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 .
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Connell (US 3962825 A), hereafter referred to as “O’Connell”.
Regarding claim 1, O’Connell discloses a block stacking assembly (fig. 1a-2) securing a starter block of growing medium to an extender block of growing medium (figs. 1a-2 discloses an assembly that is configured to secure two block elements 10 and 13, and thus is capable of securing a starter block to an extender block), said block stacking assembly comprising:
first and second base flanges (12a) extendable under the extender block such that the extender block secures said block stacking assembly in place (figs. 1a-2 and col. 2, lines 8-12);
first and second side arms extending upwardly from said first and second bases, respectively (arms extending upward from each element 12a; figs. 1a-2); and
a cross member (horizontal member extending between the two side arms including 12b; figs. 1a-2) connecting said first side arm to said second side arm over the starter block (figs. 1a-2).
Regarding claim 2, O’Connell discloses the block stacking assembly as set forth in claim 1, and further discloses that said first and second side arms are coplanar (fig. 1a showing that the two arms of 12 lie on a common plane).
Regarding claim 3, O’Connell discloses the block stacking assembly as set forth in claim 2, and further discloses that at least one of said first and second side arms extends through a sidearm bend allowing said block stacking assembly to extend alongside the starter and extender blocks when stacked upon each other and in use (both arms that extend from each element 12a include bends that align with the contour of the two blocks 13 and 10; figs. 1a-2).
Regarding claim 4, O’Connell discloses the block stacking assembly as set forth in claim 3, and further discloses that said cross member (horizontal member extending between the two side arms including 12b; figs. 1a-2) includes a trunk relief (12b) allowing the block stacking assembly to be mounted close to a center of the starter block (the shape of 12b allows 12 to be mounted close to a center of 13).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connell as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gallo (US 20100083573 A1), hereafter referred to as “Gallo”.
Regarding claim 5, O’Connell teaches the block stacking assembly as set forth in claim 4, but does not explicitly teach that said cross member includes at least one waterline cut-away.
Gallo teaches a block stacking assembly (fig. 1-6) including at least one waterline cut-away (110, 111, 100; figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of O’Connell, such that the cross member includes at least one waterline cut-away, as taught by Gallo, in order to extend the freshness of the plant by providing liquids to them (abstract).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connell in view of Kacines (US 11076534 B1), hereafter referred to as “Kacines”.
Regarding claim 6, O’Connell teaches a block stacking assembly (fig. 1a-2) securing a starter block of growing medium to an extender block of growing medium (figs. 1a-2 discloses an assembly that is configured to secure two block elements 10 and 13, and thus is capable of securing a starter block to an extender block), said block stacking assembly comprising:
first and second side arms (arms extending upward from each element 12a; figs. 1a-2) extending parallel to each other (figs. 1a-2); and
a cross member (horizontal member extending between the two side arms including 12b; figs. 1a-2) connecting said first side arm to said second side arm over the starter block (fig. 1a-2), but does not explicitly teach that each of said first and second arm including a plurality of holes extending therethrough.
Kacines teaches a plant securing assembly (figs. 1-15) including a plurality of holes (26 in figs. 1-2; see also 54, 56, and 58 in fig. 11) extending through an arm (24 in figs. 1-2; 50 in fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of O’Connell, such that each of said first and second arm including a plurality of holes extending therethrough, as taught by Kacines, in order to improve the aesthetics of the assembly and to also allow a user to insert flowers through the openings of the first and second side arms (col. 2, lines 36-40 and col. 8, lines 23-37 of Kacines).
Regarding claim 7, O’Connell in view of Kacines teaches the block stacking assembly as set forth in claim 6, and O’Connell further teaches that said first and second side arms are coplanar (fig. 1a showing that the two arms of 12 lie on a common plane).
Regarding claim 8, O’Connell in view of Kacines teaches the block stacking assembly as set forth in claim 7, and O’Connell further teaches that wherein at least one of said first and second side arms extends through a sidearm bend allowing said block stacking assembly to extend alongside the starter and extender blocks when stacked upon each other and in use (both arms that extend from each element 12a include bends that align with the contour of the two blocks 13 and 10; figs. 1a-2).
Regarding claim 9, O’Connell in view of Kacines teaches the block stacking assembly as set forth in claim 8, and O’Connell further teaches that said cross member (horizontal member extending between the two side arms including 12b; figs. 1a-2) includes a trunk relief (12b) allowing the block stacking assembly to be mounted close to a center of the starter block (the shape of 12b allows 12 to be mounted close to a center of 13).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connell in view of Kacines as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gallo.
Regarding claim 10, O’Connell in view of Kacines teaches the block stacking assembly as set forth in claim 9, but does not explicitly teach that said cross member includes at least one waterline cut-away.
Gallo teaches a block stacking assembly (fig. 1-6) including at least one waterline cut-away (110, 111, 100; figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of O’Connell in view of Kacines, such that the cross member includes at least one waterline cut-away, as taught by Gallo, in order to extend the freshness of the plant by providing liquids to them (abstract).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
