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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-22 are pending, claims 3-4, 8, 10-14, and 17-21 are withdrawn, and claims 1-2 and 16 are amended.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4, 8, 10-14, and 17-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9, 15-16, 18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littge (U.S. 7,080,484) in view of Allen (U.S. 2006/0064929).
With respect to claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, and 16 Littge discloses a plant irrigation device (figures 1-4), comprising:
a rigid support (12 having 15) having a circular (see figure 2) configuration an opening in a central portion (opening within 10, being the middle) thereof, wherein the rigid support has an open-faced channel formed therein (opened channel of 15 where 20 is located, see figure 4); and
a flexible drip (14, column 5 rows 10-16) tube disposed within the channel of the support (see figure 4), wherein the drip tube is connectable to a water source (via 22) and having a series of spaced apart apertures or water emitters (water emitters 18) along a length thereof permitting water to exit the drip tube and into the ground (as water drips from 18) surrounding the plant (within the ring of 20);
wherein the drip tube water emitters (18) have at least one of pressure compensating (providing a drip from the pressurized fluid source), anti-siphon, anti-clogging, self-flushing (being an open nozzle, allowing fluid to flush out) or check valve properties. Littge fails to disclose the support has a C-shaped configuration with free ends creating a slot for insertion of a plant therethrough.
Allen, figures 1 and 2, discloses a C-shaped configuration with free ends creating a slot for inserting of a plant therethrough, paragraphs 0020 and 0031, discloses allowing the object to be fitted around an object such as a tree.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the C-shaped support as disclose by Allen into the system of Littge, allowing the support and apparatus of Littge to not only be applied onto a pot, but also to be incorporated around a taller object or plant that is growing. Such a gap allows for placement of the device around a plant regardless of its height.
With respect to claims 6 and 18, Littge as modified discloses a cover (16) detachably connected to the support over the open-faced channel (as seen in figure 4), the cover having apertures (34) through which water from the drip tube passes (as it flows to and out of 18).
With respect to claims 15 and 22, Littge as modified discloses a fluid port (22) extending from the support downwards from that of 12) for detachable connection of the drip tube to a corresponding connector of a source of water (as 12 then attaches to a fluid conduit, via 28 to then 26, see figure 5).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (02/10/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-22 are pending, claims 3-4,8, 10-14, and 17-21 are withdrawn, and claims 1-2 and 16 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (12/29/2025). Applicants Terminal Disclaimer has overcome the previous Double Patenting Rejection, and applications amendments have overcome the previous 112(b) rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Applicant argues that the combination is improper because Allen is not direction to a mechanical surround and does not disclose irrigation, a drip tube, a channel formed in a rigid support, and water emitters or irrigation functionality of any kinds. Examiner notes that all these limitations are disclosed by the primary reference of Littge. Allen is only being utilized in teaching a C shaped irrigation delivery system. Allen discloses utilizing what is a rigid structure in a C shape to allow fluid to be applied about a tree (see figures 1-2). Such application of the space in the circular housing allows such a device to encompass a taller object and by utilizing a slot in the circular housing of Littge, the planter irrigation device (such as seen in figures 7 and 8) would then have capped ends and a slot, allowing for the device to be placed about a tree. Both prior arts are analogous art because they are both utilizing a circular irrigation element. Applicant further makes arguments to Allen’s lack of teaching of the drop tube, channel, or rigid support, which are all elements already disclosed in the primary reference and are not being modified in the above rejection.
Applicant further discloses that such a modification would render the primary reference inoperable for its intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the device would still function with a fluid line within a support and drip emitters along its length, the ends would just be capped (well known in the art) and there would be a slot in the housing.
Applicant further argues different motivation for combination was pulled from applications own specification. Examiner disagrees, the reasons for obviousness was found in Allen, paragraph 0020, that discloses a rigid material for the container with an opening in the container so that it may be around about the trunk of a tree (paragraph 0031 further explains such a placement about a tree).
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 JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752