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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that prior art Martin does not disclose the “inlet positioned at the top near the cap, together with the check valve coupled to the inlet.” However, the Martin–Anderson combination does teach this limitation. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Martin does not disclose a diverter valve. However, when Martin’s valve 38 is closed, the water is diverted towards the second flow path. Therefore, Martin does disclose the limitation where the diverter “configured to select either a direct water supply path or a bypass path through the apparatus.”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tablets,” “inlet” should be shown in Figs. 2–6 and the “top” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“inlet” do not have a reference number throughout the Specification.
“top” does not have a reference number.
Appropriate correction is required
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, 6, 8–9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (USPN 6540156 B2) in view of Anderson et al. (USPN 5199645), in further view of Combs (USPN 5666987).
Regarding Claim 1, Martin discloses a fertigation apparatus comprising: a body (42) that has an open top (Fig. 6), a cap (50) configured to close the open top (Fig. 6), the diverter (38) is configured to switch water supply between a water supply line or bypassing a portion of the water supply line through the fertigation apparatus (Col. 5, Lines 16–22), but does not disclose an inlet near the open top, and an outlet near a bottom of the body or mesh basket.
Anderson teaches an inlet (4) near the open top, and an outlet (3) near a bottom of the body (Fig. 2) in order to ensure that water flows over the chemicals such that the chemicals mix and dissolve. Col. 5, Lines 24–27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the inlet and the outlet of the body of Martin with an inlet at the top and the outlet at the bottom as taught by Anderson in order to ensure that sufficient water comes in contact with chemicals. Thus, ensuring maximum coverage of water over the chemicals which improves the water-chemical mixture and dissolving.
Per the Martin–Anderson combination, Martin’s inflow pipe 40, is located at the top of Martin’s body 42 and Martin’s outflow pipe 44 is located at the bottom of Martin’s body 42.
Anderson also teaches a mesh basket (40) encased within the body (7) in order to prevent chunks of chemicals from flowing into the outlet. Col. 5, Lines 24–27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Martin with a mesh basket that encloses chemical material as taught by Anderson in order to prevent chunks of chemicals from flowing into the outlet. Thus, ensuring the proper chemical concentration.
Per the Martin–Anderson combination, Anderson’s mesh basket 40 encapsulates Martin’s tablets 57.
The Martin–Anderson combination teaches the mesh basket (Anderson 40) configured to receive one or more tablets (Martin 57) of fertilizer and pest or weed control agents (Martin Col. 4, Lines 35–36).
Combs teaches a one-way valve (5A) coupled to the inlet (6) of the body (8A) in order to prevent reverse flow. Col. 18, Lines 53–54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inlet of Martin with a check valve as taught by Combs in order to prevent reverse flow.
Per the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination, Combs’ check valve 5A, is located downstream of Martin’s diverter valve 38.
The Martin–Anderson–Combs combination teaches the one-way valve (Combs 5A) is configured to prevent reverse flow of water (Combs Col. 18, Lines 53–54);
and a diverter (Martin 38) coupled to the one-way valve (where they are fluidically coupled).
Regarding Claim 6, the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination teaches the cap is sealably coupled to the body (Martin Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 8, the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination teaches an O-ring configured to be sandwiched between the cap and the body for creating a water-tight seal (Martin Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 9, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 1. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 9 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination.
Regarding Claim 14, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 6. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 14 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Martin–Anderson–Combs.
Regarding Claim 16, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 8. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 16 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Martin–Anderson–Combs.
Claim(s) 4–5 and 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (USPN 6540156 B2) in view of Anderson et al. (USPN 5199645), in further view of Combs (USPN 5666987), in further view of Delorme (USPN 5775593).
Regarding Claim 4, the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination does not disclose the cap is transparent.
Delorme teaches utilizing a transparent material in order to see the status of the fertilizer in the body. Col. 3, Lines 60–67.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the cap of the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination with a transparent material as taught by Delorme in order to allow the user to see the status of the fertilizer in the body from a different angle.
Regarding Claim 5, the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination does not disclose the body is translucent.
Delorme teaches a transparent body so that a person can see the status of the fertilizer in the body. Col. 3, Lines 60–67.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the body of the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination with a translucent material as taught by Delorme in order to see the status of the fertilizer in the body.
Regarding Claim 12, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 4. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 12 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Martin–Anderson–Combs–Delorme combination.
Regarding Claim 13, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 5. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 13 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Martin–Anderson–Combs–Delorme combination.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (USPN 6540156 B2) in view of Anderson et al. (USPN 5199645), in further view of Combs (USPN 5666987), in further view of Piramoon (USPN 10815109 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination does not disclose comprises a wrench, the wrench configured to engage the cap for rotating the cap.
Piramoon teaches an outer surface of the cap (26) comprises a plurality of spaced apart (Fig. 3D, where the spaces are located in between elements 72 and 74) ridges (72/74), wherein the wrench (10) comprises a plurality of grooves (62/64) that corresponds to the plurality of spaced apart ridges (Fig. 3D) in order to overcome the forces that make it difficult to open caps (Col. 2, Lines 9–29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cap with the capability to use a wrench of the Martin–Anderson–Combs combination with a means to secure the cap to the body as taught by Piramoon in order to ensure that the cap is secure to the body.
Per the Martin–Anderson–Combs–Piramoon combination, Piramoon’s finger grips 72/74 are located on Martin’s cap 50.
The Martin–Anderson–Combs–Piramoon combination teaches the fertigation apparatus further comprises a wrench (Piramoon 10), the plurality of spaced apart ridges (Piramoon 72/74 ) can interlock with the plurality of grooves (Piramoon 62/64), the wrench configured to engage the cap for rotating the cap (Piramoon Fig. 3A), wherein the wrench (Piramoon 10) is mounted over the cap (Martin 50), and a handle (Piramoon 22) extends from a periphery of the wrench (Piramoon Fig. 3D).
Regarding Claim 15, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the method is recited in Claim(s) 7. Accordingly, the method steps recited in claim 15 are necessarily those performed when making and/or using the device of the Martin–Anderson–Combs–Piramoon combination, with the exception of “a U-shape handle extends from a periphery of the wrench.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, to change the shape of the apparatus as a matter of design choice. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753