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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 03/16/2026, are acknowledged.
Previous 112(b) rejection is overcome.
Claims 1-29 are pending; claims 21-29 are new; claims 18-20 were withdrawn for belonging to a non-elected group; claims 4-5 and 8-17 were withdrawn by Applicant; claims 1-3, 6-7 and 21-29 are examined herewith.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required - The specification does not disclose the following claimed features:
“wherein the troubleshooting information includes at least one of the following:… historical log files of the operational status of the main machine controller”.
“wherein the troubleshooting information includes at least one of the following:… current operational status of the main machine controller”.
“the configuration information [used] for reconfiguring the main machine controller:.
Claim Interpretation
The claims disclose certain limitations with "at least one of" and "or", which is alternate language. Therefore, the prior art only needs to disclose one of the alternative limitations in order to anticipate the claim. For example, for a claim that reads: a system comprising A or B or C, a prior art publication that discloses only "A" would anticipate the claim; since "B" and "C" are not positively claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claim 25 discloses: wherein the troubleshooting information includes at least one of the following: “historical log files of the operational status of the main machine controller”. However, the specification as originally filed does not disclose this limitation. Par 0046 discloses: “In some embodiments, logged files/information from the distributed controllers 26 may be sent to the main machine controller 32 and/or otherwise used for troubleshooting the smart irrigation system 10 and the distributed controllers' operational status or performance.” However, this is does not disclose that historical log files of the operational status of the main controller are used when troubleshooting. As such, this is considered new matter.
New claim 25 discloses: wherein the troubleshooting information includes at least one of the following: “current operational status of the main machine controller”. However, the specification as originally filed does not disclose this limitation. Pars 0046-48 disclose detecting operational status of the distributed controllers, but the specification does not mention taking into account the operational status of the main machine controller, as claimed. As such, this is considered new matter.
New claim 27 discloses: “the configuration information for reconfiguring the main machine controller”. However, the specification as originally filed does not disclose this limitation. Par 0042 discloses reconfiguring the distributed controllers, but does not disclose reconfiguring the main machine controller. As such, this is considered new matter.
Claims 28-29 are rejected for depending on claim 27.
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.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thatcher (U.S. 2021/0076579).
Regarding claim 24, Thatcher teaches a mechanized irrigation machine (300 seen in Fig 3; note: Par 0024 discloses that the various configurations of the embodiments in Figs 1-5 are integrated and incorporated, i.e. the different features seen in Figs 1-5 are integrated and are not exclusive to individual embodiments), comprising:
a main machine controller (200/401);
a plurality of distributed controllers (solid state tower box, i.e. controllers, 312, 314 and 316 – disclosed in Par 0026, which correspond to solid state tower boxes 413, 417 in Fig 4) located at a plurality of spaced apart locations on the mechanized irrigation machine (as seen in Fig 3); and
a communications network (400, seen in Fig 4) communicably coupling the plurality of distributed controllers (distributed controllers labeled solid state tower box 413 and 417 in Fig 4, which correspond to 312, 314, 316 in Fig 3; see Par 0032), the main machine controller (401), and local or remote cloud storage (storage 204, which can be local or remote cloud storage, see Par 0031), wherein the main machine controller is configured to communicate information for troubleshooting with one or more of the distributed controllers (Fig 4 shows the main controller 401 in data communication with distributed controllers 413/417; Par 0035 discloses data may be analyzed using algorithms and/or machine learning to analyze the incoming data and determine a problem or a predicted problem, i.e. diagnosing which is part of troubleshooting; Par 0043 discloses the system of the present invention may analyze characteristics of a given field location along with the voltage/current measurements from a given drive tower to determine the status of a given drive wheel, where the status of a driven wheel corresponds to its respective distributed control, see for example Fig 4 distributed controller 413 corresponding to wheel drive 414; Par 0051 discloses: The algorithms of the present invention may preferably further include sets of pre-programmed responses, i.e. fixes which are part of troubleshooting, which may be triggered by a given determined status of a given drive wheel/tower. Preferably, such responses may be stored in a look-up table for execution by the controller. Alternatively, the responses may be incorporated into individual instructions executed by the controller. See table III for an exemplary troubleshooting response).
Regarding claim 25, Thatcher teaches the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 24, wherein the troubleshooting information includes at least one of the following: current operational status of the main machine controller (“at least one of” is alternative language, i.e. this is not positively claimed), current operational status of one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers (Par 0043 discloses the system of the present invention may analyze characteristics of a given field location along with the voltage/current measurements from a given drive tower to determine the status of a given drive wheel, where the status of a driven wheel corresponds to its respective distributed control, see for example Fig 4 distributed controller 413 corresponding to wheel drive 414), historical log files of the operational status of the main machine controller (“at least one of” is alternative language, i.e. this is not positively claimed), and historical log files of one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers (“at least one of” is alternative language, i.e. this is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 26, Thatcher teaches the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 24, wherein one or more of the distributed controllers communicates troubleshooting results or readings to the main machine controller (Par 0043 discloses the system of the present invention may analyze characteristics of a given field location along with the voltage/current measurements from a given drive tower to determine the status of a given drive wheel, where the status of a driven wheel corresponds to its respective distributed control, see for example Fig 4 distributed controller 413 corresponding to wheel drive 414; and Par 0032 discloses the main machine controller 401 receiving data from distributed controller 413).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher (U.S. 2021/0076579) in view of Klein et al (U.S. 2018/0042189).
Regarding claim 1, Thatcher teaches a mechanized irrigation machine (300 seen in Fig 3; note: Par 0024 discloses that the various configurations of the embodiments in Figs 1-5 are integrated and incorporated, i.e. the different features seen in Figs 1-5 are integrated and are not exclusive to individual embodiments), comprising:
a main machine controller (200/401);
a plurality of distributed controllers (solid state tower box, i.e. controllers, 312, 314 and 316 – disclosed in Par 0026, which correspond to solid state tower boxes 413, 417 in Fig 4) located at a plurality of spaced apart locations on the mechanized irrigation machine (as seen in Fig 3); and
a communications network (400, seen in Fig 4) communicably coupling the plurality of distributed controllers (distributed controllers labeled solid state tower box 413 and 417 in Fig 4, which correspond to 312, 314, 316 in Fig 3; see Par 0032), the main machine controller (401), and local or remote cloud storage (storage 204, which can be local or remote cloud storage, see Par 0031).
However, Thatcher does not teach the device wherein the main machine controller is configured to communicate firmware updates to one or more of the distributed controllers.
Klein teaches a water flow control for an irrigation system (as disclosed at least in Pars 0019 and 0034), wherein a main machine controller (100) is configured to communicate firmware updates to one or more of the distributed controllers (102a-n) (Par 0057 and Fig 1 disclose server 106 sending a firmware update through the controller 100, which is then sent to distributed controllers 102a-n).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thatcher to incorporate the teachings of Klein to configure the main controller to send firmware updates to the distributed controllers in order to avoid having to individually adjust individual controllers to execute changes across multiple controllers (as disclosed in Par 0057 of Klein).
Note: references in parenthesis hereafter are referencing Thatcher, unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 2, Thatcher and Klein teach the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers are configured for controlling one or more of the following functions: individual tower motor control (as seen in Fig 4, each distributed control 413 and 417 controls its respective motor 414, which correspond to respective towers); span joint control; corner arm control; GPS guidance or positioning of one or more actuatable features of the mechanized irrigation machine; and valve control of individual sprinklers for variable rate irrigation (These limitations are preceded by "or" language, see Claim Interpretation section above; Therefore, the prior art does not need to disclose this feature, since they are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Thatcher and Klein teach the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 1, wherein the communications network is a hardwired Local Area Network (LAN) or a radio connected wide-area network (WAN) (Par 0029 discloses communications within the system locally via wire; and Par 0031 discloses communication to a central or distributed computing unit via any suitable system such as radio or WIFI).
Regarding claim 6, Thatcher and Klein teach the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 1, wherein the firmware updates are either pulled by the distributed controllers or the main machine controller (“or” is alternative language, i.e. this is not positively claimed) or pushed by a remote central controller via the communications network (updates are pushed by server 106, i.e. a remote central controller, via communications network seen in Fig 1 of Klein; see Par 0057 of Klein).
Regarding claim 7, Thatcher and Klein teach the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 1, wherein the communications network is communicably coupled with remote cloud storage via a radio connection or a hard-wired connection (Par 0031 discloses communication with cloud storage via radio).
Regarding claim 21, Thatcher and Klein teach the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 1, wherein the main controller is further configured to retrieve the firmware updates from the local or remote cloud storage (Par 0057 and Fig 1 of Klein disclose the main controller 100 retrieving the firmware updates from server 106, which acts a local or remote cloud storage – see Par 0026).
Regarding claim 22, Thatcher and Klein teach the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 1, wherein the main controller is further configured to communicate at least one custom parameter to one or more of the distributed controllers (as disclosed in Pars 0057-58 of Klein, after an update, an updated template is sent to the distributed controllers 102a-n), wherein the at least one custom parameter is a parameter that deviates from factory default settings (Par 0059 of Klein discloses the updated template, i.e. parameter, deviating from current schedules, i.e. default settings).
Regarding claim 23, Thatcher and Klein teach the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 22, wherein the at least one custom parameter stored in the local or remote cloud storage (Par 0057 of Klein discloses the custom parameter being an updated template that comes from server 106, which acts a local or remote cloud storage – see Par 0026).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher (U.S. 2021/0076579) in view of Korus (U.S. 2012/0305682).
Regarding claim 27, Thatcher teaches a mechanized irrigation machine (300 seen in Fig 3; note: Par 0024 discloses that the various configurations of the embodiments in Figs 1-5 are integrated and incorporated, i.e. the different features seen in Figs 1-5 are integrated and are not exclusive to individual embodiments), comprising:
a main machine controller (200/401);
a plurality of distributed controllers (solid state tower box, i.e. controllers, 312, 314 and 316 – disclosed in Par 0026, which correspond to solid state tower boxes 413, 417 in Fig 4) located at a plurality of spaced apart locations on the mechanized irrigation machine (as seen in Fig 3); and
a communications network (400, seen in Fig 4) communicably coupling the plurality of distributed controllers (distributed controllers labeled solid state tower box 413 and 417 in Fig 4, which correspond to 312, 314, 316 in Fig 3; see Par 0032), the main machine controller (401), and local or remote cloud storage (storage 204, which can be local or remote cloud storage, see Par 0031), wherein the main machine controller is configured to store and retrieve configuration information from local or remote cloud storage (Par 0027 discloses the main machine controller 200 storing and retrieving data from storage 204), the configuration information for reconfiguring the main machine controller (“or” is alternative language, i.e. this is not positively claimed) or one or more of the distributed controllers (Par 0034, the main controller acquires data and executes functions that dictate how the drive motors operate – see Fig 5, wherein drive motor 414 functions are dictated by the distributed controllers such as 413 - see Fig 4; as such configuration information involves reconfiguring, i.e. adjusting based on data, the distributed controllers).
If it is found that Thatcher does not teach the configuration information for reconfiguring one or more of the distributed controllers, Korus teaches a tower alignment system wherein a main controller (18) communicates updated data with distributed controllers (42a-42d) and wherein configuration information reconfigures one or more of the distributed controllers (Par 0067 discloses adjusting, i.e. reconfiguring, the distributed controllers 42 based on alignment feedback).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thatcher to incorporate the teachings of Korus to reconfigure the distributing controllers in order to align the pivot based on changes in the environment (as disclosed in Par 0067 of Korus).
Regarding claim 28, Thatcher and Korus teach the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 27, wherein the configuration information includes parameters that are updated from default settings (as disclosed in Par 0067 of Korus: the default settings are adjusted, i.e. the controller updates starting from default settings).
Regarding claim 29, Thatcher and Korus teach the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 27, wherein one or more of the distributed controllers communicates an updated parameter to the main machine controller for storage in local or remote cloud storage (as disclosed in Pars 0047-48 of Korus, the instructions are stored in a data storage component by the main controller 18; Par 0049 discloses the distributed controllers 42 communicating with the main controller 18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to previously examined claims 1-3 and 6-7 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments filed on 03/16/2026 have resulted in the new grounds of rejection found above.
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 JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights