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 .
Response to Amendment
Note that claims 1 and 16 filed on 11/17/2025 do not appear to include claim text with required markings with respect to the text of original previously presented claims 1 and 16. More specifically, the claims include additional text which appear to be an attempt to amend, however without the indications of addition by underlining the added text in claim 1 and underlining text that was already present in the previously presented claim 16. In the interests of efficiency, the claims have been examined below; however, please note that any future amendment included in a response to this Detailed Action must set forth the claims with correct annotations as explained in 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation “the cover is provided with an aperture in a top face”. It is not clear if this is the same as one of the two holes recited in claim 1, or a separate aperture in the cover.
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, 5, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (WO 2024/240160).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a capsule (Fig. 1) for being inserted in a ground proximate a tree (1) for providing nutrients (5) to the tree through roots of the tree (Fig. 1), the capsule comprising: a hollow body (2) with a closed end (bottom of (2)) and an opposite open end (top of (2)), the hollow body having a container portion proximate the closed end (space towards the bottom of (2)) and a distribution portion between the container portion and the open end (paragraph [0011] of the machine translation, space along the side near the top of (2)), the container portion having a solid container wall (Fig. 1, paragraph [0054] of the machine translation), the distribution portion having a lateral distribution wall with at least one perforation (paragraph [0054] of the machine translation teaches that the upper side of the capsule has an opening/perforation); and a cover (paragraph [0053] teaches a cover is available for each embodiment discussed), the cover being removably connected to the open end for selectively closing the open end, the cover having a hole (paragraph [0053] teaches a cover used to reduce evaporation of water from nutrient solution which would have to be removed to add more, additionally, paragraph [0058] states that an optional air hole is provided on the cover), wherein when the capsule is inserted closed end first in the ground proximate the tree (Fig. 1) and with the cover in contact with ambient air (paragraph [0058] lines 9-11 states the air hole is connected to the atmosphere, i.e. ambient air), the container portion is operable to receive the nutrients inserted through the open end (Fig. 1), the nutrients being accessible to the roots through the at least one perforation (Fig. 1), the cover being operable to close the open end of the hollow body once the nutrients are contained in the container portion thereby preventing removal of the nutrients (paragraph [0053] teaches a cover used to reduce evaporation of water from nutrient solution), the hole in the cover being operative to allow a flow in and out of the hollow body to occur (paragraph [0058] lines 9-11 states the air hole is connected to the atmosphere, i.e. ambient air to balance air pressure inside and outside the hollow body – which would allow for flow in and out of the hollow body to occur).
Liang does not explicitly disclose the cover having two holes. However, 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 capsule of Liang to include a second hole, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a separate intake hole and an exhaust hole for more optimal airflow with a continuous stream of air exchange.
Regarding claim 2, Liang teaches the capsule of claim 1, and teaches wherein the hollow body is cylindrical (Fig. 1, paragraph [0027] describes the hollow body having a cylindrical shell).
Regarding claim 3, Liang teaches the capsule of claim 1, however, Liang is not explicit as to wherein the hollow body has a height, the container portion extending between 10% and 75% of the height.
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 container portion of the capsule of Liang to be between 10% and 75% of the height based on Fig. 1 estimations and having a certain amount of nutrient solution that would be available in the capsule for a certain length of time.
Regarding claim 5, Liang teaches the capsule of claim 1, and teaches wherein the at least one perforation is fewer than 20 perforations (Fig. 1 shows one perforation).
Regarding claim 11, Liang teaches a method of providing nutrients (5) to a tree (1), the method comprising: inserting the capsule of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) in a ground proximate the tree (1) so that the closed end is inserted first and so that the open end and the cover are proximate a surface of the ground (Fig. 1), the cover being in contact with ambient air (paragraph [0058] lines 9-11 states the air hole is connected to the atmosphere, i.e. ambient air to balance air pressure inside and outside the hollow body – which would allow for flow in and out of the hollow body to occur); placing the nutrients (5) in the container portion (space towards the bottom of (2)); providing roots (12) of the tree (1) access to the nutrients through the at least one perforation (paragraph [0054] of the machine translation teaches that the upper side of the capsule has an opening/perforation) located in the ground above the container portion (Fig. 1), and providing a flow in and out of the hollow body through the two holes in the cover (paragraph [0058] lines 9-11 states the air hole is connected to the atmosphere, i.e. ambient air to balance air pressure inside and outside the hollow body – which would allow for flow in and out of the hollow body to occur).
