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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/06/2025 has been entered.
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 membrane structure pockets are removably attached to the membrane structure” in claims 6 and 13 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.
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 1-14 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 recites the phrase “individual membrane structure pockets that are arranged in a single layer of the membrane structure” in lines 8-9. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear how the pockets are arranged “in a single layer of the membrane structure” in light of Applicant’s Fig. 3. Rather it seems that the pockets are formed with membrane structure portions separate to and extending from the “single layer of the membrane structure” and creating a partial pocket space to place the carbon source within. Accordingly, the “single layer of the membrane structure” has been broadly interpreted as encompassing both the membrane structure and separate pocket spaces together. Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “one or more beneficial elements comprising one or more carbon sources, one or more nutrient treatments, and one or more biological treatments comprising beneficial fungi are measured” in lines 3-5. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear how the “one or more beneficial elements” can comprise 3 different components. Specifically, when considering the case in which there is only “one” beneficial element of the “one or more” beneficial elements being measured. The scope of the claim is unclear, since the grammatical structure of the limitation seems to encompass “one” beneficial element as well as requiring 3 different components which are measured. Therefore, further clarification is needed. For purposes of examination, the “one or more beneficial elements” is being considered as comprising all 3 components of “carbon sources”, “nutrient treatments”, and “biological treatments”. Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 7 recites the phrase “membrane structure” in lines 5-6. This is a double inclusion of “a membrane structure” in line 7 of claim 1. The Examiner suggests changing “membrane structure” to --the membrane structure--. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
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, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarmoszuk et al. (U.S. Pub. 20090031627) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Pat. 10870608).
In regard to claim 1, Jarmoszuk et al. discloses a system comprising: a carbon source, wherein the carbon source causes soil chemical reactions that enhance nutrient uptake of at least one plant and that increase above and below ground biomass production (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where there is a carbon source 132 (nutrient/fertilizer preloaded activated charcoal) that at least causes soil chemical reactions that enhance nutrient uptake of at least one plant (nutrient/fertilizer extracted by plant “on an as-needed basis”) which thereby increases above and below ground biomass production), wherein the carbon source further increases carbon sequestration in soil surrounding roots of the at least one plant (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the carbon source 132 (activated charcoal) further increases carbon sequestration in soil surrounding roots of the plant by at least providing trapped or contained carbon near the roots); and a membrane structure configured to expose the roots of the at least one plant to the carbon source (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where there is at least a membrane structure 128/132/136/140 configured to expose the roots of the at least one plant to the carbon source (activated charcoal)), wherein the membrane structure comprises individual membrane structure pockets that are arranged in a single layer of the membrane structure, wherein the membrane structure pockets contain the carbon source (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 at least comprises individual membrane structure pockets (specifically see Paragraphs [0040] and [0042], carbon sources 132 and 136 can have a layer adjacent to the soil and a layer 128 in between them which along with layer 140 at least forms individual pockets that are arranged in a single layer of the membrane structure 128/132/136/140, when considering the whole membrane structure as a single layer)), and wherein the membrane structure pockets position the carbon source at fixed positions in the soil surrounding at least a portion of the roots of the at least one plant (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the membrane structure pockets 128/132/136/140 position the carbon source 132/136 at fixed positions in the soil surrounding at least a portion of the roots 124 of the at least one plant 108). Jarmoszuk et al. is silent on wherein a portion of the carbon source is contained in carbon packets. Smith et al. discloses wherein a portion of the carbon source is contained in carbon packets (Figs. 31A-31C, Abstract, and Column 54 lines 28-39, where there are carbon packets 3100 which are used to provide a carbon source to plants). Jarmoszuk et al. and Smith et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes plant care. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. such that the membrane structure comprises membrane structure pockets, wherein the membrane structure pockets are configured to contain the carbon packets, and wherein the membrane structure pockets are configured to position the carbon packets at fixed positions in the soil surrounding at least a portion of the roots of the at least one plant in view of Smith et al., since the carbon packets of Smith et al. could be positioned within the membrane structure pockets of Jarmoszuk et al. The motivation would have been to have relatively concentrated carbon source groupings, which can be more precisely positioned around the plant as desired by the user. Using carbon packets also allows the user to supplement the initial carbon source, at various times or as desired.
In regard to claim 3, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the membrane structure enables water and treated soil including carbon to permeate soil outside of the membrane structure (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 enables water and treated soil including carbon to permeate soil outside (“semi-permeable membrane”) of the membrane structure 128/132/136/140), wherein the water washes some of the carbon source through the membrane structure into native soil outside of the membrane structure to treat the native soil, and wherein material used for the membrane structure pockets may break down over time to enable the carbon source to permeate and treat more soil (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the water washes some of the carbon source through the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 into native soil (“bio-degradable for use in-ground”) outside of the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 to treat the native soil (“allow the passage of water and particulates therethrough”) and where material used for the membrane structure pockets may break down over time (“bio-degradable”) to enable the carbon source to permeate and treat more soil).
