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 § 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 1-7 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 line 11 “ this latter” is confusing as it is unclear what “latter” represent. The claim is thus indefinite.
Per claims 1-7, preamble “ a cladding element” appears to claim a cladding element as a subcombination to “ the frame”. However, claim 1 lines 14-15, appear to claim “ the frame” as a combination to the cladding. The claims are thus indefinite.
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) 1-5 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavote et al (2019/0134561) in view of JP(10-2024-0076958).
Cavote et al figures 8-10, shows a cladding element for a wall, comprising a
bottom (925 figure 9) in the form of a planar and solid parallelogram provided with four
foldable edges (1025 figure 10), said bottom forming a parallelepiped when the
edges thereof are folded at right angles with respect to the main plane of the bottom, a cover (1010 figure 10) in the form of a planar parallelogram provided with four foldable edges (see the four edges in figure 9), said cover (1010) forming a parallelepiped when the edges thereof are folded at right angles with respect to the main plane of the cover, this latter releasably blocking the opening of the parallelepiped formed by the
bottom, the cover is at least perforated.
Cavote et al does not show the assembly, formed by the bottom and the cover, being releasably inserted into the opening of a parallelogram-shaped frame, characterized in that two parallel edges of the frame are triangular in shape.
JP figure 6 shows a plant cladding being releasably inserted into the opening of a parallelogram-shaped frame, characterized in that two parallel edges of the frame are triangular in shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cavote et al’s structure to show a plant cladding being releasably inserted into the opening of a parallelogram-shaped frame, characterized in that two parallel edges of the frame are triangular in shape as taught by Jp with a reasonable expectation of success in order to securely mount the wall mounting plant assembly to a wall frame.
Per claim 2, Cavote et al as modified further shows the triangular edges are each equipped with at least one member (200, 400) for releasably attaching the element to a wall.
Per claim 3, Cavote as modified further shows the cover is totally solid(not liquid or a net).
Per claim 4, Cavote et al as modified further shows a plant growing
medium is inserted into the volume defined by the folded bottom and held
in place by the cover.
Per claim 5, Cavote et al as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for a mulch is placed over the growing medium.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cavote et al’s modified structure to show a mulch is placed over the growing medium since mulch is a well-known material for helping plant growth and prevent weeds from growing, and adding mulch would assist in the aesthetic growing of the plant.
Claim(s) 6-7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavote et al (2019/0134561) in view of JP(10-2024-0076958) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Peleszezak (DE2968891).
Cavote et al as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the cover
equipped with a photovoltaic panel, a sound system or a light signal.
Peleszezak discloses the use of photovoltaic panel to provide lighting power.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cavote et al’s modified structure to show the cover equipped with a photovoltaic panel, a sound system or a light signal with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide solar power for lighting the plant as needed as taught by Peleszezk.
Per claim 7, Cavote et al as modified further shows the kit also comprises at
least one supporting structure formed by at least two uprights and a cross
member(per JP teaching).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different plant growth claddings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