Regarding claim 16, Liang teaches a method for improving health of a tree (1) planted in a ground (Fig. 1), the method comprising: providing roots (12) of the tree (1) access to nutrients (5) placed in the container portion (space towards the bottom of (2)) of the capsule of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) through the at least one perforation (paragraph [0054] of the machine translation teaches that the upper side of the capsule has an opening/perforation), the capsule being inserted in the ground so that the at least one perforation is placed above the container portion (Fig. 1) and so that the cover is in contact with ambient air and a flow is created between the ambient air and the hollow body through the two holes (paragraph [0058] lines 9-11 states the air hole is connected to the atmosphere, i.e. ambient air to balance air pressure inside and outside the hollow body – which would allow for flow in and out of the hollow body to occur).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (WO 2024/240160) as applied to claim 3 and 2 above respectively, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 107006349).
Regarding claim 4, Liang teaches the capsule of claim 3, however Liang does not teach wherein the container portion extends between 10% and 50% of the height.
Wang et al. teaches a capsule having a container portion (30) extending between 10% and 50% of the height (Fig. 1).
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 container portion of the capsule of Liang to extend between 10% and 50% of the height as taught by Wang et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide more space in the distribution portion for access for the roots of the tree. Additionally, no criticality has been provided as to the specific height of the container portion.
Regarding claim 9, Liang teaches the capsule of claim 2. However, Liang does not explicitly teach wherein the closed end is conical.
Wang et al. teaches a capsule comprising a closed end that is conical (Fig. 1, paragraph [0032] of the machine translation).
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 capsule of Liang to include a conical end shape as taught by Wang et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help identify the level of nutrient solution inside and to make it easier to obtain all nutrient solution within the container portion.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (WO 2024/240160) as applied to claim 1 and 2 above respectively, and further in view of Ross (US 2025/0031636).
Regarding claim 6, Liang teaches the capsule of claim 1. However, Liang does not explicitly teach wherein a diameter of the at least one perforation is comprised between 7,9 mm (7/6 in) and 76,2mm (3 in).
Ross teaches a capsule (100) having a hollow body (101) comprising a diameter of the at least one perforation (105) is comprised between 1 mm to 10 mm (paragraph [0025] discussing the perforations).
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 diameter of the at least one perforation of the capsule of Liang to be changed to between 7.9 mm to 76.2 mm to allow for larger roots to be able to engage with the nutrient solution. Further it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Here, the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, Liang teaches the capsule of claim 2. However, Liang does not explicitly teach wherein the hollow body further comprises a thread running at least partially on an exterior of at least one of the solid container wall and the lateral distribution wall.
Ross teaches a capsule (100) having a hollow body (101) further comprises a thread (104) running at least partially on an exterior of at least one of the solid container wall and the lateral distribution wall (Figs. 1 and 9, along (101) exterior wall). 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 capsule of Liang to include an exterior thread as taught by Ross, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an easy method of driving the capsule into the ground (Ross: paragraph [0023]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (WO 2024/240160) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Summers (US 2022/0287253).
Regarding claim 7, Liang teaches the capsule of claim 1. However, Liang does not explicitly teach wherein the cover is lockable to the hollow body.
Summers teaches a capsule (100) comprising a cover (130) that is lockable to a hollow body (110), paragraph [0072] teaches a locking feature of the cover).
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 capsule of Liang to provide a cover that is lockable as taught by Summers, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide security for the capsule and to avoid incidences with pests or animals.
Regarding claim 8, Liang as modified by Summers teaches the capsule of claim 7, and teaches (references to Summers) wherein the cover (130) is provided with an aperture (410) in a top face to let rainwater accumulate in the container portion, the top face being opposite to the closed end when the cover is installed on the hollow cylindrical body (Figs. 1, 4A).
Claims 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (WO 2024/240160) as applied to claim 11 and 16 above respectively, and further in view of Felknor et al. (US 2009/0255180).
