Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/714,874

WATERING SYSTEM FOR TREES

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 30, 2024
Examiner
VALENTI, ANDREA M
Art Unit
3643
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
42%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 42% of resolved cases
42%
Career Allow Rate
312 granted / 736 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +58% interview lift
Without
With
+58.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
779
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.9%
+12.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 736 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 102 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 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boxwood Ave., 4 Proven Ways to Keep Your Christmas Tree Fresh Through December [retrieved from internet 02 December 2025 https://boxwoodavenue.com/how-to-keep-christmas-tree-fresh/] 13 pages; posted 15 November 2019; wayback machine to 30 July 2021. Regarding Claim 1, Boxwood Ave teaches a watering system for felled Christmas trees comprising a humidifier configured to generate mist (Boxwood Ave page 5 items #3 and #4); a conduit (Boxwood Ave. page 5 mist spray bottle considered a conduit and/or humidifier components satisfy the broad nature of the claim since applicant hasn’t claimed the structural details nor structural relationship of the conduit to the humidifier and tree) configured to dispense at least a part of the mist generated by the humidifier towards foliage of the felled Christmas tree, when in use; wherein the humidifier is a warm mist humidifier or an ultrasonic humidifier (Boxwood Ave. page 5 item #3 and #4; page 6 item #4 teaches use of warm water). Regarding Claim 2, Boxwood Ave teaches wherein the conduit comprises at least one opening for dispensing the mist (Boxwood Ave page 5 nozzle of spray bottle and/or humidifier outlet). 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) 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boxwood Ave., 4 Proven Ways to Keep Your Christmas Tree Fresh Through December [retrieved from internet 02 December 2025 https://boxwoodavenue.com/how-to-keep-christmas-tree-fresh/] 13 pages; posted 15 November 2019; wayback machine to 30 July 2021 in view of Japanese Patent JP H0650445 to Kajima Corporation. Regarding Claim 3, Boxwood Ave. is silent on explicitly teaching wherein the at least one opening of the conduit extends substantially perpendicularly with respect to a longitudinal axis of the conduit. However, Kajima teaches the at least one opening of the conduit extends substantially perpendicularly with respect to a longitudinal axis of the conduit (Kajima Fig. 1 and 2 in Fig. 1 #6 is substantially perpendicular to #5). Kajima as a secondary reference teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art of a structural system to transport water efficiently to the whole tree. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Boxwood Ave with the teachings of Kajima before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for full and efficient coverage as taught by Kajima. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding Claim 4, Boxwood Ave. as modified teaches the at least one opening of the conduit has a diameter that is smaller than an inner diameter of the conduit (Kajima teaches the at least one opening of the conduit has a diameter that is smaller than an inner diameter of the conduit Fig. 2 #8 is smaller than opening of end of #5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Boxwood Ave with the teachings of Kajima before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to control flow rate. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding Claim 19, Boxwood Ave as modified by Kajima teaches the humidifier comprises a water feed hose adapted to draw water from a Christmas tree stand (Kajima Fig. 3 #13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Boxwood Ave with the teachings of Kajima before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for reduced labor input. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding Claim 20, Boxwood Ave as modified teaches a spray bottle which typically is refillable; alternatively, Boxwood Ave as modified by Kajima teaches the humidifier comprises a refillable water tank, (Kajima #8 tank). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Boxwood Ave with the teachings of Kajima before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for ergonomic ease of operation and labor. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 26, Boxwood Ave as modified by Kajima teaches a method of at least one fastening mechanism for removably connecting parts of the conduit to a stem of a Christmas tree (Kajima Fig. 1 and 2 #10); wherein the at least one fastening mechanism comprises a fastening clip or a fastening strap (Kajima Fig. 1 and 2 #10 and #5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Boxwood Ave with the teachings of Kajima before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent undesired displacement and to target regions of the tree as taught by Kajima. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding Claim 17, Boxwood Ave as modified by Kajima is silent on explicitly teaching the conduit is made of cardboard, polyurethane, vinyl, rubber, or polymer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Boxwood Ave before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for durability or flexibility or known physical properties. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize operation and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely the selection of a known material for intended use [/n re Leshin 125 USPQ 416]. Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boxwood Ave., 4 Proven Ways to Keep Your Christmas Tree Fresh Through December [retrieved from internet 02 December 2025 https://boxwoodavenue.com/how-to-keep-christmas-tree-fresh/] 13 pages; posted 15 November 2019; wayback machine to 30 July 2021 in view of Chinese Patent CN 107683844 to Wang et al. Regarding Claims 5, 6 and 7, Boxwood Ave is silent on the conduit comprises at least one side wall, and wherein the at least one opening extends through said side wall; the side wall is at least partially permeable to mist generated by the humidifier. However, Wang teaches a conduit with at least one side wall and at least one opening extends through said side wall and the side wall is at least partially permeable to mist generated by the humidifier (Wang Fig. 3 #7 and #6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Boxwood Ave with the teachings of Wang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve good coverage as taught by Wang. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding Claim 9, Boxwood Ave as modified teaches the conduit comprises a first end connected or connectable to the humidifier and an opposite, second end, and wherein the openings arranged closer to the second end of the conduit have a diameter that is larger than a diameter of openings arranged closer to the first end of the conduit (Wang Fig. 3 openings #6 in lower branch are smaller than openings #7 in closer to the tip of the main branch; openings #7 are larger at top of #5 and smaller at bottom of #5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Boxwood Ave with the teachings of Wang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for good coverage as taught by Wang. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Regarding Claim 10, Boxwood Ave as modified teaches the conduit comprises a first end connected or connectable to the humidifier and an opposite, second end, and wherein an inner diameter of the conduit at its first end is larger than an inner diameter of the conduit at its second end (Wang Fig. 3 diameter of #5 at bottom is larger than diameter of portion with apertures #6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Boxwood Ave with the teachings of Wang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for good coverage as taught by Wang and a controlled flow rate. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boxwood Ave., 4 Proven Ways to Keep Your Christmas Tree Fresh Through December [retrieved from internet 02 December 2025 https://boxwoodavenue.com/how-to-keep-christmas-tree-fresh/] 13 pages; posted 15 November 2019; wayback machine to 30 July 2021 in view of China Patent CN 209643515 to Xia et al. Regarding Claim 23, Boxwood Ave is silent on comprising a humidity sensor (Xia #551) configured to generate air-humidity-data representative of an air humidity surrounding the Christmas tree and wherein the watering system comprises a control unit (Xia #552) configured to: receive air- humidity-data representative of an air humidity surrounding the tree; determine a mist-flow- signal on the basis of the humidity data; adjust a flow of water mist provided by the humidifier on the basis of the mist-flow-signal. However, Xia teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a humidity sensor (Xia #551) adapted for generating air-humidity-data representative of an air humidity surrounding the Christmas tree and wherein the watering system comprises a control unit (Xia #552) configured to: receive air- humidity-data representative of an air humidity surrounding the tree; determine a mist-flow-signal on the basis of the humidity data; adjust a flow of water mist provided by the humidifier on the basis of the mist-flow-signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Boxwood Ave with the teachings of Xia before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for automated control of the system and to ensure comfort of the tree as taught by Xia. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 09 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Boxwood Ave teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to mist/humidify felled Christmas trees with warm mist (Boxwood Ave pages 5 and 6). In addition, not used in the grounds of rejection but mentioned here as evidentiary support, German Patent DE 202004007364 to Romer further supports the general knowledge that it is known to mist/humidify felled Christmas trees with a conduit and conduit outlet position adjacent to the felled tree (Romer Fig. 1 #3, #6, 37). Applicant does not provide a structural distinction in the independent claim over the teachings of Boxwood Ave. The broad nature of the claim is satisfied by the teachings of Boxwood Ave. The dependent claims get more into the structural features of the apparatus, but these features are merely known systems of transporting and administering moisture to trees as taught by Kajima and Xia. Modifications by Kajima and/or Xia as applied above are merely applications of known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Boxwood Ave as the primary reference teaches the application of the mist to felled trees and the supporting references merely provide known means of water transport and outlet positioning. The secondary reference is not cited to teach the mist discharge. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record. 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 ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time. 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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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. /ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643 02 December 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 09, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593760
TREE GUARD ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588657
Stock Tank Guard
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12550834
AUTONOMOUS WALL MOUNTED GARDEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550833
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND SUSTAINING A COOL MICROCLIMATE IN AN ARTIFICIAL VALLEY, AND USE OF STRUCTURE FOR VALORIZATION AND REMEDIATION OF BAUXITE RESIDUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12507646
AQUAPONICS SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
42%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+58.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 736 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month