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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Amendments made on 7/8/2025, in which: claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-12 are amended and claims 2-3, 7, 9 remain as filed originally.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to purported merits of the invention, does not provide a clear and concise statement of the technical disclosure and uses phrases which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim is not in compliance with MPEP 608.01(m) which states “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 claims 1-2, 11, the claims state the term “trellis-like structure” which is vague and indefinite as it is unclear if the applicant is using each of the components to actually form a trellis or not. In other words, the use of the term ‘like’, leads to the ambiguity. Is it a trellis or not? Applicant should amend and confirm.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the controlled delivery" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, lines 2-3 state “allowing the controlled delivery of water and nutrients directly to the plant's roots” which is indefinite as it is unclear how the device provides for the “measured delivery” of “water and nutrients” as applicant has not disclosed any structure that would accomplish said “measured delivery”. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations being claimed.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the addition " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coyle (US 7941968) in view of Morgan (US 3579908).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 11-12, Coyle discloses a modular plant drip irrigation and fertilization system (10) comprising individual modules (26, 28) that together form a trellis-like structure (Abstract, Figs. 1-2) which provides lateral (via elements 26, 28) and horizontal support (via elements 42, 44, 46) for a developing plant; interconnectable components (each of the fittings connecting the pipe components together, Fig. 2) of either lateral or horizontal orientation (Figs. 1-2) that provide lateral and horizontal support (device 10 provides lateral and horizontal support, Column 1, lines 32-42) for a plant, a terminus (84, 86) defined by spike (86) that firmly anchors the modular plant drip irrigation and fertilization system (10) to the ground (Column 3, lines 6-12), and an integrated drip irrigation and fertilization tube (60, 62) configured to deliver water and nutrients directly to the roots of a plant, but does not expressly disclose the spike being a hollow base spike bearing a series of perforations.
However, Morgan discloses a similar plant and irrigation structure (Figs. 1, 5) having a hollow spike (spike portion at the bottom of tube element 11) with a series of perforations (23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Coyle, by make the anchoring spike hollow with a series of perforations, as taught by Morgan, for the purpose of providing gradual absorption of the water and nutrients directed towards the roots of the plants in the ground.
Regarding claim 2, Coyle discloses wherein the interconnectable components (each of the fittings connecting the pipe components together, Fig. 2) of each module (26, 28) are selectively interconnected to form a trellis-like structure (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Coyle discloses wherein the interconnectable components (each of the fittings connecting the pipe components together, Fig. 2) of each module are composed of a biodegradable material, rendering the system environmentally friendly and sustainable (Column 3 lines 27-35, allows for variations in materials, size, shape, form, function, assembly and use)..
Regarding claim 4, Coyle discloses further comprising modular clip components (the connection components connecting elements 42 to 26, 44 to 26, 42 to 28 and 44 to 28) for connecting the individual modules (26, 28), thereby creating an infinitely scalable integrated system (10).
Regarding claim 6, Coyle discloses wherein the interconnectable components (each of the fittings connecting the pipe components together, Fig. 2) of the system are collapsible (each of the fittings can be removed allowing for collapsibility of the trellis-like structure, Fig. 2), allowing for space-saving storage when not in use (wherein the device is capable of being disassembled for storage).
Regarding claim 7, Coyle discloses wherein the drip irrigation and fertilization tube (60, 62) is scalable, adapting the system (10) for use in both hobby gardening and commercial agriculture (Column 3 lines 27-35, allows for variations in size and shape).
Regarding claim 8, Coyle discloses wherein the individual modules (26, 28) are configured to be easily assembled and disassembled, facilitating customization (Column 3 lines 27-35, allows for variations in size, shape, form, function, assembly and use).
Regarding claim 9, Coyle discloses wherein the drip irrigation and fertilization tube (60, 62) is designed to increase yields by delivering water and nutrients directly to the roots of the plant (wherein the device is capable of increasing yields based on the amount of water and nutrients directed to the roots).
Regarding claim 10, Coyle discloses wherein the system (10) is scalable to different sizes and types of plants, making the system versatile for a variety of plant cultivation applications (Column 3 lines 27-35, allows for variations in size, shape, form, function, assembly and use).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 AARON M RODZIWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/AARON M RODZIWICZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642