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 .
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of at least the following informalities:
dependent claims introducing new elements should have the transitional phrase “further comprising” instead of “wherein”. See, e.g., claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the fluid jumper pipe" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Even in light of applicant’s disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that claim 5 is dependent on claim 4.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the fluid infill opening" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Even in light of applicant’s disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carry (FR 2466187 A1), hereafter referred to as “Carry”, in view of Claus et al. (WO 2012155979 A1), hereafter referred to as “Claus”.
Regarding claim 1, Carry teaches a system (figs. 1-2) comprising:
a planter or pot (1) configured to receive at least one plant with a root base embedded in plant bedding material (T);
a fluid tank arrangement (2) comprising at least one tank (2, figs. 1-2) configured to be embedded in the plant bedding material (fig. 1), and the at least one tank being configured to contain irrigation fluid (fig. 1);
a continuous wick (7; fig. 1);
and wherein the continuous wick is configured to originate from inside the fluid tank arrangement (fig. 1 showing elements 7 originating from 2), whereby fluid inside the fluid tank arrangement is configured to be conveyed by the continuous wick through a fluid outlet (one element 3; figs. 1-2) to the plant root base by capillary action (see attached machine translation, abstract).
As shown above, Carry teaches the continuous wick, but does not explicitly teach:
at least one irrigation pipe with the continuous wick;
at least one irrigation stake comprising a tipped end configured to be embedded in the bedding material in proximity to the root base of the at least one plant, said at least one irrigation stake being coupled to the fluid tank arrangement by the at least one irrigation pipe;
and wherein the continuous wick of the at least one irrigation pipe is configured… to extend through the at least one irrigation stake to a fluid outlet in proximity to the tipped end of the at least one irrigation stake.
Claus teaches a system (figs. 1-3) including at least one irrigation pipe (WL; fig. 1) with a continuous wick (SB; figs. 1-2);
at least one irrigation stake (SP; fig. 2) comprising a tipped end (SS; fig. 2) configured to be embedded in the bedding material in proximity to the root base of the at least one plant (fig. 2), said at least one irrigation stake being coupled to a fluid tank arrangement by the at least one irrigation pipe (see attached machine translation, page 1, paragraph 3);
and wherein the continuous wick of the at least one irrigation pipe is configured… to extend through the at least one irrigation stake to a fluid outlet (E21, E22; fig. 2) in proximity to the tipped end of the at least one irrigation stake (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carry to include at least one irrigation pipe that includes the continuous wick, at least one irrigation stake comprising a tipped end configured to be embedded in the bedding material in proximity to the root base of the at least one plant, said at least one irrigation stake being coupled to the fluid tank arrangement by the at least one irrigation pipe, and wherein the continuous wick of the at least one irrigation pipe is configured to extend through the at least one irrigation stake to a fluid outlet in proximity to the tipped end of the at least one irrigation stake, as taught by Claus, in order to improve irrigation to the plants via the wick (machine translation, page 2, paragraphs 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 1, and Carry further teaches that the fluid tank arrangement (2) comprises at least one master tank (2) and optionally at least one slave tank, and wherein the at least one master tank couples to the optionally at least one slave tank by a fluid jumper pipe (it is noted that this limitation is optional and not positively recited).
Regarding claim 3, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 2, and Carry further teaches that the at least one master tank (2) includes a fluid infill opening (opening within element 4; figs. 1-2) or filling cap (5).
Regarding claim 7, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 2, and Carry further teaches that the at least one master tank (2) is configured to be disposed below a surface of the plant bedding material (T) of the planter or pot (1; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 3, and Carry further teaches that an air breather (opening within element 4; figs. 1-2) is coupled to the filling cap (5) of the at least one master tank (2) or is disposed in the vicinity of the filling cap (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 2, and further teaches wherein an air breather is coupled to one end of the at least one slave tank, and an extender pipe is coupled to the air breather, thereby allowing the air pressure inside the at least one slave tank to be equalized with the ambience (it is noted that the at least one slave tank of claim 2 is an optional limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 2, and Carry further teaches that the at least one master tank (2) comprises an extender (4; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 1, and Carry further teaches wherein the fluid tank arrangement (2) is configured to be removably arranged in the planter or pot (1; fig. 1 showing that 2 is positioned within soil T and is thus removeable).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings of Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 2, and further teaches that a top wall or an upper side wall portion of the at least one tank (surface shown in fig. 2 of element 2 of Carry) of the fluid tank arrangement (2 of Carry) comprises at least one opening (at least one element 3; fig. 2) allowing the at least one irrigation pipe (WL as relied on Claus; fig. 1 of Claus) with its continuous wick (7 of Carry; fig. 1 of Carry; see also figs. 1-2 of Claus) to be inserted into the at least one tank (fig. 1 of Carry).
Regarding claim 15, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach at least two fluid irrigation stakes are configured to be embedded in the planter or pot, said at least two fluid irrigation stakes having the same or different lengths; and/or said at least two fluid irrigation stakes being configured to dispense different amounts of fluid to the at least one plant in the vicinity of its root base.
It is well settled, however, that that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second fluid irrigation stake having the same length, in order to effectively water plants in planters/pots in various shapes (e.g., elongated shaped planters/pots).
Regarding claim 16, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 1, and Carry further teaches that the at least one tank (2) comprises a fluid depth gauge/sensor (5) coupled to the fluid infill opening (opening within 4; figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 1, and Carry further teaches that the fluid tank arrangement (2) comprises at least one draining hole (a second element 3; figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 3, and Carry further teaches that the fluid infill opening (opening within 4) is formed in an infill pipe (4; figs. 1-2), but does not explicitly teach that the infill pipe is removably connected to the at least one tank (1).
It is well settled, however, that forming in two pieces a component that had formerly been in one piece involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04, citing In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Here, applicant has not shown patentable significance of making the infill pipe removable from the at least one tank. It would have been obvious to make the insert removable from the base, in order to simplify manufacturing of the fluid tank and improve cleaning of the infill pipe.
Regarding claim 19, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 1, and Carry further teaches that the at least one tank (2) has a circular arc shape (fig. 2), but does not explicitly teach that the circular arc is 180 degrees or less than 180 degrees, or wherein the circular arc is preferably any of 120 degrees, 90 degrees or 45 degrees.
It is well settled, however, that merely changing the size or shape of a prior art device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular size or shape was significant (MPEP 2144, citing In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).) In this case, applicant has not shown patentable significance of the circular arc being 180 degrees or less than 180 degrees, or wherein the circular arc is preferably any of 120 degrees, 90 degrees or 45 degrees (see, e.g., the instant specification at page 34, lines 25-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Carry in view of Claus, such that the circular arc is 180 degrees or less than 180 degrees, or wherein the circular arc is preferably any of 120 degrees, 90 degrees or 45 degrees, in order to accommodate the shape of the planter/pot used.
Regarding claim 20, Carry in view of Claus teaches use of a planter or pot irrigation system (claim 1 of Carry) according to claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above) in a pot or planter (1 of Carry).
Claims 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carry in view of Carry as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lyon (US 6715233 B2), hereafter referred to as “Lyon”.
Regarding claim 4, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach that the fluid tank arrangement comprises at least one master tank and at least two slave tanks, and wherein the at least one master tank couples to the at least two slave tanks in series by a fluid jumper pipe connecting two adjacent slave tanks.
Lyon teaches a system (figs. 1-8) including a fluid tank arrangement (10, 12, 14; fig. 8) including at least one master tank (10) and at least two slave tanks (12, 14), and wherein the at least one master tank couples to the at least two slave tanks in series by a fluid jumper pipe (elements 28) connecting two adjacent slave tanks (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carry in view of Claus, such that the fluid tank arrangement includes the one master tank and at least two slave tanks, wherein the at least one master tank couples to the at least two slave tanks in series by a fluid jumper pipe connecting two adjacent slave tanks, as taught by Lyon, in order to further improve irrigation of the plants by allowing the system to be expandable to fit any size planter (Lyon at col. 3, lines 56-63).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Carry in view of Claus and Lyon teaches the system of claim 41, and further teaches that the fluid jumper pipe (28 as relied on Lyon) coupling the at least one master tank (2 of Carry; refer to element 10 of Lyon) to the at least one slave tank (12, 14 as relied on Lyon) is located in proximity to a bottom end of the respective tanks (fig. 8 of Lyon).
Regarding claim 6, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach an air equalizing pipe coupling the at least one master tank to the at least one slave tank is located in proximity to a top end of the respective tanks.
Lyon teaches a system (figs. 1-8) including an air equalizing pipe (26) coupling the at least one master tank (10) to the at least one slave tank (12, 14) is located in proximity to a top end of the respective tanks (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carry in view of Claus to include at least one slave tank, and an air equalizing pipe coupling the at least one master tank to the at least one slave tank is located in proximity to a top end of the respective tanks, as taught by Lyon, in order to further improve irrigation of the plants by allowing the system to be expandable to fit any size planter (Lyon at col. 3, lines 56-63).
Regarding claim 10, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach the at least one master tank and the at least one slave tank are unitary, or wherein the at least one master tank and the at least one slave tank are comprised of at least two interconnected sections.
Lyon teaches a system (figs. 1-8) including at least one master tank (10) and the at least one slave tank (12, 14) are comprised of at least two interconnected sections (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carry in view of Claus to include at least one slave tank, and the at least one master tank and the at least one slave tank are comprised of at least two interconnected sections, as taught by Lyon, in order to further improve irrigation of the plants by allowing the system to be expandable to fit any size planter (Lyon at col. 3, lines 56-63).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carry in view of Claus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arca (US 3576088 A), hereafter referred to as “Arca”.
Regarding claim 14, Carry in view of Claus teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a weight coupled to the at least one wick in a position inside the fluid tank arrangement.
Arca teaches a system (figs. 1-10) including a weight (57) coupled to a wick (56) in a position inside a fluid tank arrangement (50; fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Carry in view of Claus to include a weight coupled to the at least one wick in a position inside the fluid tank arrangement, as taught by Arca, in order to hold the wick in water (col. 1, lines 18-27 of Arca).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 For purposes of examination, it is assumed that claim 5 is dependent on claim 4.