of the upper table having netting supports. This limitation is found in claim 5 from which claim 13 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-16 and 18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cross US 11,310,976.
Regarding claim 1, Cross discloses a plant care system comprising: a plant care assembly including; a lower table (1000, 1800, 1830) functioning as a base, said lower table having a lower-table-top-surface (1000); a drainage channel (Cross, Figure 10); and at least one leg (1825); an upper table (1500) configured as a circular table (Cross, Figure 10) having an upper-table-top-surface; a thickness; and an under-table-top-surface; a coupler (980) able to engage said lower table and said upper table in functional combination such that said upper table of said plant care assembly is able to rotate in relation to said lower table, said upper table located on a plane above said lower table during use; and wherein said thickness is defined between said upper-table-top-surface and said under-table-top-surface (Cross, Figure 18); and wherein said plant care system is configured for use to elevate at least one host plant and such that said upper table is able to be rotated in relation to said lower table such that said at least one host plant is able to be rotate-manipulated to a desired positioning for tending said at least one host plant (Cross, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Cross further discloses said at least one leg of said lower table comprises a plurality of said legs (Cross, Figure 18).
Regarding claim 3, Cross further discloses said legs are adjustable in relation to a ground surface (Cross, column 24: lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 4, Cross further discloses said upper table comprising a grid of apertures (Cross, Figure 18).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Cross further discloses said upper table comprises an upper netting support (1510).
Regarding claim 6, Cross further discloses said upper table comprises an upper netting (1540).
Cross is further capable of performing the functional limitations of claims 7 and 8, as best understood.
Regarding claim 9, Cross further discloses said upper netting comprises a net-lattice (Cross, Figure 18).
Regarding claim 10, Cross further discloses said net-lattice comprises a grid (Cross, Figure 15).
Regarding claim 11, Cross further discloses the grid comprises bars (1546) separating negative spaces.
Cross is capable of performing the functional language of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Cross further discloses said netting supports being adjustable between up and down positions in relation to said lower table (Cross, column 22: lines 58-62).
Regarding claim 15, Cross further discloses said lower table further comprising at least one conduit port (1894).
Regarding claim 16, Cross further discloses said lower table further comprising at least one channel (between 1010 and 1015).
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) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross US 11,310,976.
Regarding claim 17, Cross discloses a plant care system comprising: a plant care assembly including; a lower table (1000, 1800, 1830) functioning as a base, said lower table having a lower-table-top-surface (1000) with at least one channel (between 1010 and 1015); a drainage channel (Cross, Figure 10); at least one leg (1825); and at least one conduit port (1894); an upper table configured as a circular table (Cross, Figure 18) having an upper-table-top-surface; a thickness; and an under-table-top-surface; a coupler (980) able to engage said lower table and said upper table in functional combination such that said upper table of said plant care assembly is able to rotate in relation to said lower table (Cross, abstract), said upper table located on a plane above said lower table during use (Cross, Figure 18); wherein said legs are adjustable in relation to a ground surface (Cross, column 24: lines 4-7); wherein said upper table comprises a grid of apertures (Cross, Figure 18); wherein said upper table comprises an upper netting support (1510); wherein said upper table comprises an upper netting (Cross, Figure 18); wherein said upper netting allows light stem training as a canopy (Cross is capable of performing this functional limitation); wherein said upper netting comprises a net-lattice (Cross, Figure 18); wherein said net-lattice comprises a grid (Cross, Figure 18); wherein said grid comprises bars (1546) separating negative spaces; wherein said negative spaces allow light to pass through (Cross is capable of performing this functional limitation); wherein said upper table comprises netting supports (1510); wherein said netting supports are adjustable between up and down positions in relation to said lower table (Cross, column 22: lines 58-62); wherein said thickness is defined between said upper-table-top-surface and said under-table-top-surface (Cross, Figure 18); and wherein said plant care system is configured for use to elevate at least one host plant and such that said upper table is able to be rotated in relation to said lower table such that said at least one host plant is able to be rotate-manipulated through 360 degrees to a desired positioning for tending said at least one host plant (Cross is capable of performing this functional limitation); wherein branches of said at least one host plant are able to be supported in a stretched positioning via connection to said canopy (Cross is capable of performing this functional limitation, as best understood).
Cross discloses a plurality of legs but fails to disclose four. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of an invention requires only ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza. 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 to modify the device of Cross to comprise four legs as to increase the stability of the lower table.
Regarding claim 18, Cross further discloses the plant care system of claim 17 further comprising a kit including: said plant care assembly (as discussed above); and a set of user-instructions to facilitate use thereof (Cross, Figure 38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: JP 2018110535; US 11,895,959.
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