Regarding claim 12, Liang teaches the method of claim 11. However, Liang does not explicitly teach the method further comprising adding a solid mix to the capsule.
Felknor et al. teaches nutrient providing method, wherein the method includes adding a solid mix to the capsule (paragraph [0026] teaches the addition of a solid mix to the receptacle (i.e. capsule)).
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 method of Liang to include the use of a solid mix as taught by Felknor et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would just have to be water soluable, since water is also being provided to the capsule (Felknor et al.: paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Liang as modified by Felknor et al. teaches the method of claim 12, and teaches (references to Felknor et al.) the method further comprising impregnating the solid mix with the nutrients (paragraph [0026] teaches nutrients being added/impregnation to the solid mix).
Regarding claim 15, Liang as modified by Felknor et al. teaches the method of claim 13, and teaches (references to Liang) the method further comprising replenishing the container portion with additional nutrients (Fig. 2 shows a nutrient solution storage container (43) that can be connected the capsule to replenish when needed).
Regarding claim 17, Liang teaches the method of claim 16. However, Liang does not explicitly teach the method further comprising adding a solid mix to the capsule.
Felknor et al. teaches nutrient providing method, wherein the method includes adding a solid mix to the capsule (paragraph [0026] teaches the addition of a solid mix to the receptacle (i.e. capsule)).
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 method of Liang to include the use of a solid mix as taught by Felknor et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would just have to be water soluable, since water is also being provided to the capsule (Felknor et al.: paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 18, Liang as modified by Felknor et al. teaches the method of claim 17, and teaches (references to Felknor et al.) the method further comprising impregnating the solid mix with the nutrients (paragraph [0026] teaches nutrients being added/impregnation to the solid mix).
Regarding claim 20, Liang as modified by Felknor et al. teaches the method of claim 18, and teaches (references to Liang) the method further comprising replenishing the container portion with additional nutrients (Fig. 2 shows a nutrient solution storage container (43) that can be connected the capsule to replenish when needed).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (WO 2024/240160) in view of Felknor et al. (US 2009/0255180) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rohrer et al. (WO 2016/040564).
Regarding claim 14, Liang as modified by Felknor et al. teaches the method of claim 13. However, Liang as modified by Felknor et al. does not explicitly teach the method further comprising, prior to the impregnating, diluting the nutrients with gelatin and humic acid in water, thereby creating a solution.
Rohrer et al. teaches a micronutrient fertilizer that diluting the nutrients with gelatin and humic acid in water, thereby creating a solution (paragraph [0022] teaches both gelatin and humic acid may be used in water). 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 method of Liang modified by Felknor et al. to include gelatin and humic acid as taught by Rohrer et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since Rohrer et al. determined using these additional components can help stabilize the dispersion of the micronutrient (Rohrer et al.: paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 19, Liang as modified by Felknor et al. teaches the method of claim 18. However, Liang as modified by Felknor et al. does not explicitly teach the method further comprising, prior to the impregnating, diluting the nutrients with gelatin and humic acid in water, thereby creating a solution.
Rohrer et al. teaches a micronutrient fertilizer that diluting the nutrients with gelatin and humic acid in water, thereby creating a solution (paragraph [0022] teaches both gelatin and humic acid may be used in water). 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 method of Liang modified by Felknor et al. to include gelatin and humic acid as taught by Rohrer et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since Rohrer et al. determined using these additional components can help stabilize the dispersion of the micronutrient (Rohrer et al.: paragraph [0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 16, applicant argued that Liang teaches away from provided a cover with two holes. Therefore, applicant argued that any combination of prior art using Liang would not be considered obvious.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Within applicant’s argument, they note a passage in the specification of Liang about preventing harmful substances from entering the hydroponic container. However, applicant did not note that passage listed was in reference to Fig. 8b where there are multiple hollow bodies positioned in a vertical configuration. Applicant should also note, however, as expressed above in the rejection, Liang also notes that air holes can be optionally placed in the cover for balancing air pressures inside and outside of the container. Therefore, there is an embodiment within Liang that teaches at least one hole in the cover, and thus Liang does not teach away from the claim limitation. Therefore, Liang reads on the amended claim limitations.
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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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 M 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.
/C.W.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643