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.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 01/17/2025, 08/28/2024, 07/15/2024, and 04/19/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-11 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 "the opposing end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the opposing end” to --an opposing end--.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "an opening pressure" in lines 11-12. This is a double inclusion of “a preset opening pressure” in line 8. The Examiner suggests changing “an opening pressure” to --the opening pressure--.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "the porosity" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the porosity” to --a porosity--. Subsequently, the Examiner suggests changing the recitation of “the porous body has a porosity” in line 1 of claim 10 to --the porosity of the porous body is--.
Claim 11 recites the phrase "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the range” to --a range--.
Claims 2-11 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 1-5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Pat. 7240457) in view of Rummins (U.S. Pat. 6112456) and Hamilton (U.S. Pub. 20240172612).
In regard to claim 1, Chang discloses a plant watering device, comprising: a reservoir configured to hold water therein and having a first opening at one end and a second opening at the opposing end (Figs. 2-4 and Column 2 line 52 – Column 3 line 19, where there is a reservoir 6 configured to hold water therein and having a first opening 62 at one end and a second opening 61 at the opposing end); and valve covering the first opening of the reservoir, wherein the valve is configured to close to inhibit airflow between the reservoir and an external environment (Figs. 2-4 and Column 2 line 52 – Column 3 line 19, where there is a valve 63 for the first opening 62 of the reservoir 6, wherein the valve 63 is configured to close to inhibit airflow between the reservoir 6 and an external environment); wherein the reservoir contains water and is inserted in a medium to be watered (Figs. 5-1, where the reservoir 6 contains water and is inserted in a medium to be watered). Chang is silent on a porous body covering the second opening, wherein the porous body provides a flow pathway from the reservoir; wherein when the reservoir contains water and is inserted in a medium to be watered, the porosity of the porous body is configured to provide a selected flow rate of water from the reservoir to the medium to be watered. Rummins discloses a porous body covering the second opening, wherein the porous body provides a flow pathway from the reservoir (Figs. 1-4 and Column 3 lines 2-10, where there is a porous body 28 covering the second opening 24, wherein the porous body 28 provides a flow pathway from the reservoir 16); wherein when the reservoir contains water and is inserted in a medium to be watered, the porosity of the porous body is configured to provide a selected flow rate of water from the reservoir to the medium to be watered (Figs. 1-4 and Column 3 lines 2-10, where when the reservoir 16 contains water and is inserted in a medium 10 to be watered, the porosity of the porous body 28 is configured to provide a selected flow rate of water (“fluid transfer media 28 is carried in the flow reduction reservoir which reduces the flow of liquid through the spike and meters the liquid”) from the reservoir to the medium 10 to be watered). Chang and Rummins are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. 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 Chang such that a porous body covering the second opening, wherein the porous body provides a flow pathway from the reservoir; wherein when the reservoir contains water and is inserted in a medium to be watered, the porosity of the porous body is configured to provide a selected flow rate of water from the reservoir to the medium to be watered in view of Rummins. The motivation would have been to allow for more controlled watering, by reducing the flow rate of water through the device into the medium (Rummins, Column 3 lines 44-60).
Chang is silent on wherein the valve is configured to close to inhibit airflow between the reservoir and an external environment when a differential pressure between the reservoir and atmospheric pressure is less than a preset opening pressure and is configured to open to permit airflow between the reservoir and the external environment when the differential pressure is greater than or equal to the preset opening pressure; wherein when the reservoir contains water and is inserted in a medium to be watered, an opening pressure of the valve is configured to provide a selected flow rate of water from the reservoir to the medium to be watered. Hamilton discloses a valve covering the first opening of the reservoir, wherein the valve is configured to close to inhibit airflow between the reservoir and an external environment when a differential pressure between the reservoir and atmospheric pressure is less than a preset opening pressure and is configured to open to permit airflow between the reservoir and the external environment when the differential pressure is greater than or equal to the preset opening pressure (Figs. 11-12B and Paragraphs [0098-0101], where there is a valve 22 covering the first opening (opening in which valve 22 sits) of the reservoir 2, wherein the valve 22 is configured to close to inhibit airflow between the reservoir and an external environment when a differential pressure between the reservoir and atmospheric pressure is less than a preset opening pressure (valve 22/14a at least remains closed when the reservoir pressure is in between a range of “0 to 5 kPa” and “8 to 30 kPa”) and is configured to open to permit airflow between the reservoir and the external environment when the differential pressure is greater than or equal to the preset opening pressure (valve 22/14a at least remains open when the reservoir pressure is over 8 kPa)); wherein when the reservoir contains water and is watering the medium, an opening pressure of the valve is configured to provide a selected flow rate of water from the reservoir to the medium to be watered (Figs. 11-12B and Paragraphs [0098-0101], where when the reservoir 2 contains water and is watering the medium, an opening pressure of the valve 22/14a is at least configured to provide a selected flow rate of water (“ambient pressure flow rate is suitable for long term/continuous watering”) from the reservoir 2 to the medium to be watered). Chang and Hamilton are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. 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 Chang such that wherein the valve is configured to close to inhibit airflow between the reservoir and an external environment when a differential pressure between the reservoir and atmospheric pressure is less than a preset opening pressure and is configured to open to permit airflow between the reservoir and the external environment when the differential pressure is greater than or equal to the preset opening pressure; wherein when the reservoir contains water and is inserted in a medium to be watered, an opening pressure of the valve is configured to provide a selected flow rate of water from the reservoir to the medium to be watered in view of Hamilton. The motivation would have been to allow for pressure control in the reservoir, in order to maintain a desired flow rate to the medium from the reservoir. An air inlet valve allows for more precise pressure control, thereby reducing the effect of gravity on the water flow rate.
