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 Objections
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “wherein closing the mixing bowl with the dome involves threadingly engaging the first at least partial screw thread of the mixing bowl with the second at least partial screw thread of the dome and rotating the dome in a first direction.” Threadingly is not a recognized word and therefore should be deleted.
Claim 10 recites “perimeter of the dome; visible markings…” which should read “perimeter of the dome; and visible markings…”
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.
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 1-20 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 1- 3, 7-8, 12-13, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected for lack of clarity regarding their use of the term “may be.” “May” is a relative term and it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “may” are required by the claim. For example, claim 1 recites “a trigger mechanism that may be manually pulled in order to allow the flow of water through the root feeder device.” It is unclear what is actually required by this claim limitation. Examiner suggests changing the “may be” limitations to “configured to” language, such as “a trigger mechanism configured to be manually pulled in order to allow the flow of water through the root feeder device.” Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 8 is rejected for method step language within an apparatus claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Such a claim is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention. MPEP § 2173.05(p). The limitation “wherein closing the mixing bowl with the dome involves threadingly engaging the first at least partial screw thread of the mixing bowl with the second at least partial screw thread of the dome and rotating the dome in a first direction; and wherein the closing of the mixing bowl may be reversed in order to open the mixing bowl by rotating the dome in a second direction that is the opposite of the first direction” comprises method steps and is therefore improper in an apparatus claim. Suggested amended language includes: “wherein the mixing bowl is configured to be closed by the mixing bowl is configured to be ed by rotating the dome in a second direction that is the opposite of the first direction.” Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prothe (US 5322085 A, as cited by Applicant in IDS 06/26/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Prothe discloses an improved root feeder device (see fig 2) that when connected to an external water supply can be used for delivering hydro-fertilizer solutions or mixtures to plant root systems comprising:
a main body comprised of at least one handle (dual handles, see fig 2) and a mixing bowl (15);
a hose attachment coupling (13, see fig 2) for connecting the main body to a water supply (municipal water supply, see col 4, lines 40-54);
an elongated feeder tube (12, see fig 1) for delivery of hydro-fertilizer solution or mixture into soil below ground level;
a trigger mechanism (20, see fig 2 and col 5, lines 6-18) that may be manually pulled in order to allow the flow of water through the root feeder device.
Regarding claim 6, Prothe discloses the improved root feeder of claim 1, wherein the trigger mechanism is comprised of a contoured gripping structure (contoured handle 11, see fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Prothe discloses the improved root feeder of claim 1, further comprising a dome (16) that may be used to open or close the mixing bowl (see col 4, lines 61-67).
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) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shew (US-6032922-A).
Regarding claim 2, Prothe discloses the improved root feeder of claim 1.
Prothe fails to disclose further comprising a latch mechanism that may be pushed in a first direction in order to engage and hold the trigger mechanism in a locked position such that water will continue flowing through the root feeder device even after manual pulling on the trigger mechanism is discontinued.
Shew teaches further comprising a latch mechanism (86) that may be pushed in a first direction in order to engage and hold the trigger mechanism (18) in a locked position such that water will continue flowing through the root feeder device even after manual pulling on the trigger mechanism is discontinued (see figs 2 and 9-11 and col 6, lines 45-67 and col 7, lines 1-11).
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 root feeder with the latch mechanism of Shew with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for an improved user experience and prevent hand fatigue of the user during extended operations.
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 2, and Shew further teaches wherein the latch mechanism (86) may be pushed in a second direction that disengages the latch mechanism from the trigger mechanism (18) thereby unlocking the trigger mechanism and discontinuing the flow of water through the root feeder device in the absence of any manual pulling on the trigger mechanism (see figs 2 and 9-11 and col 6, lines 45-67 and col 7, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 2, and Shew further teaches further comprising a visible marking (94) that indicates where to push the latch mechanism (86) in order to engage and hold the trigger mechanism (18, see figs 2 and 9-11 and col 6, lines 45-67 and col 7, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 3, and Shew further teaches further comprising a visible marking (94) that indicates where to push the latch mechanism (86) in order to disengage and unlock the trigger mechanism (18, see figs 2 and 9-11 col 6, lines 45-67 and col 7, lines 1-11).
Claim(s) 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Xie (TW-I818805-B).
Regarding claim 8, Prothe discloses the improved root feeder of claim 7.
Prothe fails to disclose a first at least partial screw thread provided on the internal cylindrical surface of the mixing bowl; a second at least partial screw thread provided on the external cylindrical surface of the dome; wherein closing the mixing bowl with the dome involves threadingly engaging the first at least partial screw thread of the mixing bowl with the second at least partial screw thread of the dome and rotating the dome in a first direction; and wherein the closing of the mixing bowl may be reversed in order to open the mixing bowl by rotating the dome in a second direction that is the opposite of the first direction.
Xie teaches a first at least partial screw thread provided on the internal cylindrical surface of the mixing bowl (internal thread 113 in mixing hole 112, see figs 1-4); a second at least partial screw thread provided on the external cylindrical surface of the dome (external thread 32 on cap 30, see figs 1-4); wherein closing the mixing bowl with the dome involves threadingly engaging the first at least partial screw thread of the mixing bowl with the second at least partial screw thread of the dome and rotating the dome in a first direction (see figs 1-4 and 112(b) rejection above); and wherein the closing of the mixing bowl may be reversed in order to open the mixing bowl by rotating the dome in a second direction that is the opposite of the first direction (see figs 1-4 and 112(b) rejection above).
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 mixing bowl and dome with the threads of Xie with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a secure yet easy to use close and locking configuration.
Claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) in view of Xie (TW-I818805-B) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Stull (US-4298129-A).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 8.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the rotation of the dome in order to open or close the mixing bowl is less than a full rotation of the dome.
Stull teaches wherein the rotation of the dome in order to open or close the mixing bowl is less than a full rotation of the dome (quarter turn twist cap, see abstract and fig 1-2).
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 threads and dome to be a quarter or half thread resulting in a less than full rotation as taught by Stull with a reasonable expectation of success as this provides a quicker yet secure locking and unlocking mechanism.
Claim(s) 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) in view of Xie (TW-I818805-B) and Stull (US-4298129-A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Künzler (EP-3704032-B1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 9.
The modified reference fails to teach a gripping structure provided on the outside perimeter of the dome; visible markings on the top of the dome indicating the respective directions in which the dome must be rotated in order to open or close the mixing bowl using the dome.
Xie teaches a gripping structure provided on the outside perimeter of the dome (gripping structure 31, see fig 1 and page 2).
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 dome with the gripping structure of Xie with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide increased force to the user to allow for easier twisting and untwisting of the dome.
Künzler teaches visible markings on the top of the dome indicating the respective directions in which the dome must be rotated in order to open or close the mixing bowl using the dome (visible markings – direction of rotation arrows 59 and 61 on top of cap 17, see fig 7).
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 dome with the markings as taught by Künzler with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide prominent and easy to follow directions for the user.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Havlovitz (US-12064782-B2).
Regarding claim 11, Prothe discloses the improved root feeder of claim 1.
Prothe fails to disclose wherein the at least one handle is provided with a rubberized grip.
Havlovitz teaches wherein the at least one handle is provided with a rubberized grip (handle 70 has rubber grip, see col 4, lines 48-50 and figs 1 and 4).
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 handle with the rubber grip of Havlovitz with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide increased grip force and friction to the user.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Childs (US-5727484-A).
Regarding claim 12, Prothe discloses the improved root feeder of claim 1.
Prothe fails to disclose wherein the elongated feeder tube is marked with visible depth markings that may be used to determine the depth to which the feeder tube is inserted into the ground during use.
Childs teaches wherein the elongated feeder tube is marked with visible depth markings (gage 32, depth marking numbers, see fig 1) that may be used to determine the depth to which the feeder tube is inserted into the ground during use.
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 elongated tube with the depth markings of Childs with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide an easy metric for the user to ensure the tube is at the correct depth.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) in view of Stull (US-4298129-A) and Xie (TW-I818805-B).
Regarding claim 13, Prothe discloses an improved root feeder device (see fig 2) that when connected to an external water supply can be used for delivering hydro-fertilizer solutions or mixtures to plant root systems comprising:
a main body comprised of at least one handle (dual handles, see fig 2) and a mixing bowl (15);
a hose attachment coupling (13, see fig 2) for connecting the main body to a water supply (municipal water supply, see col 4, lines 40-54);
an elongated feeder tube (12, see fig 1) for delivery of hydro-fertilizer solution or mixture into soil below ground level;
a dome (screw on dome 16) that may be used to selectively open or close the mixing bowl by means of a screw thread (see col 4, lines 61-67).
Prothe fails to disclose a dome that may be used to selectively open or close the mixing bowl by means of a partial screw thread provided on the outside cylindrical surface of the dome.
Xie teaches a dome that may be used to selectively open or close the mixing bowl by means of a screw thread provided on the outside cylindrical surface of the (external thread 32 on cap 30, see figs 1-4).
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 mixing bowl and dome with the threads of Xie with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a secure yet easy to use close and locking configuration.
Stull teaches a dome that may be used to selectively open or close the mixing bowl by means of a partial screw thread (quarter turn twist cap, see abstract and fig 1-2).
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 threads and dome to be a quarter or half thread as taught by Stull with a reasonable expectation of success as this provides a quicker yet secure locking and unlocking mechanism.
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 13, and Stull further teaches wherein opening or closing the mixing bowl with the dome requires less than a full rotation of the dome (quarter turn twist cap, see abstract and fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 13.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the dome further comprises a gripping structure that may be used to grip and rotate the dome when opening or closing the mixing bowl using the dome.
Xie teaches wherein the dome further comprises a gripping structure that may be used to grip and rotate the dome when opening or closing the mixing bowl using the dome (gripping structure 31, see fig 1 and page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
reasonable expectation of success as this will provide increased force to the user to allow for an easier twist and untwisting of the dome.
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 13, and Prothe further discloses a trigger mechanism (20, see fig 2 and col 5, lines 6-18) that may be manually pulled in order to allow the flow of water through the root feeder device.
Claim(s) 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) in view of Stull (US-4298129-A) and Xie (TW-I818805-B) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Künzler (EP-3704032-B1).
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 13.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising a marking on the top of the dome indicating which directions the dome must be rotated in order to open or close the mixing bowl using the dome.
Künzler teaches further comprising a marking on the top of the dome indicating which directions the dome must be rotated in order to open or close the mixing bowl using the dome (visible markings – direction of rotation arrows 59 and 61 on top of cap 17, see fig 7).
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 dome with the markings as taught by Künzler with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide prominent and easy to follow directions for the user.
Claim(s) 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) in view of Stull (US-4298129-A) and Xie (TW-I818805-B) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Shew (US-6032922-A).
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 17.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising a latch mechanism that may be pushed in a first direction in order to engage and hold the trigger mechanism in a locked position such that water will continue flowing through the root feeder device even after manual pulling on the trigger mechanism is discontinued.
Shew teaches further comprising a latch mechanism (86) that may be pushed in a first direction in order to engage and hold the trigger mechanism (18) in a locked position such that water will continue flowing through the root feeder device even after manual pulling on the trigger mechanism is discontinued (see figs 2 and 9-11 and col 6, lines 45-67 and col 7, lines 1-11).
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 root feeder with the latch mechanism of Shew with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for an improved user experience and prevent hand fatigue of the user during extended operations.
Claim(s) 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) in view of Stull (US-4298129-A), Xie (TW-I818805-B) and Shew (US-6032922-A) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Havlovitz (US-12064782-B2).
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the improved root feeder of claim 18.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the at least one handle is provided with a rubberized grip.
Havlovitz teaches wherein the at least one handle is provided with a rubberized grip (handle 70 has rubber grip, see col 4, lines 48-50 and figs 1 and 4).
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 handle with the rubber grip of Havlovitz with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide increased grip force and friction to the user.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prothe (US 5322085 A) in view of Stull (US-4298129-A) and Shew (US-6032922-A) and Xie (TW-I818805-B).
Regarding claim 20, Prothe discloses an improved root feeder device (see fig 2) that when connected to an external water supply can be used for delivering hydro-fertilizer solutions or mixtures to plant root systems comprising:
a main body comprised of at least one handle (dual handles, see fig 2) and a mixing bowl (15);
a hose attachment coupling (13, see fig 2) for connecting the main body to a water supply (municipal water supply, see col 4, lines 40-54);
an elongated feeder tube (12, see fig 1) for delivery of hydro-fertilizer solution or mixture into soil below ground level;
a trigger mechanism (20, see fig 2 and col 5, lines 6-18) that may be manually pulled in order to allow the flow of water through the root feeder device;
a dome (screw on dome 16) that may be used to selectively open or close the mixing bowl by means of a screw thread (see col 4, lines 61-67).
Prothe fails to disclose a latch mechanism that may be pushed in a first direction in order to engage and hold the trigger mechanism in a locked position such that water will continue flowing through the root feeder device even after manual pulling on the trigger mechanism is discontinued; a dome that may be used to selectively open or close the mixing bowl by means of a partial screw thread provided on the outside cylindrical surface of the dome, wherein opening or closing the mixing bowl with the dome requires less than a full rotation of the dome.
Shew teaches a latch mechanism (86) that may be pushed in a first direction in order to engage and hold the trigger mechanism (18) in a locked position such that water will continue flowing through the root feeder device even after manual pulling on the trigger mechanism is discontinued (see figs 2 and 9-11 and col 6, lines 45-67 and col 7, lines 1-11).
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 root feeder with the latch mechanism of Shew with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for an improved user experience and prevent hand fatigue of the user during extended operations.
Xie teaches a dome that may be used to selectively open or close the mixing bowl by means of a screw thread provided on the outside cylindrical surface of the (external thread 32 on cap 30, see figs 1-4).
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 mixing bowl and dome with the threads of Xie with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a secure yet easy to use close and locking configuration.
Stull teaches a dome that may be used to selectively open or close the mixing bowl by means of a partial screw thread (quarter turn twist cap, see abstract and fig 1-2), wherein opening or closing the mixing bowl with the dome requires less than a full rotation of the dome (quarter turn twist cap, see abstract and fig 1-2).
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 threads and dome to be a quarter or half thread resulting in a less than full rotation as taught by Stull with a reasonable expectation of success as this provides a quicker yet secure locking and unlocking mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art noted in the References Cited document is relevant as it pertains to similar systems for plant cultivation. Specifically, Bauck discloses a fluid sprayer with a trigger and hold open latch mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642