DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to the amendment filed 01 June 2026. Claims 41-49 are pending. Claim 41 is an independent claim. Claims 41, 43, and 44 are amended.
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 Remarks
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 4-5) that Korus does not teach a cradle assembly, roller assembly, or maintaining fluid communication through such articulated translation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Korus explicitly teaches a cradle assembly with a fluid conduit, as cited below. However, Davenport provides the additional functionality of a roller assembly which allows axial movement while maintaining fluid communication (cited below).
Applicant argues (pgs. 5-6) that Davenport fails to teach the claimed articulated span compensation assembly. Applicant argues that Davenport relates to a fundamentally different mechanism – telescoping structures. Applicant argues that Davenport does not teach articulated irrigation spans; independently steerable articulated irrigation towers; articulated steering-induced axial compensation between spans; or cradle/roller retaining architecture as claimed. Applicant argues that Davenport’s roller bearings are utilized within an expandable pivot support member rather than within an articulated span-to-span irrigation joint assembly.
However, Applicant is arguing for functionality that is not yet claimed. The claims merely require a roller assembly which accommodates relative axial movement. Davenport provides this explicit teaching, i.e. a roller bearing that allows for sliding of inner support structure. Additionally, Davenport also teaches that fluid lines are supported between these expansion joints.
Applicant argues (pgs. 6-8) that there’s a lack of motivation to combine Korus and Davenport. Applicant argues the combination of Korus and Davenport would frustrate the purposes and advantages of each system. Korus is focused on angular folding to shorten the irrigation path. Davenport is directed to expandable support members. Applicant argues that the references solve different problems using different mechanisms.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing in Korus which precludes the use of telescoping assembly. In fact, both references are in the same field as the present invention, i.e. irrigation systems and the combination would allow the expandable center pivot irrigation system to navigate any bumps, grade changes, and/or other changes in the terrain during movement, and the drive unit is rotatable relative to the axle and/or wheels to enable freedom of movement in all directions (Davenport, at ¶ [0044]).
Applicant argues (pgs. 8-9) that the references do not teach open cradle-supported articulated conduit assembly, as recited in claim 47.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Korus does not teach the description provided in the instant specification. However, the Korus teaches the claimed limitation, i.e. wherein the cradle assembly supports a fluid conduit of one span within a partially open structural housing that permits angular articulation without disconnection of the conduit. Korus explicitly teach a joint assembly that allows flow through. Further specificity is required to overcome the current rejection.
Lastly, Applicant argues (pg. 9) that the cited references do not teach claims 48 and 49. However, Korus in view of Davenport explicitly teach expansion joints and towers with steerable wheels allowing the towers to pivot the support structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 41, 42, and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J.Korus (US 2013/0299614 A1) hereinafter known as J.Korus in view of Davenport (US 2021/0051866 A1) hereinafter known as Davenport.
Regarding independent claim 41, J.Korus teaches:
a main section assembly extending outwardly from a water supply; (J.Korus: Figs. 1-8 and ¶[0030]; J.Korus teaches an irrigation system with support structures 16 that is comprised of pipes or conduits which are in communication with a water source.)
a first articulated span connected to the main section assembly by a first articulating joint assembly; (J.Korus: Fig. 2 and ¶[0042]-¶[0043]; J.Korus teaches a first span structure that is pivotable to the other spans via a joint 18.)
a second articulated span connected to the first articulated span by a second articulating joint assembly, the first and second articulated spans being connected in series; (J.Korus: Fig. 2 and ¶[0042]-¶[0043]; J.Korus teaches a second span structure that is pivotable to the first span via a joint 18.)
a plurality of drive towers supporting the main section assembly and the articulated spans; (J.Korus: Figs. 2-8 and ¶[0045]; J.Korus teaches plurality of towers 114, which are connected to the spans.)
wherein each articulating joint assembly comprises:
a cradle assembly configured to receive a structural member and a fluid conduit of an adjacent span, (J.Korus: ¶[0031]; J.Korus teaches joints 18 that join two of the support structures 16. ¶[0029]-¶[0030] further teach a fluid delivery system 20 that is attached/supported by support structures 16 (displayed in Figs. 1-2).)
a retaining assembly permitting angular displacement about a generally vertical axis, and (J.Korus: ¶[0031]; J.Korus teaches the joints 18 being configured to allow the support structures 16 to pivot or rotate in either direction in a horizontal plane, i.e. about the vertical axis.)
... ;
wherein at least two of the drive towers comprise independently steerable drive towers configured to alter angular relationships between adjacent spans during movement of the mobile irrigation machine. (J.Korus: Figs. 2-8 and ¶[0027] and ¶[0032]; J.Korus teaches towers 14 with steerable wheels with steering motors, allowing the towers to pivot one or more of the support structures 16 relative to others of the support structures 16 about joints 18.)
J.Korus does not explicitly teach but Davenport teaches:
at least one roller assembly configured to accommodate relative axial movement between the articulated axial movement between the articulated spans while maintaining fluid communication through the fluid conduit; (Davenport: ¶[0052]; Davenport teaches utilizing a roller bearing to help facilitate the sliding of inner support structure by providing a low friction sliding surface. Figs. 2-2C and ¶[0043] further teach fluid lines being suspended from the spans with expansion joints.)
Davenport is in the same field of an expansion joint for a pivot irrigation system (Davenport, at Abstract) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify J.Korus system with a plurality of roller assemblies to provide axial variation between the main section and the span pipe as taught by Davenport because it allows the expandable center pivot irrigation system to navigate any bumps, grade changes, and/or other changes in the terrain during movement, and the drive unit is rotatable relative to the axle and/or wheels to enable freedom of movement in all directions (Davenport, at ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 42, J.Korus in view of Davenport further teaches the mobile irrigation machine of claim 41.
J.Korus further teaches:
wherein each independently steerable drive tower comprises: a wheel support frame; (J.Korus: Fig. 3; J.Korus teaches a support frame for the wheels.)
a steering actuator operatively coupled to at least one wheel; and (J.Korus: ¶[0027]; J.Korus teaches steerable wheels pivoted about upright axes by suitable steering motors.)
a controller configured to adjust wheel orientation independently from adjacent drive towers. (J.Korus: ¶[0043]; J.Korus teaches the actuation of the pivot occurring independently for the support structures. ¶[0032], ¶[0036]-¶[0037], and ¶[0039] further teach a control system to pivot the joints.)
Regarding claim 44, J.Korus in view of Davenport further teaches the mobile irrigation machine of claim 41.
Davenport further teaches:
wherein the roller assembly comprises a plurality of rollers positioned circumferentially about a fluid conduit to accommodate axial variation while preventing lateral disengagement of the conduit. (Davenport: Fig. 7B and ¶[0052]; Davenport teaches utilizing a roller bearing to help facilitate the sliding of inner support structure by providing a low friction sliding surface. The roller bearing 244 allows for movement in one direction (vertical in Fig. 7B) but not lateral.)
Regarding claim 45, J.Korus in view of Davenport further teaches the mobile irrigation machine of claim 44.
J.Korus further teaches:
further wherein the retaining assembly permits rotation about the generally vertical axis while restricting rotation about a horizontal axis. (J.Korus: ¶[0031]; J.Korus teaches the joints 18 being configured to allow the support structures 16 to pivot or rotate in either direction in a horizontal plane, i.e. about the vertical axis.)
Regarding claim 46, J.Korus in view of Davenport further teaches the mobile irrigation machine of claim 45.
J.Korus further teaches:
wherein the first and second articulated spans are configurable between a substantially linear alignment and an angled alignment relative to one another during irrigation movement. (J.Korus: Figs. 2-8; J.Korus teaches the spans being in an almost linear alignment or at an angle.)
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J.Korus in view of Davenport in view of Tran (US 2020/0359582 A1) hereinafter known as Tran.
Regarding claim 43, J.Korus in view of Davenport further teaches the mobile irrigation machine of claim 42.
J.Korus in view of Davenport does not explicitly teach but Tran further teaches:
further comprising a central control system configured to receive machine sensor data and field condition data to identify specific conditions; (Tran: Fig. 2 and ¶[0052], ¶[0060], ¶[0073]; Tran teaches an alignment control system that contains alignment sensors, wind sensors, and gyroscopes.)
wherein the specific conditions are selected from the group of conditions comprising: an imbalance between the first and second articulated spans, and loss of traction by at least a first steerable drive tower. (Tran: ¶[0085]; Tran teaches monitoring how long it takes for the irrigation system to stop and managing whether to turn more or less tightly to mitigate wear. Further, ¶[0089] teaches checking height of the pivot span so that it doesn’t exceed a specific point.)
Tran is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to navigating irrigation systems. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a self-propelled irrigation system as taught in J.Korus in view of Davenport with further sensors such as gyroscopes, alignment, and wind sensors to identify specific conditions as taught in Tran. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of J.Korus and Davenport to include teachings of Tran, because it would allow better irrigation management, as suggested by Tran: ¶[0014].
Claims 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J.Korus in view of Davenport in view of Korus (US 20060289676 A1) hereinafter known as Korus.
Regarding claim 47, J.Korus in view of Davenport further teaches the mobile irrigation machine of claim 46.
J.Korus in view of Davenport does not explicitly teach but Korus further teaches:
wherein the cradle assembly supports a fluid conduit of one span within a partially open structural housing that permits angular articulation without disconnection of the conduit. (Korus: Figs. 2-7 and ¶[0019]-¶[0028]; Korus teaches a joint assembly that allows flow-through.)
Korus is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to navigating irrigation systems. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a self-propelled irrigation system with multiple articulated spans as taught in J.Korus in view of Davenport with further a cradle assembly that supports a flow-through fluid conduit as taught in Korus. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of J.Korus and Davenport to include teachings of Korus, because it would allow flow-through joint without impairment, as suggested by Korus: ¶[0028].
Regarding claim 48, J.Korus in view of Davenport in view of Korus further teaches the mobile irrigation machine of claim 47.
Davenport further teaches:
wherein axial movement permitted by the roller assembly compensates for changes in distance between adjacent drive towers during angled movement of the articulated spans. (Davenport: Figs. 5A-5D and ¶[0048]-¶[0049]; Davenport teaches the expansion joints which allows the spans to move, dictated by the movement of the wheels.)
Regarding claim 49, J.Korus in view of Davenport in view of Korus further teaches the mobile irrigation machine of claim 48.
Davenport further teaches:
further comprising a control system configured to independently actuate steering of the at least two steerable drive towers to selectively form an angle between the first and second articulated spans while the irrigation machine is in motion. (J.Korus: Figs. 2-8 and ¶[0027] and ¶[0032]; J.Korus teaches towers 14 with steerable wheels with steering motors, allowing the towers to pivot one or more of the support structures 16 relative to others of the support structures 16 about joints 18 – as dictated by the control system.)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights