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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-4 contain figures that utilize grayscale shading, per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m) and section 608.02 IV of the MPEP, the shading of figures must not reduce the legibility of the figures. The examiner believes that the shading in these figures would reduce the legibility of the figures and obscure the details of the system, especially when the figures are reproduced.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-6, and 9-10 currently state “further comprising wherein”, the examiner believes that these claims should be amended to just state “wherein”. Claims 7, and 8 currently reads “further comprising the shaped enhancer body comprising”, the examiner believes that these should say “wherein the shaped enhancer body comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon Jr. (US #6,023,883) in view of Lovqvist (US #4,706,411).
Regarding claim 1, Bacon teaches a combination plant barrier and soil enhancer comprising: a plant barrier (1) comprising a shaped enhancer body (1 as seen in figure 7); wherein the shaped enhancer body defines at least one shaped internal opening (1 as seen in figure 7); wherein the shaped enhancer body contains at least one soil conditioner (Abstract, lines 1-18, the water contained within the body acts as a soil conditioner); wherein the shaped enhancer body defines at least one continuous sloped wall formed as an outer surface of the enhancer body (1 as seen in figure 7, as can be seen in the figure, the outer wall of the donut ring has a continuous sloped wall); and wherein the shaped enhancer body defines at least one continuous interior sloped wall formed as an inner surface of the enhancer body (1 as seen in figure 7, as can be seen in the figure, the inner wall of the donut ring has a continuous sloped wall). But Bacon does not teach that the shaped enhancer body contains at least one insect repellent.
However, Lovqvist does teach that the shaped enhancer body contains at least one insect repellent (Claim 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body have an insect repellent because Bacon and Lovqvist are both systems that provide nutrients to plants to help promote plant growth. The motivation for having the body have an insect repellent is that it helps to keep insects away from the plant to help keep them from eating the plant.
Regarding claim 2, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 1, further comprising wherein the shaped enhancer body is formed in a shape of a ring defining at least one shaped internal opening (1 as seen in figure 7 of Bacon).
Regarding claim 3, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 1, further comprising wherein the at least one shaped internal opening is defined as a substantially circular opening (1 as seen in figure 7 of Bacon).
Regarding claim 4, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the shaped enhancer body comprises a diameter of from 6 to 10 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the body have a diameter of 6 to 10 inches, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having a diameter of 6 to 10 inches is that it allows the system to be placed around smaller plants to help protect them when they are most vulnerable while not having the system take up excessive space.
Regarding claim 5, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the shaped enhancer body comprises a width from 0.25 to 2.0 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the body have a width of 0.25 to 2 inches, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having a width of 0.25 to 2inches is that it allows the body to form a physical barrier between the plant and insects located outside the body that would wish to predate the plant.
Regarding claim 9, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 1, further comprising wherein the shaped enhancer body defines at least one continuous interior sloped wall formed as an outer surface of the enhancer body (The inner wall of element 1 as seen in figure 7 of Bacon).
Regarding claim 10, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 1, further comprising wherein the at least one continuous sloped wall and the at least one continuous inner wall defining different slopes with respect to one another (1 as seen in figure 7 of Bacon, as can be seen the inner and outer walls are curved in opposite directions).
Regarding claim 11, Bacon teaches a method for making a combination plant barrier and soil enhancer comprising: forming a plant barrier (1) comprising a shaped enhancer body (1 as seen in figure 7); configuring the shaped enhancer body to define at least one shaped internal opening (1 as seen in figure 7); configuring the shaped enhancer body to contain at least one soil conditioner (Abstract, lines 1-18, the water contained within the body acts as a soil conditioner); configuring the shaped enhancer body to define at least one continuous sloped wall formed as an outer surface of the enhancer body (1 as seen in figure 7, as can be seen in the figure, the outer wall of the donut ring has a continuous sloped wall); and wherein the shaped enhancer body defines at least one continuous interior sloped wall formed as an inner surface of the enhancer body (1 as seen in figure 7, as can be seen in the figure, the inner wall of the donut ring has a continuous sloped wall). But Bacon does not teach configuring the shaped enhancer body to contain at least one insect repellent.
However, Lovqvist does teach configuring the shaped enhancer body to contain at least one insect repellent (Claim 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body have an insect repellent because Bacon and Lovqvist are both systems that provide nutrients to plants to help promote plant growth. The motivation for having the body have an insect repellent is that it helps to keep insects away from the plant to help keep them from eating the plant.
Regarding claim 12, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the method for making a combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 11, further comprising configuring the shaped enhancer body in a shape of a ring defining at least one shaped internal opening (1 as seen in figure 7 of Bacon).
Regarding claim 13, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the method for making a combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 11, further comprising configuring the at least one shaped internal opening as a substantially circular opening (1 as seen in figure 7 of Bacon).
Regarding claim 14, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the method for making a combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach configuring the shaped enhancer body with a diameter of from 6 to 10 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the body have a diameter of 6 to 10 inches, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having a diameter of 6 to 10 inches is that it allows the system to be placed around smaller plants to help protect them when they are most vulnerable while not having the system take up excessive space.
Regarding claim 15, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the method for making a combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach configuring the shaped enhancer body with a width from 0.25 to 2.0 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the body have a width of 0.25 to 2 inches, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having a width of 0.25 to 2inches is that it allows the body to form a physical barrier between the plant and insects located outside the body that would wish to predate the plant.
Regarding claim 19, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the method for making a combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 11, further comprising configuring the shaped enhancer body to define at least one continuous interior sloped wall formed as an outer surface of the enhancer body (The inner wall of element 1 as seen in figure 7 of Bacon).
Regarding claim 20, Bacon as modified by Lovqvist teaches the method for making a combination plant barrier and soil enhancer of claim 11, further comprising configuring the at least one continuous sloped wall and the at least one continuous inner wall to define different slopes with respect to one another (1 as seen in figure 7 of Bacon, as can be seen the inner and outer walls are curved in opposite directions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647