In regard to claim 2, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first opening of the reservoir is dimensioned to permit receipt of water therein to fill the reservoir (Chang, Figs. 2-4, where the first opening 62 of the reservoir 6 is at least dimensioned to permit receipt of water therein to fill the reservoir 6), and wherein the valve is formed within a lid (Chang, Figs. 2-4, where the valve 63 is formed within a lid (hinged portion 64 which hold the valve 63 is at least a lid)).
In regard to claim 3, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the porous body is a hollow cone (Rummins, Figs. 1-4, where the porous body 28 is at least in the shape of a hollow (porous) cone).
In regard to claim 4, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 3, further comprising a soil spike including the hollow cone and a hollow conical outer protective body that is configured to receive the porous body and to detachably connect to the second opening of the reservoir (Rummins, Figs. 1-4, where there is a soil spike “B” including the hollow cone 28 and a hollow conical outer protective body 20 that is configured to receive the porous body and to detachably connect (threaded) to the second opening 24 of the reservoir).
In regard to claim 5, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the outer protective body is in the form of a spike that comprises a plurality of struts and apertures therebetween (Rummins, Figs. 1-4, where the outer protective body 20 is in the form of a spike that comprises a plurality of struts and apertures therebetween (a plurality of radially extending spike blades 30, 32, 34, and 36)).
In regard to claim 7, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the valve is an umbrella valve (Hamilton, Figs. 12A-12B, where the valve 22/14a is at least an umbrella valve).
In regard to claim 11, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the reservoir is configured to hold a volume selected from the range between about 50 mL to about 2 L (Rummins, Figs. 1-4 and Column 3 lines 53-60, where the reservoir is configured to hold a volume of 16 oz or 473 mL).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Pat. 7240457) in view of Rummins (U.S. Pat. 6112456) and Hamilton (U.S. Pub. 20240172612) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhang (CN 209768402).
In regard to claim 6, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 1. Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton is silent on wherein the valve is a one-way valve. Zhang discloses wherein the valve is a one-way valve (Fig. 3 and Translated Specification Page 4 lines 2-26, where the valve is a one-way valve 6). Chang and Zhang are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. 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 Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton such that the valve is a one-way valve in view of Zhang. The motivation would have been to allow for one way fluid exchange, thereby reducing complexity and providing consistent water flow rate change (as the reservoir is depleted) relative to the specifications of the valve and device. A one-way valve also prevents any chance of accidental fluid exchange, in the opposite direction, due to damage or defect in a more relatively complex two-way valve structure.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Pat. 7240457) in view of Rummins (U.S. Pat. 6112456) and Hamilton (U.S. Pub. 20240172612) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Brault (WO 2012038610).
In regard to claim 8, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 1. Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton is silent on wherein the porous body is formed from one or more ceramic materials. Brault discloses wherein the porous body is formed from one or more ceramic materials (Translated Specification Page 4 lines 1-33 and Figs. 1-2, where the porous body 14 is formed from one or more ceramic materials (silica)). Chang and Brault are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. 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 Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton such that the porous body is formed from one or more ceramic materials in view of Brault. The motivation would have been to utilize a well-known material, which is durable and structurally more rigid compared to cotton. This provides relatively more predictable porosity and metering consistency.
In regard to claim 9, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 1. Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton is silent on wherein the porous body is formed from at least one of alumina (Al2O3), silica (SiO2), lime (CaO), magnesia (MgO), hematite (Fe2O3), soda (Na2O), titania (TiO2), or potash (K2O). Brault discloses wherein the porous body is formed from alumina (Translated Specification Page 4 lines 1-33 and Figs. 1-2, where the porous body 14 is formed from silica). Chang and Brault are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. 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 Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton such that the porous body is formed from at least one of alumina (Al2O3), silica (SiO2), lime (CaO), magnesia (MgO), hematite (Fe2O3), soda (Na2O), titania (TiO2), or potash (K2O) in view of Brault. The motivation would have been to utilize a well-known material, which is durable and structurally more rigid compared to cotton. This provides relatively more predictable porosity and metering consistency.
In regard to claim 10, Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton discloses the device of claim 1. Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton is silent on wherein, absent the valve, the porous body has a porosity configured to result in delivery of water from the reservoir under only the force of atmospheric pressure at a flow rate ranging between about 10 mL to about 120 mL per hour. Brault discloses the porous body has a porosity configured to result in delivery of water from the reservoir under only the force of atmospheric pressure at a flow rate ranging between about 10 mL to about 120 mL per hour (Translated Specification Page 4 lines 1-33 and Figs. 1-2, where the porous body 14 has a porosity configured to result in delivery of water from the reservoir under only the force of atmospheric pressure at a flow rate of at least 12.5 mL per hour (30 cL per day)). Chang and Brault are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include plant care devices. 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 Chang as modified by Rummins and Hamilton such that wherein, absent the valve, the porous body has a porosity configured to result in delivery of water from the reservoir under only the force of atmospheric pressure at a flow rate ranging between about 10 mL to about 120 mL per hour in view of Brault. The motivation would have been to utilize a material which provides a consistent and “guaranteed” flow rate (Brault, Translated Specification Page 4 lines 1-5), thereby allowing for relatively more precise control of water flow into the medium from the reservoir.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, for the full list of prior art made of record. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of plant care 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 at (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
Prosecution Insights