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 .
Application Status
Claims 14-27 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 1-13 are cancelled, claims 21-27 are new, claims 17-19 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 2, the structure, claims 14-27 in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claims 14-27 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.
Claims 14 and 21 recite “a structure, comprising a structure”, however it is unclear if the second stated ‘structure’ is the same as the first stated ‘structure’, or if these two elements are different and the second stated ‘structure’ is just a component of the first stated ‘structure.
Claims 14 and 21 state “a material, wherein the structure is configured to include an amount of material”. ‘an amount of material’ appears to lack a term to properly indicate antecedent basis, and it is unclear if this second stated material is meant to be the same or different from the first stated material.
Claim 16 recites ‘wherein container’, which appears to have a missing word which makes the limitation indefinite. It is unclear if applicant intended for claim 16 to be dependent on claim 15, where the container previously indicated in claim 15 is now being further defined to include the material, or if applicant intended for claim 16 to read as ‘wherein a container’, thereby further defining claim 14 as having a container as part of its structure.
Claim 23 is similarly indefinite for similar reasons with respect to claims 21, 22.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-16, 20-23, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US 0116001 A) to Gilbert.
In regards to claim 14, Gilbert anticipates a structure, comprising a structure configured to fit around at least part of a spear leaf of a palm tree (Gilbert; structure A, B wrapped around the tree), wherein the structure is configured to include a material, wherein the structure is configured to include an amount of material to be released onto the palm tree for a period of time (Gilbert; the structure A configured to hold fertilizer and “as a destructive agent for insect larvae and funguses” being a pesticide; configured to release the material onto the tree over a period of time) (Where the device of Gilbert is configured to be used around part of a spear leaf of a palm tree).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Gilbert anticipates the structure of claim 14, wherein the structure includes a container configured to hold the material (Gilbert; structure A forming a container within which the fertilizer/destructive insect larvae agent is held).
In regards to claim 16, Gilbert anticipates the structure of claim 14, wherein container includes the material, wherein the material is selected from a fertilizer or a pesticide (Gilbert; structure A holding a fertilizer and “a destructive agent for insect larvae and funguses”; thereby holding both a fertilizer and a pesticide).
In regards to claim 19, Gilbert anticipates the structure of claim 14, wherein the structure has a ring torus shape or substantially ring torus shape (Gilbert; the structure A B is substantially ring torus shaped such that it can be wrapped around a tree with the rounded interior containing the fertilizer/pesticide, see FIG 1, and there being an opening in the center), wherein the structure having the ring torus shape or substantially the ring torus shape is configured to slide down the length of the spear leaf (Gilbert; A being capable of sliding down the length of a spear leaf when being placed due to the opening in the center).
In regards to claim 20, Gilbert anticipates the structures of claim 14, wherein the structure has an opening in the middle region of the structure and has a dimension so that the structure fits around at least part of the spear leaf (Gilbert; the structure A B has an opening in the center to fit around a tree, and is of a dimension that it can be adjusted to fit around part of a spear leaf).
In regards to claim 21, Gilbert anticipates a structure, comprising a structure configured to fit around at least part of a tree (Gilbert; structure A, B wrapped around the tree), wherein the structure is configured to include a material, wherein the structure is configured to include an amount of material to be released for a period of time (Gilbert; the structure A configured to hold fertilizer and “as a destructive agent for insect larvae and funguses” being a pesticide; configured to release the material onto the tree over a period of time).
In regards to claim 22, Gilbert anticipates the structure of claim 21, wherein the structure includes a container configured to hold the material (Gilbert; structure A forming a container within which the fertilizer/destructive insect larvae agent is held).
In regards to claim 23, Gilbert anticipates the structure of claim 21, wherein container includes the material, wherein the material is selected from a fertilizer or a pesticide (Gilbert; structure A holding a fertilizer and “a destructive agent for insect larvae and funguses”; thereby holding both a fertilizer and a pesticide).
In regards to claim 26, Gilbert anticipates the structure of claim 21, wherein the structure has a ring torus shape or substantially ring torus shape (Gilbert; the structure A B is substantially ring torus shaped such that it can be wrapped around a tree with the rounded interior containing the fertilizer/pesticide, see FIG 1, and there being an opening in the center).
In regards to claim 27, Gilbert anticipates the structures of claim 21, wherein the structure has an opening in the middle region of the structure and has a dimension so that the structure fits around at least part of the tree (Gilbert; the structure A B has an opening in the center to fit around a tree, and is of a dimension that it can fit around a tree).
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) 17-18, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 0116001 A) to Gilbert.
In regards to claim 17, Gilbert teaches the structure of claim 16, wherein the structure comprises the fertilizer, wherein the structure includes an amount of fertilizer to fertilize the palm tree for a period of time (Gilbert; structure A holding a fertilizer to use for a period of time as the tree is saturated).
Gilbert fails to explicitly teach wherein the period of time is about 1 week to 3 months.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of fertilizer such that it fertilizes for a period of time for about 1 week to 3 months, since this is not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, the period of time for fertilization can depend on the size of the container, the amount of fertilizer, the size of the structure in contact with the tree, weather, the type of fertilizer used, the type of material of the container, etc. The time period being 1 week to 3 months does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, this range is not critical, as the specification states the time period can be week to 3 to 6 months or more [0019], or that material is released about 1 week to 5 years [0001], thereby providing no criticality as to the specific time period of 1 week to 3 months. The motivation for this range would be to allow for a user to place the treatment for a prolonged period of time to reduce the labor required to treat or change out treatment.
In regards to claim 18, Gilbert teaches the structure of claim 16, wherein the structure comprises the pesticide, wherein the structure includes an amount of pesticide to treat the palm tree for a period of time (Gilbert; structure A holding a fertilizer and “a destructive agent for insect larvae and funguses”; thereby holding both a fertilizer and a pesticide; to use for a period of time as the tree is saturated).
Gilbert fails to explicitly teach wherein the period of time is about 1 week to 2 years.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of pesticide such that it treats the tree for a period of time for about 1 week to 3 years, since this is not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, the period of time for treatment can depend on the size of the container, the amount of pesticide, the size of the structure in contact with the tree, weather, the type of pesticide used, the type of material of the container, etc. The time period being 1 week to 2 years does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, this range is not critical, as the specification states the time period can be week to years [0002] without specifying how many years, or that material is released about 1 week to 5 years [0001], thereby providing no criticality as to the specific time period of 1 week to 2 years. The motivation for this range would be to allow for a user to place the treatment for a prolonged period of time to reduce the labor required to treat or change out treatment.
In regards to claim 24, Gilbert teaches the structure of claim 23, wherein the structure comprises the fertilizer, wherein the structure includes an amount of fertilizer to fertilize the tree for a period of time (Gilbert; structure A holding a fertilizer to use for a period of time as the tree is saturated).
Gilbert fails to explicitly teach wherein the period of time is about 1 week to 3 months.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of fertilizer such that it fertilizes for a period of time for about 1 week to 3 months, since this is not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, the period of time for fertilization can depend on the size of the container, the amount of fertilizer, the size of the structure in contact with the tree, weather, the type of fertilizer used, the type of material of the container, etc. The time period being 1 week to 3 months does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, this range is not critical, as the specification states the time period can be week to 3 to 6 months or more [0019], or that material is released about 1 week to 5 years [0001], thereby providing no criticality as to the specific time period of 1 week to 3 months. The motivation for this range would be to allow for a user to place the treatment for a prolonged period of time to reduce the labor required to treat or change out treatment.
In regards to claim 25, Gilbert teaches the structure of claim 23, wherein the structure comprises the pesticide, wherein the structure includes an amount of pesticide to treat the palm tree for a period of time (Gilbert; structure A holding a fertilizer and “a destructive agent for insect larvae and funguses”; thereby holding both a fertilizer and a pesticide; to use for a period of time as the tree is saturated).
Gilbert fails to explicitly teach wherein the period of time is about 1 week to 2 years.
Gilbert fails to explicitly teach wherein the period of time is about 1 week to 2 years.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of pesticide such that it treats the tree for a period of time for about 1 week to 3 years, since this is not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, the period of time for treatment can depend on the size of the container, the amount of pesticide, the size of the structure in contact with the tree, weather, the type of pesticide used, the type of material of the container, etc. The time period being 1 week to 2 years does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, this range is not critical, as the specification states the time period can be week to years [0002] without specifying how many years, or that material is released about 1 week to 5 years [0001], thereby providing no criticality as to the specific time period of 1 week to 2 years. The motivation for this range would be to allow for a user to place the treatment for a prolonged period of time to reduce the labor required to treat or change out treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180160630 A1 to Allard could be used as a 102 for at least the independent claims, having a substantially torus ring shaped structure which contains and allows for the release of fertilizer over a period of time, the device capable of fitting around a portion of a tree or spear leaf of a palm tree.
US 6108968 A to Peng could be used as a 102 for at least the independent claims, having a ring shaped structure which contains and allows for the release of a pesticide over a period of time, the device capable of fitting around a portion of a tree or a branch, or a spear leaf of a palm tree.
US 20230363329 A1 to Kim teaches the delayed release of fertilizer over several years.
US 6192623 B1 to Higginbotham teaches a slow release of fertilizer mixture for a year.
US 1554865 A to Harry teaches a fertilizer device substantially in a ring torus shape which is configured to fit around a portion of a tree and contain fertilizer.
US 0989325 A to Bremer teaches a structure with a ring torus shape, filled with insecticide and configured to release the insecticide slowly to a tree over a period of time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647