In regard to claim 5, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the membrane structure pockets are integrated into the membrane structure, and wherein each membrane structure pocket comprises a pocket cavity and a pocket opening configured to removably receive a carbon packet into the pocket cavity (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the membrane structure pockets of 128/132/136/140 are integrated into the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 and where each membrane structure pocket (specifically see Paragraphs [0040] and [0042], carbon sources 132 and 136 can have a layer adjacent to the soil and a layer 128 in between them which along with layer 140 at least forms pockets) comprises at least a pocket cavity and a pocket opening configured to at least removably (a carbon source can enter the pocket via the semi-permeable membrane and be removed via the semi-permeable membrane) receive a carbon source into the pocket cavity; Smith et al., Figs. 31A-31C, where the carbon source is carbon packets), and wherein carbon packets are removably inserted into respective pockets for spreading of the carbon source (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where carbon sources are at least removably inserted into respective pockets for spreading of the carbon source via the semi-permeable membrane; Smith et al., Figs. 31A-31C, where the carbon source is carbon packets).
In regard to claim 6, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the membrane structure pockets are removably attached to the membrane structure (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the at least some of the membrane structure pockets are removably attached (“the inner support layer 128 may be removed… both support layers 128, 140 may be removed”) to the membrane structure 128/132/136/140).
In regard to claim 8, Jarmoszuk et al. discloses an apparatus comprising: a carbon source, wherein the carbon source causes soil chemical reactions that enhance nutrient uptake of at least one plant and that increase above and below ground biomass production (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where there is a carbon source 132 (nutrient/fertilizer preloaded activated charcoal) that at least causes soil chemical reactions that enhance nutrient uptake of at least one plant (nutrient/fertilizer extracted by plant “on an as-needed basis”) which thereby increases above and below ground biomass production), and wherein the carbon source further increases carbon sequestration in soil surrounding roots of the at least one plant (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the carbon source 132 (activated charcoal) further increases carbon sequestration in soil surrounding roots of the plant by at least providing trapped or contained carbon near the roots), and a membrane structure configured to expose the roots of the at least one plant to the carbon source (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where there is at least a membrane structure 128/132/136/140 configured to expose the roots of the at least one plant to the carbon source (activated charcoal)), wherein the membrane structure comprises individual membrane structure pockets that are arranged in a single layer of the membrane structure, wherein the membrane structure pockets contain the carbon source (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 at least comprises individual membrane structure pockets (specifically see Paragraphs [0040] and [0042], carbon sources 132 and 136 can have a layer adjacent to the soil and a layer 128 in between them which along with layer 140 at least forms individual pockets that are arranged in a single layer of the membrane structure 128/132/136/140, when considering the whole membrane structure as a single layer)), and wherein the membrane structure pockets position the carbon source at fixed positions in the soil surrounding at least a portion of the roots of the at least one plant (Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the membrane structure pockets of 128/132/136/140 position the carbon source 132/136 at fixed positions in the soil surrounding at least a portion of the roots 124 of the at least one plant 108). Jarmoszuk et al. is silent on wherein a portion of the carbon source is contained in carbon packets. Smith et al. discloses wherein a portion of the carbon source is contained in carbon packets (Figs. 31A-31C, Abstract, and Column 54 lines 28-39, where there are carbon packets 3100 which are used to provide a carbon source to plants). Jarmoszuk et al. and Smith et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes plant care. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. such that the membrane structure comprises membrane structure pockets, wherein the membrane structure pockets are configured to contain the carbon packets, and wherein the membrane structure pockets are configured to position the carbon packets at fixed positions in the soil surrounding at least a portion of the roots of the at least one plant in view of Smith et al., since the carbon packets of Smith et al. could be positioned within the membrane structure pockets of Jarmoszuk et al. The motivation would have been to have relatively concentrated carbon source groupings, which can be more precisely positioned around the plant as desired by the user. Using carbon packets also allows the user to supplement the initial carbon source, at various times or as desired.
In regard to claim 10, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the membrane structure enables water and treated soil including carbon to permeate soil outside of the membrane structure (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 enables water and treated soil including carbon to permeate soil outside (“semi-permeable membrane”) of the membrane structure 128/132/136/140), wherein the water washes some of the carbon source through the membrane structure into native soil outside of the membrane structure to treat the native soil, and wherein material used for the membrane structure pockets may break down over time to enable the carbon source to permeate and treat more soil (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the water washes some of the carbon source through the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 into native soil (“bio-degradable for use in-ground”) outside of the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 to treat the native soil (“allow the passage of water and particulates therethrough”) and where material used for the membrane structure pockets may break down over time (“bio-degradable”) to enable the carbon source to permeate and treat more soil).
In regard to claim 12, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the membrane structure pockets are integrated into the membrane structure, and wherein each membrane structure pocket comprises a pocket cavity and a pocket opening configured to removably receive a carbon packet into the pocket cavity (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the membrane structure pockets of 128/132/136/140 are integrated into the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 and where each membrane structure pocket (specifically see Paragraphs [0040] and [0042], carbon sources 132 and 136 can have a layer adjacent to the soil and a layer 128 in between them which along with layer 140 at least forms pockets) comprises at least a pocket cavity and a pocket opening configured to at least removably (a carbon source can enter the pocket via the semi-permeable membrane and be removed via the semi-permeable membrane) receive a carbon source into the pocket cavity; Smith et al., Figs. 31A-31C, where the carbon source is carbon packets), and wherein carbon packets are removably inserted into respective pockets for spreading of the carbon source (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where carbon sources are at least removably inserted into respective pockets for spreading of the carbon source via the semi-permeable membrane; Smith et al., Figs. 31A-31C, where the carbon source is carbon packets).
In regard to claim 13, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein at least some of the membrane structure pockets are removably attached to the membrane structure (Jarmoszuk et al., Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the at least some of the membrane structure pockets are removably attached (“the inner support layer 128 may be removed… both support layers 128, 140 may be removed”) to the membrane structure 128/132/136/140).
Claims 4, 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarmoszuk et al. (U.S. Pub. 20090031627) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Pat. 10870608) as applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, and further in view of Thomas (U.S. Pat. 5311700).
In regard to claim 4, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses the system of claim 1. Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. is silent on the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure, wherein the membrane structure becomes more porous as roots that permeate the membrane structure grow bigger. Thomas discloses the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure (Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure 44 at least comprises pores (“roots will readily grow through it”) configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure 44 and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure 44), wherein the membrane structure becomes more porous as roots that permeate the membrane structure grow bigger (Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure at least becomes more porous as roots permeate the membrane structure and grow bigger). Jarmoszuk et al. and Thomas are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes plant care. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. such that the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure, the membrane structure becomes more porous as roots that permeate the membrane structure grow bigger in view of Thomas. The motivation would have been to allow the plant to outgrow the size of the membrane structure, without needing to remove the membrane structure after planting.
Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Thomas is silent on wherein the membrane structure is made from a fiber material that stretches from roots growing bigger and pushing against the fiber material. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Thomas to have the membrane structure be made from a fiber material that stretches from roots growing bigger and pushing against the fiber material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The motivation would have been to use a fiber material, such as a biodegradable material (Jarmoszuk et al.) that allows the membrane structure to eventually break down and degrade, without need for manual removal.
In regard to claim 7, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses the system of claim 1. Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. is silent on wherein the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure. Thomas discloses wherein the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure (Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure 44 at least comprises pores (“roots will readily grow through it”) configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure 44 and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure 44 the membrane structure 44 at least comprises pores (“roots will readily grow through it”) configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure 44 and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure 44), wherein the membrane structure becomes more porous as roots that permeate the membrane structure grow bigger (Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure at least becomes more porous as roots permeate the membrane structure and grow bigger). Jarmoszuk et al. and Thomas are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes plant care. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. such that the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure in view of Thomas. The motivation would have been to allow the plant to outgrow the size of the membrane structure, without needing to remove the membrane structure after planting.
Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Thomas is silent on the membrane structure is made from a fiber material that tears from roots growing bigger and pushing against the fiber material. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Thomas to have the membrane structure be made from a fiber material that tears from roots growing bigger and pushing against the fiber material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The motivation would have been to use a fiber material, such as a biodegradable material (Jarmoszuk et al.) that allows the membrane structure to eventually break down and degrade, without need for manual removal.
In regard to claim 11, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 8. Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. is silent on the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure, wherein the membrane structure becomes more porous as roots that permeate the membrane structure grow bigger. Thomas discloses the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure (Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure 44 at least comprises pores (“roots will readily grow through it”) configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure 44 and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure 44), wherein the membrane structure becomes more porous as roots that permeate the membrane structure grow bigger (Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure at least becomes more porous as roots permeate the membrane structure and grow bigger). Jarmoszuk et al. and Thomas are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes plant care. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. such that the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure, the membrane structure becomes more porous as roots that permeate the membrane structure grow bigger in view of Thomas. The motivation would have been to allow the plant to outgrow the size of the membrane structure, without needing to remove the membrane structure after planting.
Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Thomas is silent on wherein the membrane structure is made from a fiber material that stretches from roots growing bigger and pushing against the fiber material. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Thomas to have the membrane structure be made from a fiber material that stretches from roots growing bigger and pushing against the fiber material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The motivation would have been to use a fiber material, such as a biodegradable material (Jarmoszuk et al.) that allows the membrane structure to eventually break down and degrade, without need for manual removal.
In regard to claim 14, Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. discloses apparatus of claim 8. Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. is silent on wherein the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure. Thomas discloses wherein the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure (Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure 44 at least comprises pores (“roots will readily grow through it”) configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure 44 and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure 44 the membrane structure 44 at least comprises pores (“roots will readily grow through it”) configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure 44 and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure 44), wherein the membrane structure becomes more porous as roots that permeate the membrane structure grow bigger (Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure at least becomes more porous as roots permeate the membrane structure and grow bigger). Jarmoszuk et al. and Thomas are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which includes plant care. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. such that the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure in view of Thomas. The motivation would have been to allow the plant to outgrow the size of the membrane structure, without needing to remove the membrane structure after planting.
Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Thomas is silent on the membrane structure is made from a fiber material that tears from roots growing bigger and pushing against the fiber material. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Thomas to have the membrane structure be made from a fiber material that tears from roots growing bigger and pushing against the fiber material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The motivation would have been to use a fiber material, such as a biodegradable material (Jarmoszuk et al.) that allows the membrane structure to eventually break down and degrade, without need for manual removal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 06/06/2025) with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Jarmoszuk et al. (U.S. Pub. 20090031627) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Pat. 10870608) disclose the applicant’s claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, and 12-13, as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above. Jarmoszuk et al. (U.S. Pub. 20090031627) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Pat. 10870608) and Thomas (U.S. Pat. 5311700) disclose the applicant’s claims 4, 7, 11, and 14, as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above.
Specifically, Jarmoszuk et al. teaches the membrane structure comprises individual membrane structure pockets that are arranged in a single layer of the membrane structure, wherein the membrane structure pockets contain the carbon source in Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 at least comprises individual membrane structure pockets (specifically see Paragraphs [0040] and [0042], carbon sources 132 and 136 can have a layer adjacent to the soil and a layer 128 in between them which along with layer 140 at least forms individual pockets that are arranged in a single layer of the membrane structure 128/132/136/140, when considering the whole membrane structure as a single layer).
Furthermore, Jarmoszuk et al. teaches the water washes some of the carbon source through the membrane structure into native soil outside of the membrane structure to treat the native soil, and wherein material used for the membrane structure pockets may break down over time to enable the carbon source to permeate and treat more soil in Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the water washes some of the carbon source through the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 into native soil (“bio-degradable for use in-ground”) outside of the membrane structure 128/132/136/140 to treat the native soil (“allow the passage of water and particulates therethrough”) and where material used for the membrane structure pockets may break down over time (“bio-degradable”) to enable the carbon source to permeate and treat more soil.
Additionally, Thomas teaches the membrane structure comprises pores configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure in Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure 44 at least comprises pores (“roots will readily grow through it”) configured to enable the roots of the at least one plant to penetrate the membrane structure 44 and to extend to the soil outside of the membrane structure 44), wherein the membrane structure becomes more porous as roots that permeate the membrane structure grow bigger (Fig. 10 and Column 6 lines 21-25, where the membrane structure at least becomes more porous as roots permeate the membrane structure and grow bigger. 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 device body of Jarmoszuk et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Thomas to have the membrane structure be made from a fiber material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. A modification, such as changing the material being used, has been established as an obvious design choice.
Lastly, Jarmoszuk et al. teaches wherein carbon packets are removably inserted into respective pockets for spreading of the carbon source in Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where carbon sources are at least removably inserted into respective pockets for spreading of the carbon source via the semi-permeable membrane. As previously shown in the independent claim rejection above, Smith et al. teaches in Figs. 31A-31C, that the carbon sources are carbon packets. Jarmoszuk et al. also teaches wherein at least some of the membrane structure pockets are removably attached to the membrane structure in Figs. 1A-1B and Paragraphs [0018-0028] and [0034-0043], where the at least some of the membrane structure pockets are removably attached (“the inner support layer 128 may be removed… both support layers 128, 140 may be removed”) to the membrane structure 128/132/136/140.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of agricultural devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647