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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "412" in Fig. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim(s) 1 and 26 , line 2, respectively, “a medium”;
Claim(s) 50, line 2, “a plant pot”.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ [0082]: should read “Still referring to Figure 1, the wick 102 comprises an indicator portion [18] 108 on which is disposed a [hydrochromic material] polymer layer 112”; the applicant’s originally filed specification states in ¶ [0083] “the indicator portion 108” and in ¶ [0099] “the polymer layer 112”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 26 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, line 9 should read, “[an] the indicator portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 17-19, 31-32 and 34 is/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.
Regarding Claim(s) 9-10 and 31: the phrase "optionally" in “optionally selected from reed, rattan, bamboo, wood, cotton, and mixtures thereof” (lines 2-3 in Claim 9), “optionally selected from polyester, polyolefin, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, nylon, polystyrene, and mixtures thereof” (lines 2-3 in Claim 10), and “optionally polyethylene tape or a hot melt adhesive, optionally a rubber-based hot melt adhesive” (lines 2-3 in Claim 31), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). One may have the option of not electing from the list of materials, so it is unclear what is being claimed. The claim language is therefore indefinite.
For examination purposes the Claim(s) 9-10 and 31 will be treated as the option of not electing from the list of materials.
Regarding Claim(s) 17-19, 32 and 34: Claim(s) 17, recites in lines 2-3, “a length of about…..”, Claim(s) 18, recites in lines 2-3, “a diameter of about…..”, Claim(s) 19, recites in lines 2-4, “a length of about…..”, Claim(s) 32, recites in lines 2-4, “a temperature of about…..”, and Claim(s) 34, recites in lines 2-3, “a temperature of about…..”. The term “about” in each claim, respectively, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). For example, it is unclear what is considered a length of “about” 5 cm to “about” 30 cm in regards to measurement. The claim language is therefore indefinite.
For examination purposes each claim will be treated as the range of measurements and temperatures provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 26, 29 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orihara et al. (US 11639918 B2, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Orihara disclose(s): A moisture indicator (Fig. 1B) comprising:
a wick (Fig. 2A: 6) comprising a lower portion (see annotated Fig. 2A below) insertable into a medium for absorbing water contained in the medium (col. 1, lines 20-24), an upper portion (see annotated Fig. 2A below) insertable through which absorbed water evaporates (Fig. 1B: 51) and an indicator portion (Fig. 2A: 4) disposed between the lower and upper portions (see annotated Fig. 2A below),
a hydrochromic material disposed on the indicator portion (Fig. 2A: 7), the hydrochromic material providing a visual indication upon contact with moisture (col. 8, lines 62-64), and a clear polymer layer (Fig. 2A: 2 and col. 4, lines 6-9) sealingly covering the indicator portion and the hydrochromic material disposed thereon (Fig. 2A), the polymer layer preventing water evaporation therethrough (col. 6, lines 41-48).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara further disclose(s): wherein the wick is round, square or rectangular shaped (Fig. 2A: 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara further disclose(s): wherein the hydrochromic material is hydrochromic ink, hydrochromic paint or hydrochromic paper (col. 8, lines 62-63).
Regarding Claim 7, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara further disclose(s): wherein the hydrochromic material changes color or opacity upon contact with moisture (col. 8, lines 62-64).
As best understood: Regarding Claim 9, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara further disclose(s): wherein the wick is made of a natural material (col. 8, lines 59-60).
As best understood: Regarding Claim 10, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara further disclose(s): wherein the wick is made of a synthetic material (col. 9, lines 34-35).
With respect to independent Claim 26, Orihara disclose(s): A method of making a moisture indicator (Fig. 1B and col. 6, lines 34-40) comprising:
a. providing a wick (Fig. 2A: 6), the wick comprising a lower portion (see annotated Fig. 2A above) insertable into a medium for absorbing water contained in the medium (col. 1, lines 20-24), an upper portion (see annotated Fig. 2A above) through which absorbed water evaporates (Fig. 1B: 51) and an indicator portion (Fig. 2A: 4) disposed between the lower and upper portions (see annotated Fig. 2A above),
b. providing a polymer layer (Fig. 2A: 2 and col. 4, lines 6-9),
c. applying to the polymer layer a hydrochromic material (Fig. 2A: 7), the hydrochromic material providing a visual indication upon contact with moisture (col. 8, lines 62-64), and
d. applying the polymer layer over an indicator portion such that the hydrochromic material is transferred on the indicator portion and the polymer layer sealingly covers the indicator portion and the hydrochromic material transferred thereon (Fig. 2A and col. 8, lines 44-64).
Regarding Claim 29, Orihara disclose(s) the method of Claim 26.
Orihara further disclose(s): wherein the wick is round, square or rectangular shaped (Fig. 2A: 6).
Regarding Claim 33, Orihara disclose(s) the method of Claim 26.
Orihara further disclose(s): wherein the hydrochromic material is hydrochromic ink, hydrochromic paint or hydrochromic paper (col. 8, lines 62-63).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orihara in view of Ladick (CA3012010, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara does not specifically disclose: wherein the polymer layer is an adhesive tape, shrink tubing or a hot melt adhesive.
However, Ladick teach(es) an indicator (Fig. 5) including wherein the polymer layer is an adhesive tape, shrink tubing or a hot melt adhesive (page 31, line 25 through page 32 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Orihara, with the teachings of Ladick , for the purpose of creating a sort of capillary tube around the wick which acts to facilitate moisture wicking by containing moisture rather than letting it leak out (page 32, line 8-11).
Regarding Claim(s) 30, Orihara disclose(s) the method of Claim 26.
Orihara does not specifically disclose: wherein the polymer layer is shrink tubing.
However, Ladick teach(es) a method (Fig. 5) including wherein the polymer layer is shrink tubing (page 31, line 25 through page 32 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Orihara, with the teachings of Ladick , for the purpose of creating a sort of capillary tube around the wick which acts to facilitate moisture wicking by containing moisture rather than letting it leak out (page 32, line 8-11).
As best understood: Regarding Claim(s) 31, Orihara disclose(s) the method of Claim 26.
Orihara does not specifically disclose: wherein the polymer layer is an adhesive tape.
However, Ladick teach(es) a method (Fig. 5) including wherein the polymer layer is an adhesive tape (Fig. 8 and page 31, line 25 through page 32 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Orihara, with the teachings of Ladick , for the purpose of creating a sort of capillary tube around the wick which acts to facilitate moisture wicking by containing moisture rather than letting it leak out (page 32, line 8-11).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orihara and Ladick.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Orihara and Ladick disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 3.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the adhesive tape is polyethylene tape.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the particular type of material used to make the adhesive tape (i.e. polyethylene), absent any criticality, is only considered to be the use of a “ preferred ” or “optimum” material out of a plurality of well-known materials that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the intended use of Applicant’s apparatus, i.e., suitability for the intended use of Applicant’s apparatus. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960 ) where the court stated that a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use of an apparatus would be entirely obvious.
Here the material of the adhesive tape (i.e. polyethylene), does not appear to be significant to the function of the indicator, thus noting the material is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the indicator of the combination of Orihara and Ladick.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the type of material of the adhesive tape in order to suit the needs of the user of the indicator in order to decrease the cost of manufacturing by utilizing an inexpensive material.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Orihara and Ladick disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 3.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the hot melt adhesive is a rubber-based hot melt adhesive.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventionadhesive (i.e. rubber-based), absent any criticality, is only considered to be the use of a “ preferred ” or “optimum” material out of a plurality of well-known materials that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the intended use of Applicant’s apparatus, i.e., suitability for the intended use of Applicant’s apparatus. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960 ) where the court stated that a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use of an apparatus would be entirely obvious.
Here the material of the adhesive (i.e. rubber-based), does not appear to be significant to the function of the indicator, thus noting the material is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the indicator of the combination of Orihara and Ladick.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the type of material of the adhesive in order to suit the needs of the user of the indicator in order to increase the durability of the material by utilizing stronger material.
Claim(s) 17-19, 32 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orihara.
As best understood: Regarding Claim(s) 17, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the wick has a length of 5 cm to 30 cm, 10 cm to 25 cm or 15 cm to 20 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a wick having a length of 5 cm to 30 cm, 10 cm to 25 cm or 15 cm to 20 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the length of the wick (i.e. 5 cm to 30 cm, 10 cm to 25 cm or 15 cm to 20 cm) does not appear to be significant to the function of the indicator, thus noting the length is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the indicator of Orihara.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the length of the wick in order to improve absorption of the indicator.
As best understood: Regarding Claim(s) 18, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the wick has a diameter of 0.2 cm to 2 cm, 0.3 cm to 1.8 cm, 0.4 cm to 1.6 cm, or 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a wick having a diameter of 0.2 cm to 2 cm, 0.3 cm to 1.8 cm, 0.4 cm to 1.6 cm, or 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the diameter of the wick (i.e. 0.2 cm to 2 cm, 0.3 cm to 1.8 cm, 0.4 cm to 1.6 cm, or 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm) does not appear to be significant to the function of the indicator, thus noting the diameter is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the indicator of Orihara.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the diameter of the wick in order to improve absorption of the indicator.
As best understood: Regarding Claim(s) 19, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the indicator portion has a length of 0.5 cm to 30 cm, 1 cm to 25 cm, 1.5 cm to 20 cm, 2 cm to 15 cm, 2.5 cm to 12 cm or 2 cm to 10 cm in length.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide an indicator portion having a length of 0.5 cm to 30 cm, 1 cm to 25 cm, 1.5 cm to 20 cm, 2 cm to 15 cm, 2.5 cm to 12 cm or 2 cm to 10 cm in length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the length of the indicator portion (i.e. 0.5 cm to 30 cm, 1 cm to 25 cm, 1.5 cm to 20 cm, 2 cm to 15 cm, 2.5 cm to 12 cm or 2 cm to 10 cm in length) does not appear to be significant to the function of the indicator, thus noting the length is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the indicator of Orihara.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the length of the indicator portion in order to improve visibility of the indicator.
As best understood: Regarding Claim(s) 32, Orihara disclose(s) the method of Claim 26.
Orihara do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the polymer layer applied over the indicator portion is heated to a temperature of 100 °C to 2001C, 120 °C to 1801C, 130 °C to 1701C, 140 °C to 1601C or 1501C, thereby sealingly covering the indicator portion and hydrochromic material thereon.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide polymer layer applied over the indicator portion heated to a temperature of 100 °C to 2001C, 120 °C to 1801C, 130 °C to 1701C, 140 °C to 1601C or 1501C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the heated temperature of the polymer layer (i.e. 100 °C to 2001C, 120 °C to 1801C, 130 °C to 1701C, 140 °C to 1601C or 1501C) does not appear to be significant to the function of the method, thus noting the heated temperature is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the method of Orihara.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the heated temperature in order to improve durability of the indicator.
As best understood: Regarding Claim(s) 34, Orihara disclose(s) the method of Claim 33.
Orihara do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the hydrochromic ink is heated to a temperature of 100 °C to 2001C, 120 °C to 1801C, 130 °C to 1701C, or 140 °C to 1601C prior to applying to the polymer layer or the indicator portion.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply to the polymer layer or the indicator portion hydrochromic ink heated to a temperature of 100 °C to 2001C, 120 °C to 1801C, 130 °C to 1701C, 140 °C to 1601C or 1501C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Here the heated temperature of the hydrochromic ink (i.e. 100 °C to 2001C, 120 °C to 1801C, 130 °C to 1701C, 140 °C to 1601C or 1501C) does not appear to be significant to the function of the method, thus noting the heated temperature is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the method of Orihara.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the heated temperature in order to improve visibility of the indicator.
With respect to Claim 35, Orihara disclose(s) the method of Claim 33.
Orihara do(es) not specifically disclose: wherein the hydrochromic ink is applied to the polymer layer or the indicator portion by stamping or by screen printing.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention where a product by process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with the evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Orihara teaches the hydrochromic ink applied to the polymer layer (Fig. 2A), therefore, one skilled in the art would change the process of applying the polymer layer or the indicator portion in order to suit the needs of the user of the device in order to increase the durability of the device, therefore Orihara teaches the claim limitation.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orihara in view of Lockerby et al. (US 4130012, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 50, Orihara disclose(s) the indicator of Claim 1.
Orihara does not specifically disclose: a kit comprising the moisture indicator and a plant pot
However, Lockerby teach(es) an indicator (Fig. 5) including: a kit comprising the moisture indicator and a plant pot (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Orihara, with the teachings of Lockerby , for the purpose of creating a controlled environment (col. 2, lines 20-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to moisture indicators: Klein (US 3019638); Roux et al. (US 20250383336 A1); Campau (US 2003/0080304 A1); Schlosser et al. (US 6460480 B1); Liberato et al. (US 12656328 B2); Martin (US 4382380); Peters (US 12313543 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/TC/
22 June 2026
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights