DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended, Claims 6-7 and 18 have been canceled, Claims 20-24 have been withdrawn, and Claims 2-5, 8-17, 19, and 25 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 08/11/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5. 8-17, 19, and 25 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 20-24, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, claims 20-24 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 07/25/2023 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 20-24 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.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 recites the limitations “the trunk or stem” and “the plant” in Line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23 recites the limitations “the subsoil” in Line 1 of the claim and “the microbasin” in Line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 21-22 and 24 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-17, 19, and 25 are allowed.
Claims 20-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious a device for infiltrating water into the ground comprising a substantially cylindrical sheath comprising a water-permeable wall, wherein a bottom part is defined by a majority of the length of the water permeable wall and a top part is defined by a minority of the length of the water permeable wall, wherein the bottom part is configured to be placed substantially fully into the ground and the top part is configured to be substantially uncovered when the bottom part is placed into the ground, and wherein the water-permeable wall fully encloses a plurality of biochar particles and a plurality of particles of non-capillary material, wherein the non-capillary material is housed in the top part.
Regarding Claim 1, Buhrer (US 0349874 A) teaches a device (shown in Figs. 1-4) for facilitating an infiltration of water into a ground (stated in Lines 15-20; The device of the invention is meant to more efficiently carry liquid into the roots of the trees and the lower strata of soil.), the device comprising a substantially cylindrical sheath (A; Figs. 1-4 show that sheath A is substantially cylindrical.) comprising:
A water-permeable wall (Figs. 1-4 show that sheath A has a wall that comprises holes a which allow the water to permeate through.).
Higginbotham (US 6192623 B1) teaches a device (10) for facilitating the infiltration of water into the ground (shown in Fig. 4; Device 10 comprises a component 32 that stores water that’s filtered into the ground through pellets 38 [see also Figs. 3-4 and Claims 21-23 and 29].) that comprising a sheath (20), a plurality of fertilizer particles (38) housed in a bottom part of the sheath (shown in Figs. 1-4; Fertilizer pellets 38 are housed in a bottom part of the water-permeable sheath 20.), and a plurality of particles of non-capillary material (32) located in an upper part (Column 8 Lines 30-35 states that component 32 is made of polyvinyl alcohol, a non-capillary material, and Figs. 3-4 show that particles 32 are located in the upper part of sheath 20 above the fertilizer particles 38.).
Kim (KR 20060033756 A) teaches fertilizing biochar particles (stated in Pg. 2 Lines 3-5) having a size of between 2 and 100 mm (stated in Pg. 3 Lines 32-34; Biochar particles have a size between 10 to 20 mm.).
However, the prior art of record does not teach that the wherein a bottom part is defined by a majority of the length of the water permeable wall and a top part is defined by a minority of the length of the water permeable wall, wherein the bottom part is configured to be placed substantially fully into the ground and the top part is configured to be substantially uncovered when the bottom part is placed into the ground, and wherein the water-permeable wall fully encloses a plurality of biochar particles and a plurality of particles of non-capillary material, wherein the non-capillary material is housed in the top part.
Buhrer (US 0349874 A) does not teach that a top part defined by a minority of the length of the water permeable wall is configured to be substantially uncovered when the bottom part is placed into the ground.
Chan (US 3900962 A) teaches a device (shown in Fig. 1) for facilitating the infiltration of water into the ground. If we define the bottom part of the assembly as beginning from where reference number 28 is, we would have a bottom part being the majority of the length of the wall and a top part being the minority. However, the top part would not be water permeable and would not be capable of housing non-capillary material. On the other hand, if we call define as the device as beginning where reference number 37 is, we would get a top part that can hold non-capillary material (shown in Fig. 3). However, if we extend the device like that, the top portion, which is configured to be substantially uncovered when the bottom part is placed into the ground, would no longer be the minority of the water permeable wall.
Bigelow (US 3914900 A) teaches a device (shown in Figs. 2-5) comprising a water permeable wall (shown in Fig. 5; The device comprises a wall with apertures 51, which allow water to permeate [See Column 6 Lines 45-55].), wherein a bottom part is defined by a majority of the length of the water permeable wall and a top part is defined by a minority of the length of the water permeable wall (See Fig. 2). However, the water-permeable wall comprises slots (16) and pockets (17). Therefore, the water-permeable wall would not be able fully encloses a plurality of biochar particles and a plurality of particles of non-capillary material.
Allen (US 4175356 A) teaches a device (10) comprising a permeable wall (20) wherein a bottom part––which is configured to be placed into the ground––is defined by a majority of the length of the water permeable wall and a top part--––which is configured to be substantially uncovered when the bottom part is placed into the ground––is defined by a minority of the length of the permeable wall. However, the device (10) is an aerator tube (see Abstract). Therefore, the tube is not configured to hold particles inside.
Therefore, the prior art does not fairly teach the claimed invention. These features are critical to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the top part be configured to be substantially uncovered when the bottom part is placed into the ground allows the user to add water or fertilisers to the biochar once the device is buried and prevents direct contact of the product with the surface of the soil and possible nutrient lockouts in said surface (See Pg. 9 of Applicant’s Specification).
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance of all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP § 1302.14).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights