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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on February 10, 2026. Claims 1, 6-9, and 18-19 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 1-5 and 11-18 remain withdrawn per the Response to Election/Restriction filed on August 19, 2025. Claims 1-19 are currently pending. This action is made FINAL.
Election/Restrictions
The Requirement for Restriction/Election is made final. Claims 1-5 and 11-18 remain withdrawn as being directed to non-elected Inventions I, III, and IV and Species A and C-E. Upon indication of allowable subject matter pertaining to the elected invention/species, rejoinder will be considered for the applicable claims. Applicant is invited to continue to amend withdrawn claims; amendments to withdrawn claims will be considered along with rejoinder at the indication of allowable subject matter of the elected invention/species.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 11, it is suggested to amend the phrase “the user” to --a user-- as a “user” has not been previously introduced.
In claim 6, line 11, it is suggested to include a semicolon at the end of the line to maintain more consistent formatting throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry (US 6,295,865 B1), hereinafter Cherry, in view of Oliver et al. (US 2015/0081058 A1), hereinafter Oliver.
Regarding claim 6, Cherry discloses a system for maintaining plants (see “Field of the Invention” section), where each plant is in a container with a growing medium (fig. 1, col 6, lines 31-33), comprising:
a processor (processor 34);
a user interface (display 28);
a platform (base 12) on which the container is placed (fig. 1);
a sensing device (weight sensor 22, transducer 24) that provides a characteristic value corresponding to a level of wetness in the growing medium in the container (col 4, lines 1-4, weight sensed by sensor 22 and transducer 24 corresponds to level of wetness in the growing medium);
the processor
to input from the user a water saturation level within the container (col 4, lines 23-29, user inputs a water saturation level by pressing reset push button 30 and generating reset signal to record a weight value when growing medium within the container is saturated)
to determine the level of wetness in the growing medium in the container as a function of the characteristic value (col 4, lines 23-53, device displays percentage difference between current weight recorded when a user presses status push button 32 compared to initial weight recorded when a user presses reset push button 30; this percentage corresponds to a current level of wetness as a function of the weight value, thus under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the processor determines level of wetness via change in weight);
from an initial non-saturated level in the container, automatically, as the user adds water into the container (col 4, lines 23-29, as the user adds water to the container and presses status push button 32, processor 34 calculates percent difference automatically; user does not manually determine the weight and calculate the percent difference),
to determine a current amount of increase in a degree of watering needed by the plant in the container (col 4, lines 23-53, device displays percentage difference between current weight recorded when a user presses status push button 32 compared to initial weight recorded when a user presses reset push button 30; thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the processor provides an estimate of the increase in degree of watering needed via percentage difference); and
via the user interface, to indicate to the user the current level of wetness in the growing medium and to signal to the user when to stop adding water to the container, thereby providing current measurement guidance to the user dispersing water (col 4, lines 23-53, device displays percentage difference between current weight recorded when a user presses status push button 32 compared to initial weight recorded when a user presses reset push button 30; thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, when percentage difference reaches 0% and current weight is equal to initial weight, user would be signaled to stop adding water, thereby providing measurement guidance to the user).
Cherry does not appear to specifically disclose:
at least one storage device;
an evaluation module comprising code that is stored in the at least one storage device and that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform functions.
However, Oliver is in the field of systems for maintaining plants (title; abstract) and teaches:
at least one storage device (memory 301);
an evaluation module comprising code (application 302) that is stored in the at least one storage device (fig. 3) and that, when executed by the processor (processing unit 300), causes the processor to perform functions (para [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for maintaining plants comprising a processor, user interface, and platform of Cherry to incorporate the storage device and evaluation module as taught by Oliver with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize well-understood computer components to optimize performance of the processor and system functions.
Regarding claim 7, Cherry as modified discloses the system of claim 6, and further discloses in which the sensing device is a soil probe (form Oliver, probe 199) and the characteristic value corresponds to a wetness depth within the container (from Oliver, para [0044]), the evaluation module (from Oliver, application 302) being further provided to input from the soil probe the wetness depth value corresponding to an indication on the soil probe (from Oliver, para [0044], probe 199 determines wetness depth by measuring moisture at various depth zones) and to compare the wetness depth value to a user-indicated maximum wetness depth corresponding to the water saturation level (from Oliver, para [0044] and para [0385]-[0386]).
Regarding claim 8, Cherry as modified discloses the system of claim 6, and further discloses where the evaluation module (from Oliver, application 302) is being provided for communicating to the user a quantity of water needed to reach the water saturation level (from Oliver, para [0159], “How much water 705 to apply can also be suggested to the user…”).
Regarding claim 9, Cherry as modified discloses the system of claim 6, and further discloses in which the sensing device (from Cherry, weight sensor 22, transducer 24) is a weight-measuring arrangement and the characteristic value is a weight value (from Cherry, col 4, lines 1-4), the evaluation module being further provided for inputting a weight signal from the weight-measuring arrangement and for signaling during the increase in the degree of watering of the plant in the container as a function of a measured change of weight of at least the plant, the container, and the growing medium as indicated by the weight signal (from Cherry, col 4, lines 23-53, processor 34 is capable of calculating a percent difference value corresponding to an increase in the degree of watering of the plant in the container as a function of the weight determined by weight sensor 22 and transducer 24; processor is further capable of signaling said percent difference value by displaying the percent difference to a user via display 28).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cherry (US 6,295,865 B1), hereinafter Cherry, in view of Oliver et al. (US 2015/0081058 A1), hereinafter Oliver, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Strain Measurement Devices (https://www.smdsensors.com/blog-calculate-flow-rate-using-weight/), hereinafter Strain Measurement Devices.
Regarding claim 10, Cherry as modified discloses the system of claim 9, but does not appear to specifically disclose:
for converting the measured change of weight into a rate of flow of water being added into the container.
However, Strain Measurement Devices is in the field of fluid dispensation (see page title “Mass Weighing for Flow Rate Measurement”) and teaches:
for converting the measured change of weight into a rate of flow of water being added into the container (see section “Measuring Flow Rate”, “The change in weight is divided by the amount of time it takes to calculate the rate of flow.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for maintaining plants comprising evaluation module of Cherry as modified to incorporate the teaching of converting change of weight into rate of flow as taught by Strain Measurement Devices with a reasonable expectation of success to accurately control watering of plants without use of a flow sensor, thereby reducing cost and complexity of the system (see section “Measuring Flow Rate”).
Cherry as modified further discloses:
for estimating a volume of water added into the container as a function of the rate of flow (from Oliver, para [0159], “moisture device 199 can calculate how much water was added” using water flow data); and
for estimating and signaling to the user when the estimated volume of water added reaches a threshold volume (from Oliver, para [0159], “When the correct amount of water 705 has been delivered…the mobile computing device 399 can alert the user”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cherry (US 6,295,865 B1), hereinafter Cherry, in view of Oliver et al. (US 2015/0081058 A1), hereinafter Oliver, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Strain Measurement Devices (https://www.smdsensors.com/blog-calculate-flow-rate-using-weight/), hereinafter Strain Measurement Devices, and Nickerson et al. (US 2019/0297797 A1), hereinafter Nickerson.
Regarding claim 19, Cherry as modified discloses the system of claim 9, but does not appear to specifically disclose in which the evaluation module is further provided for
automatically determining, from a measured rate of change of weight, a rate of flow of water being added into the container; and
signaling to the user when an estimated rate of change of water added into the container exceeded a rate threshold.
However, Strain Measurement Devices is in the field of fluid dispensation (see page title “Mass Weighing for Flow Rate Measurement”) and teaches in which the evaluation module is further provided for
determining, from a measured rate of change of weight, a rate of flow of water being added into the container (see section “Measuring Flow Rate”, “The change in weight is divided by the amount of time it takes to calculate the rate of flow.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for maintaining plants comprising evaluation module of Cherry as modified to incorporate the teaching of converting change of weight into rate of flow as taught by Strain Measurement Devices with a reasonable expectation of success to accurately control watering of plants without use of a flow sensor, thereby reducing cost and complexity of the system (see section “Measuring Flow Rate”).
Although Cherry as modified does not appear to specifically disclose automatically determining a rate of flow of water, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the system perform determinations automatically, with the motivation of reducing mental workload for a user, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Additionally, Nickerson is in the field of systems for maintaining plants (title; abstract) and teaches in which the evaluation module is further provided for
signaling to the user when an estimated rate of change of water added into the container exceeded a rate threshold (para [0053], sensor system 104 can provide flow notifications that indicate “whether the determined water flow rate exceeds one or more flow rate thresholds”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for maintaining plants comprising evaluation module of Cherry as modified to incorporate the teaching of signaling excessive rate of change of water to a user as taught by Nickerson with a reasonable expectation of success to protect plants from damage by overwatering (see section “Background” and para [0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 2-5 of 11), filed February 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 7 and 19 under §112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 7 and 19 under §112(a) has been withdrawn accordingly.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 7-10 of 11), filed February 10, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 6 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that “Cherry may provide the user with an instantaneous indication of a current relative weight of a potted plant as a percentage of a user-set tare weight, but provides no guidance to the user as to when to stop watering, and especially no real-time guidance”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully asserts that providing the current relative weight in the form of a percent different between an initial user-set weight and a current weight does, under broadest reasonable interpretation, provide guidance to a user as to when to stop watering. For example, when the percent difference reaches a low percentage (e.g., 10%), and the current weight is close to the initial weight, the user is guided to slow down. When the percent different reaches zero percent, and the current weight is equivalent to the initial weight, the user is guided to stop watering. The claims further do not appear to require that the measurements are taken continuously as the user adds water to the container continuously. The current scope of the claims appears to allow for taking measurements incrementally, as the claims does not appear to require that water must be added continuously. In response to Applicant’s further argument that “Cherry lacks all notion of automatic interactivity”, Cherry does in fact teach wherein the processor performs functions automatically, as the processor calculates the percent difference from the measured weights automatically absent intervention by the user; no manual calculations by the user are needed.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 10 of 11), filed February 10, 2026, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 7 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that “it would not be obvious to incorporate Oliver’s soil probe into Cherry” and that a “skilled designer would not contemplate combining Oliver with Cherry because what Cherry teaches would not be necessary at all”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully asserts that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Oliver with Cherry, as Oliver teaches additional benefits beyond that which is taught by Cherry. For example, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teachings of the soil probe as taught by Oliver with the device of Cherry in order to evaluate a soil wetness profile corresponding to wetness depth (para [0044]-[0045]). As such, a user would be able to evaluate the dispersion of water in the vertical direction and determine whether the water saturation extends throughout the entire depth of the container. The Examiner further notes that Applicant’s own disclosure admits that combining various wetness measurement techniques, such as weight measurement and wetness depth measurement, is well understood in the art (para [0046], “Any or all of the various techniques (depth-based, weight-based, volume-based) may of course be combined to guide the user, and to provide a backup for a user’s watering technique”).
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 10-11 of 11), filed February 10, 2026, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 8-10 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that it would not have been obvious to combine Oliver with Cherry.
In response to Applicant's argument that combining the teachings of Oliver with the teachings of Cherry would not have been obvious with regard to claims 8-10, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the teachings of Oliver as it pertains to claim 10 refer only to the ability estimate a volume of water added into the container as a function of the rate of flow and the ability to estimate and signal to the user when the estimated volume of water added reaches a threshold volume. The cited teachings do not require that the watering can or flow sensor of Oliver be bodily incorporated the device of Cherry.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights