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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US 0633528) in view of Pratt (GB 2494701).
Regarding claim 1, Morris discloses an individual plant cover (IPC) device for a plant in a pot, the IPC device comprising: a support to be positioned in a soil surface of the pot adjacent to the plant and extending upward from the soil surface (pole 5, ll. 53-58); a surface enclosure comprising an upper end with a sealed apex, and a lower end to surround the pot (cover 4, ll. 47-50 and 62-67), the surface enclosure defining a plant-receiving cavity therein (fig. 2); and at least one spreader device coupled to the support and configured to extend outward to the mesh surface enclosure (hoops 2 and 3, ll. 43-47) but fails to teach a mesh surface enclosure having a mesh size to prevent intrusion by psyllids and aphids. However, Pratt teaches a mesh surface enclosure (pg. 3, ll. 21-24) having a mesh size to prevent intrusion by psyllids and aphids (cover 3 reduces the risk of attack by aphids or other pests, pg. 6, ll. 18-19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Morris’ cover with a material as taught by Pratt to reduce the risk of attacks by pests.
Regarding claim 2, Morris as modified by Pratt teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Morris further teaches a first coupling device to wrap around the lower end and configured to cause the lower end to abut the pot (cord 10 is configured to cause a lower end to abut a pot, pg. 1, line 104-pg. 2 line 3).
Regarding claim 3, Morris as modified by Pratt teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Morris further teaches further comprising a second coupling device to wrap around the upper end and configured to cause the upper end to abut the support (cord 10 is configured to cause an upper end to abut the support, pg. 1, line 104-pg. 2 line 3).
Regarding claim 4, Morris as modified by Pratt teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Morris further teaches wherein each of the first coupling device and the second coupling device comprises one of a zip tie, a tether, and a wire (flexible cords 10, pg. 1, line 104-pg. 2, line 3).
Regarding claim 5, Morris as modified by Pratt teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Morris further teaches wherein the at least one spreader device comprises first and second opposing loops coupled to the support (hoops 2 and 3 are coupled to pole 5 via body 1, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Morris as modified by Pratt teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Morris further teaches wherein the at least one spreader device comprises a plurality of spreader devices to be coupled to the support (hoops 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 8, Morris as modified by Pratt teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Morris further teaches wherein the upper end is cone-shaped (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Morris as modified by Pratt teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Pratt further teaches wherein the mesh size of mesh surface enclosure provides for water permeability (pg. 4, line 4) and light transmissivity (light can pass thru the mesh opening thus allowing for light transmissivity).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Pratt, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bakowski (US 2007/0079548).
Regarding claim 7, Morris as modified by Pratt teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the mesh surface enclosure comprises a plurality of panels coupled together at respective panel seams. However, Bakoski teaches a mesh surface enclosure comprises a plurality of panels coupled together at respective panel seams (cover 4 is formed by joining together adjacent panels 18 , para. 0036). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Morris’ cover with a cover formed from panels as taught by Bakowski to allow various sized covers to be formed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuckerman (US 1820040) in view of Pratt.
Regarding claim 10, Zuckerman discloses a plant cover assembly for a row of plants, the plant cover assembly comprising: a plurality of individual plant cover (IPC) devices respectively arranged over the row of plants (envelope 1, fig. 8), each IPC device comprising a mesh surface enclosure (pg. 1, ll. 84-85) comprising an upper end with a sealed apex (pg. 1, ll. 88-92), and a lower end to surround a respective plant (fig. 7), the mesh surface enclosure defining a plant-receiving cavity therein (pg. 2, ll. 114-118); first and second supports respectively at first and second ends of the row of plants (poles 15, pg. 2, ll. 104-108, fig. 8); and at least one wire sequentially being coupled to the first support, the plurality of IPC devices, and the second support (support wires 16, 108-110) but fails to teach the mesh surface enclosure having a mesh size to prevent intrusion by psyllids and aphids. However, Pratt teaches a mesh surface enclosure having a mesh size to prevent intrusion by psyllids and aphids (cover 3 reduces the risk of attack by aphids or other pests, pg. 6, ll. 18-19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Morris’ cover with a material as taught by Pratt to reduce the risk of attacks by pests.
Claims 11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuckerman (US 1820040) in view of Pratt, as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Broughton & Briggs (US 0542821 henceforth Briggs).
Regarding claim 11, Zuckerman as modified by Pratt teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein each of the first support and the second support comprises a mast extending from a ground surface, and first and second arms extending laterally from the mast. However, Briggs teaches a mast extending from a ground surface (pole P, pg. 1, ll. 55-60, fig. 3), and first and second arms extending laterally from the mast (arms A, A, pg. 66-71, fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zuckerman’s support with a support and wires as taught by Briggs to allow an owner to increase the number of rows of plants being protected without increasing the number of post required.
Regarding claim 12, Zuckerman as modified by Pratt and Briggs teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Briggs further teaches wherein the at least one wire comprises a first wire, a second wire, and a third wire respectively coupled to a distal end of the first arm, a distal end of the second arm, and the mast (W, W, pg. 1, ll. 85-91 and W’, pg. 1, ll. 98-100, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Zuckerman as modified by Pratt and Briggs teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Pratt further teaches wherein the third wire is coupled to the sealed apex of each of the plurality of IPC devices (fig. 8).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2209129 in view of Pratt in view of Buckley (GB 191509018).
Regarding claim 14, FR 2209129 discloses a plant cover assembly for a row of plants, the plant cover assembly comprising: a plant cover device arranged over the row of plants and having a mesh surface (protective cover 300, para. 0020, fig. 1), the plant cover device comprising an upper end with a sealed apex (fig. 1), and a lower end to surround lowermost portions of plants in the row of plants (fig. 3A); first and second supports respectively at first and second ends of the row of plants (hoops 201, fig. 1); but fails to teach the mesh surface having a mesh size to prevent intrusion by psyllids and aphids and a plurality of spreader devices arranged within the row of plants, each spreader device to extend to the plant cover device. However, Pratt teaches a mesh surface enclosure (pg. 3, ll. 21-24) having a mesh size to prevent intrusion by psyllids and aphids (cover 3 reduces the risk of attack by aphids or other pests, pg. 6, ll. 18-19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Morris’ cover with a material as taught by Pratt to reduce the risk of attacks by pests. And Buckley teaches a plurality of spreader devices arranged within the row of plants, each spreader device to extend to the plant cover device (post a, boss b, arms c, pg. 2, ll. 40-46, fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Morris’ system with a supporting device as taught by Buckley to provide added support to a growing plant to prevent damage from the weight of the plant.
Regarding claim 15, Buckley FR 2209129 as modified by Pratt and Buckley teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Buckley further teaches wherein each spreader device comprises a support extending from a ground surface (post a), a bracket coupled to an uppermost portion of the support (boss b), and a pair of support arms extending from the bracket (arms c).
Regarding claim 16, Buckley FR 2209129 as modified by Pratt and Buckley teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Buckley further teaches wherein each spreader device comprises a support extending from a ground surface (post a), a plurality of brackets coupled to the support (boss b), and a plurality of support arm pairs respectively extending from the plurality of brackets (arms c, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Buckley FR 2209129 as modified by Pratt and Buckley teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Buckley further teaches wherein the plurality of brackets is vertically aligned (a plurality of boss b are vertically aligned, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Buckley FR 2209129 as modified by Pratt and Buckley teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Buckley further teaches wherein each of the plurality of support arm pairs is arranged to be transverse to the row of plants (fig. 6).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2209129 in view of Pratt in view of Buckley, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Hinsperger (US 5605007).
Regarding claim 19, FR 2209129 as modified by Pratt and Buckley teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein the lower end comprises a solid section. However, Hinsperger teaches a greenhouse mesh comprising a lower end with a solid section (lower end of central section 1 comprising fasteners 4, fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify FR 2209129’s greenhouse with a solid section as taught by Hinsperger to increase the durability of the mesh to prevent tearing or damage.
Regarding claim 19, FR 2209129 as modified by Pratt, Buckley and Hinsperger teaches the invention substantially as claimed and FR 2209129 further teaches wherein the lower end is anchored to a ground surface (protective cover 300 may be fixed to the ground 400 by any means, para. 0055).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 9am -5pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 5712726909. 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.
/EBONY E EVANS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights