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 .
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 10, and 12-17 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 10 states “the perimeter of the discharge opening being positioned directly in an interior of the plant container” The plant container is outside of the scope of “An irrigation dispenser.” Therefore it is unclear what the scope of the claim is, and what parts exactly are being positively recited, thus rendering the claim indefinite. The Office recommends amending this limitation to state “the perimeter of the discharge opening is configured to be positioned directly in an interior of the plant container”
Claims 12-17 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaggi et al. (FR 2724813) in view of Sol (US 2809468).
Regarding Claim 1, Jaggi discloses a plant container (container 1) for a vertical garden, the plant container comprising:
a container body comprising at least one wall (side 2) and a floor defining an interior configured to accommodate soil (Figure 4 shows a floor of container 1 that is “configured to” accommodate soil since it is a floor with sidewalls); and
an irrigation dispenser (chimney 4) suspended from an upper edge of the at least one wall (Figures 1-4; “a curved end edge 8 capable of hooking on the opening edge of the container 2” Page 3 Paragraph 10 of translation; “The engagement of the lower end of the chimney 4 in the boss 6, the curved edge 8 of the plate 7 on the upper edge of the tank 2, and the stud 9 in the hole in the wall of the tank 2 ensure simply positioning and maintaining the plate 3-chimney 4 assembly in the tank 2.” Page 4 Paragraph 4 of translation), and when so suspended, the irrigation dispenser and the at least one wall define an enclosure sized to accommodate a volume of irrigation fluid (Figures 1 and 3), the irrigation dispenser having a bottommost surface spaced above the floor of the container body (bottom of chimney 4 which is spaced above floor; Figures 3 and 4),
wherein the bottommost surface defines a perimeter of a discharge opening of the irrigation dispenser (bottom of chimney 4), the perimeter of the discharge opening being positioned directly in said interior configured to accommodate soil (bottom of channel 4 is in the interior of container 1).
Jaggi fails to disclose the perimeter of the discharge opening being a free end of the irrigation dispenser, and such that, in use, irrigation fluid is delivered directly to soil through the discharge opening.
However, Sol teaches a similar plant watering device comprising an irrigation dispenser (tube 10) wherein the bottommost surface defines a perimeter of a discharge opening of the irrigation dispenser (end of tube 10; Figure 2), the perimeter of the discharge opening being a free end of the irrigation dispenser (Figures 1-2), and such that, in use, irrigation fluid is delivered directly to soil through the discharge opening (soil 12 “The opposite ends of this tube are tapered transversely and outwardly as at 11 to facilitate the projection of either end of the tube into the soil 12 surrounding the plant 13.” Col. 1 lines 54-57; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the discharge opening of Jaggi, to be a free end positioned directly in the soil interior as taught by Sol, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to allow the user to quickly and easily position the device in the pot and allow for better control over moisture levels in the soil.
Regarding Claim 3, Jaggi as modified teaches the plant container of claim 1. Jaggi further discloses the plant container wherein the irrigation dispenser comprises a hooked tab configured to engage the at least one wall (“a curved end edge 8 capable of hooking on the opening edge of the container 2” Page 3 Paragraph 10 of translation).
Regarding Claim 4, Jaggi as modified teaches the plant container of claim 3. Jaggi further discloses the plant container wherein the hooked tab defines a channel along its length, the channel being sized to matingly receive the upper edge of the at least one wall (“a curved end edge 8 capable of hooking on the opening edge of the container 2” Page 3 Paragraph 10 of translation Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Jaggi as modified teaches the plant container of claim 1. Jaggi further discloses the plant container wherein the irrigation dispenser comprises a connecting feature at an upper end thereof, the connecting feature being in fluid communication with the enclosure (funnel 15 Figure 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaggi et al. (FR 2724813) in view of Sol (US 2809468) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tchira et al. (EP 3597034).
Regarding Claim 5, Jaggi as modified teaches the plant container of claim 6. Jaggi further discloses the plant container, wherein the irrigation dispenser comprises:
a front wall (front wall of chimney 4 Figure 1); and
a first tapered side wall and a second tapered side wall each projecting rearwardly from a respective edge of the front wall (side walls of chimney 4 Figure 1),
the front wall and the first and second tapered side walls defining a portion of the enclosure configured to accommodate a volume of irrigation fluid (Figures 1 and 3), with the at least one wall of the container body defining another portion of the enclosure (Figures 1 and 3)
Jaggi fails to disclose a central, elongate rib projecting forwardly from the front wall.
However, Tchira teaches a planter wherein the irrigation dispenser (planter insert 20) comprises: a central, elongate rib projecting forwardly from the front wall (shown in annotated Figure 19 below; Figure 1); the front wall, the central, elongate rib and the first and second side walls defining a portion of an enclosure configured to accommodate irrigation fluid (water intake hole 21a).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the irrigation dispenser of Jaggi, to have a rib as taught by Tchira, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the flow of water towards the roots of the plant.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaggi et al. (FR 2724813) in view of Sol (US 2809468) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Atkinson et al. (US 6848483).
Regarding Claim 7, Jaggi as modified teaches the plant container of claim 6.
Jaggie fails to disclose the plant container, wherein the connecting feature is configured to connect to a conduit for delivery of irrigation fluid to the irrigation dispenser.
However, Atkinson teaches a similar plant container, wherein the connecting feature (inlet 66) is configured to connect to a conduit (tube 54) for delivery of irrigation fluid to the irrigation dispenser (“The inlet 66 is centrally located in the face wall 63, and has an outwardly extending nipple for connecting the tubing 54 from the water source 40.” Col. 5 lines 27-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the irrigation dispenser of Jaggi, with the conduit connection as taught by Atkinson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant always has enough water to sustain healthy growth.
Regarding Claim 8, Jaggi as modified teaches the plant container of claim 6.
Jaggie fails to disclose the plant container, wherein the connecting feature is a nipple having a fluid passage formed therein.
However, Atkinson teaches a similar plant container, wherein the connecting feature is a nipple having a fluid passage formed therein (“The inlet 66 is centrally located in the face wall 63, and has an outwardly extending nipple for connecting the tubing 54 from the water source 40.” Col. 5 lines 27-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection mechanism of Jaggi, with the nipple of Atkinson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure a strong fluid connection to help prevent loss of water.
Regarding Claim 9, Jaggi as modified teaches the plant container of claim 6.
Jaggie fails to disclose the plant container, wherein the connecting feature is a receptacle sized to matingly receive an end of a conduit for delivery of irrigation fluid to the irrigation dispenser.
However, Atkinson teaches a similar plant container, wherein the connecting feature is a receptacle sized to matingly receive an end of a conduit for delivery of irrigation fluid to the irrigation dispenser (“The inlet 66 is centrally located in the face wall 63, and has an outwardly extending nipple for connecting the tubing 54 from the water source 40.” Col. 5 lines 27-29 Figure 2A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the irrigation dispenser of Jaggi, with the conduit connection as taught by Atkinson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant always has enough water to sustain healthy growth.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaggi et al. (FR 2724813) in view of Tchira et al. (EP 3597034) and Sol (US 2809468).
Regarding Claim 10, Jaggi discloses an irrigation dispenser for a plant container for a vertical garden, the irrigation dispenser comprising:
a front wall (front wall of chimney 4 Figure 1); and
a first tapered side wall and a second tapered side wall each projecting rearwardly from a respective edge of the front wall (side walls of chimney 4; Figure 1), each of the first tapered side wall and the second tapered side wall defining a respective longitudinal edge configured to abut a wall of the plant container (Figures 1-4), wherein the irrigation dispenser is configured to be removably suspended from an upper edge of the wall of the plant container (Figures 1-4; “a curved end edge 8 capable of hooking on the opening edge of the container 2” Page 3 Paragraph 10 of translation; “The engagement of the lower end of the chimney 4 in the boss 6, the curved edge 8 of the plate 7 on the upper edge of the tank 2, and the stud 9 in the hole in the wall of the tank 2 ensure simply positioning and maintaining the plate 3-chimney 4 assembly in the tank 2.” Page 4 Paragraph 4 of translation), and, when so suspended
the front wall and the first and second tapered side walls define a portion of an enclosure configured to accommodate irrigation fluid (Figures 1 and 3), with the wall of the plant container defining another portion of the enclosure (Figures 1 and 3), wherein the irrigation dispenser has a bottommost surface defining a perimeter of a discharge opening (bottom of chimney 4), the perimeter of the discharge opening being positioned directly in an interior of the plant container configured to accommodate soil (bottom of channel 4 is in the interior of container 1).
Jaggi fails to disclose a central, elongate rib projecting forwardly from the front wall; the perimeter of the discharge opening being a free end of the irrigation dispenser, such that, in use, irrigation fluid is delivered directly to soil through the discharge opening.
However, Tchira teaches a planter wherein the irrigation dispenser (planter insert 20) comprises: a central, elongate rib projecting forwardly from the front wall (shown in annotated Figure 19 below; Figure 1); the front wall, the central, elongate rib and the first and second side walls defining a portion of an enclosure configured to accommodate irrigation fluid (water intake hole 21a).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the irrigation dispenser of Jaggi, to have a rib as taught by Tchira, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the flow of water towards the roots of the plant.
Additionally, Sol teaches a similar plant watering device comprising an irrigation dispenser (tube 10) wherein the bottommost surface defines a perimeter of a discharge opening of the irrigation dispenser (end of tube 10; Figure 2), the perimeter of the discharge opening being a free end of the irrigation dispenser (Figures 1-2), such that, in use, irrigation fluid is delivered directly to soil through the discharge opening (soil 12 “The opposite ends of this tube are tapered transversely and outwardly as at 11 to facilitate the projection of either end of the tube into the soil 12 surrounding the plant 13.” Col. 1 lines 54-57; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the discharge opening of Jaggi, to be a free end positioned directly in the soil interior as taught by Sol, with reasonable expectations of success, in order to allow the user to quickly and easily position the device in the pot and allow for better control over moisture levels in the soil.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Jaggi teaches the irrigation dispenser of claim 10. Jaggi further discloses the irrigation dispenser, further comprising a hooked tab defining a channel along its length (“a curved end edge 8 capable of hooking on the opening edge of the container 2” Page 3 Paragraph 10 of translation).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Jaggi teaches the irrigation dispenser of claim 12. Jaggi further discloses the irrigation dispenser, wherein the channel is sized to matingly receive an upper edge of a wall of the plant container (“a curved end edge 8 capable of hooking on the opening edge of the container 2” Page 3 Paragraph 10 of translation).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Jaggi teaches the irrigation dispenser of claim 10. Jaggi further discloses the irrigation dispenser, further comprising a connecting feature at an upper end of the irrigation dispenser, the connecting feature being in fluid communication with the portion of the enclosure (funnel 15 Figure 2).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaggi et al. (FR 2724813) in view of Tchira et al. (EP 3597034) and Sol (US 2809468), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Atkinson et al. (US 6848483).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Jaggi teaches the irrigation dispenser of claim 14.
Jaggi fails to disclose the irrigation dispenser, wherein the connecting feature is configured to connect to a conduit for delivery of irrigation fluid to the irrigation dispenser.
However, Atkinson teaches a similar irrigation dispenser, wherein the connecting feature (inlet 66) is configured to connect to a conduit (tube 54) for delivery of irrigation fluid to the irrigation dispenser (“The inlet 66 is centrally located in the face wall 63, and has an outwardly extending nipple for connecting the tubing 54 from the water source 40.” Col. 5 lines 27-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the irrigation dispenser of Jaggi, with the conduit connection as taught by Atkinson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant always has enough water to sustain healthy growth.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Jaggi teaches the irrigation dispenser of claim 14.
Jaggi fails to disclose the irrigation dispenser, wherein the connecting feature is a nipple having a fluid passage formed therein.
However, Atkinson teaches the irrigation dispenser, wherein the connecting feature (inlet 66) is a nipple having a fluid passage formed therein (“The inlet 66 is centrally located in the face wall 63, and has an outwardly extending nipple for connecting the tubing 54 from the water source 40.” Col. 5 lines 27-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection mechanism of Jaggi, with the nipple of Atkinson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure a strong fluid connection to help prevent loss of water.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Jaggi teaches the irrigation dispenser of claim 14.
Jaggi fails to disclose the irrigation dispenser, wherein the connecting feature is a receptacle sized to matingly receive an end of a conduit for delivery of irrigation fluid to the irrigation dispenser.
However, Atkinson teaches the irrigation dispenser, wherein the connecting feature (inlet 66) is a receptacle sized to matingly receive an end of a conduit for delivery of irrigation fluid to the irrigation dispenser (“The inlet 66 is centrally located in the face wall 63, and has an outwardly extending nipple for connecting the tubing 54 from the water source 40.” Col. 5 lines 27-29 Figure 2A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the irrigation dispenser of Jaggi, with the conduit connection as taught by Atkinson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the plant always has enough water to sustain healthy growth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-8 “While a similar end result is achieved in that water is fed to soil, the actual end result- i.e., watering the soil-is achieved through a different principle of operation and thus the Office should have to adequately address MPEP 2143.01 when issuing this obviousness rejection.” The Office respectfully disagrees that the principle of operation is different. In this instance, the principle of operation of both Jaggi and Sol, is sending water to the roots of the plants in a planting container, via a chimney. Applicant states that “a principle of operation of a device is best understood as the fundamental physical, chemical, or logical mechanism(s) by which that device achieves its intended purpose.” In this instance, both Jaggi and Sol have the physical mechanism of a planting container and an irrigation dispenser that sends water towards the bottom of the planting container. This is clearly a physical mechanism and more than simply an intended use of the device. Additionally, while having only water in the reservoir of Jaggi is intended use, adding soil to the reservoir of Jaggi would not destroy Jaggi’s invention, as the watering of the roots of the plants would still occur regardless of where the soil in Jaggi’s pot is located. Jaggi’s invention would still water the roots of the plants, regardless of whether there is soil located in the lower reservoir portion or not.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. 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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642