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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 07/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-17 are examiner hereafter.
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 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.
Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitations "tower motor", “span joint”, “corner arm”, “GPS” and “valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 1-9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thatcher (U.S. 2021/0076579).
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);
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), 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 and the plurality of distributed controllers are configured to retrieve or store information from the local or remote cloud storage (as seen in Fig 2, the controller 202 stores information from the storage 204) for maintenance, firmware updates, or troubleshooting of the mechanized irrigation machine (see Fig 2, which shows the controller in data communication with components of the machine) (as seen in Fig 6 and disclosed in Par 0036, the controller is programmed with an algorithm that receives and analyzes data from multiple drive towers and multiple drive wheels in real-time during irrigation operations, and Par 0051 discloses responses to the data to correct/adjust each drive tower, i.e. motors; as such, Thatcher teaches a system with a controller that uses stored data to troubleshoot the one or more motors; this is apparent from the disclosure on the Abstract) (Examiner notes that “or” language renders the limitations of maintenance and firmware updates optional, i.e. they are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Thatcher teaches 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 teaches 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 4, Thatcher teaches the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 1, wherein the maintenance information retrieved via the communications network includes controller configuration information for reconfiguring the main machine controller or one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers (claim 1 discloses “maintenance” information as an optional feature, see “or” language and Claim Interpretation section above; Therefore, the prior art does not need to disclose this feature, since it is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Thatcher teaches the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 1, wherein the troubleshooting information includes at least one of the following: current operational status of the main machine controller, current operational status of one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers (Figs 6 and 7 disclose troubleshooting by detecting the current operational status of the solid-state tower boxes and their respective tower drive, i.e. the distributed controllers, see also Par 0036), historical log files of the operational status of the main machine controller, and historical log files of one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers (“at least one of” is alternate language, see Claim Interpretation section above; these other limitations are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Thatcher teaches the mechanized irrigation machine of claim 1, wherein the firmware updates are either pulled by the distributed controllers or the main machine controller or pushed by a remote central controller via the communications network (claim 1 discloses “firmware updates” as an optional feature, see “or” language and Claim Interpretation section above; Therefore, the prior art does not need to disclose this feature, since it is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Thatcher teaches 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 8, Thatcher teaches a smart irrigation system (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:
fluid-emitting devices (defined by valve controllers 302, 304, 306 and sprinkler heads 326 and 321; also disclosed as nozzle controllers 409/416 in Par 0032);
a plurality of actuatable towers (towers defined at each drive unit 307, 309, 311; see Fig 3 which shows each of the drive units being held by a tower; each drive unit is actuatable as disclosed at least in Par 0024; as such the towers are considered actuatable towers), wherein the fluid-emitting devices are carried by the plurality of actuatable towers (the fluid emitting devices are placed on spans that are carried by the towers, as seen in Fig 3; as such the emitting devices are indirectly carried by the towers, thus reading on claim language);
a plurality of spans (labeled 102, 104, 106 in Fig 1, also seen but not labeled in Fig 3) connected to and extending between at least two of the actuatable towers (as seen in Figs 1 and 3);
one or more motors (drive units 307, 309, 311) configured for actuating at least one of lateral and rotational movement of the actuatable towers (the spans and towers pivot around a center point, left base seen in Fig 3, as such the motors activate their respective wheels in a tangential direction, such that the towers move in a lateral and a rotational movement) (nonetheless Examiner notes that the claims require at least one of lateral or rotational movement, as such the prior art does not have to teach both in order to anticipate the claim, just one or the other);
a main machine controller (200/401) located on one of the plurality of towers or one of the plurality of spans (200 is located on the main base tower, as seen in Fig 3);
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) each located on one of the plurality of actuatable towers (as seen in Fig 3);
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), 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 and the plurality of distributed controllers are configured to retrieve or store information from the local or remote cloud storage (as seen in Fig 2, the controller 202 stores information from the storage 204) for maintenance, firmware updates, or troubleshooting of the one or more motors (see Fig 2, which shows the controller in data communication with the drive tower controllers, i.e. the motors) (as seen in Fig 6 and disclosed in Par 0036, the controller is programmed with an algorithm that receives and analyzes data from multiple drive towers and multiple drive wheels in real-time during irrigation operations, and Par 0051 discloses responses to the data to correct/adjust each drive tower, i.e. motors; as such, Thatcher teaches a system with a controller that uses stored data to troubleshoot the one or more motors; this is apparent from the disclosure on the Abstract) or at least one of the fluid-emitting devices (as seen in Fig 4 and disclosed in Par 0032, the distributed controllers are in communication with flow sensors 412 and nozzle controllers 409/416) (Examiner notes that “or” language renders the limitations of maintenance and firmware updates optional, i.e. they are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 9, Thatcher teaches the smart irrigation system of claim 8, wherein one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers are configured for controlling individual control of the one or more motors (as seen in Fig 4, each distributed control 413 and 417 controls its respective motor 414).
Regarding claim 12, Thatcher teaches the smart irrigation system of claim 8, further comprising a GPS guidance controller (defined at least in part by GPS sensors 408/415), wherein one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers (413/417) are configured for controlling the GPS guidance controller for guiding and positioning of one or more of the plurality of actuatable towers (as seen in Fig 4 and Par 0032, the solid state tower boxes 413/417, i.e. the distributed controllers, use GPS sensors 408/415 to control and guide the polarity of towers by controlling drive motors 414. This is further shown in Fig 5 and Tables I which shows GPS detected tower status and Table III which shows independent corrective action of a particular tower).
Regarding claim 13, Thatcher teaches the smart irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the fluid-emitting devices comprise individual sprinklers and valves associated with the individual sprinklers (the fluid devices include controllable valves 302, 304, 306 which control individual sprinklers, as disclosed in Par 0026; these are disclosed as nozzle controllers 409/416 in Par 0032), wherein one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers (413/417 shown in Fig 4) are configured for controlling the valves in a variable manner for variable rate irrigation (as seen in Fig 4 and disclosed in Par 0032, the distributed controllers are in communication with flow sensors 412 and nozzle controllers 409/416; as disclosed in claim 13 of Thatcher, the controller controls the pulse of the sprinklers to maintain a target flow rate depending on sensed parameters, i.e. the controller varies the flow rate of irrigation, thus reading on claim language).
Regarding claim 14, Thatcher teaches the smart irrigation system of claim 8, 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 15, Thatcher teaches the smart irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the maintenance information retrieved via the communications network includes controller configuration information for reconfiguring the main machine controller (claim 8 discloses “maintenance” information as an optional feature, see “or” language and Claim Interpretation section above; Therefore, the prior art does not need to disclose this feature, since it is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 16, Thatcher teaches the smart irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the troubleshooting information includes at least one of the following: current operational status of the main machine controller, current operational status of one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers (Figs 6 and 7 disclose troubleshooting by detecting the current operational status of the solid-state tower boxes and their respective tower drive, i.e. the distributed controllers, see also Par 0036), historical log files of the operational status of the main machine controller, and historical log files of one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers (“at least one of” is alternate language, see Claim Interpretation section above; these other limitations are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Thatcher teaches the smart irrigation system of claim 8, wherein the firmware updates are either pulled by the distributed controllers or the main machine controller or pushed by a remote central controller via the communications network (claim 8 discloses “firmware updates” as an optional feature, see “or” language and Claim Interpretation section above; Therefore, the prior art does not need to disclose this feature, since it is not positively claimed).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher (U.S. 2021/0076579) in view of Burkey et al (U.S. 2020/0305366).
Regarding claim 10, Thatcher teaches the smart irrigation system of claim 8. However, Thatcher does not teach the system further comprising a span joint coupling at least one of the plurality of spans to at least one of the plurality of actuatable towers, wherein one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers are configured for controlling the span joint.
Burkey teaches a smart irrigation system (see abstract) comprising a span joint (defined at 108, see Fig 1A-1F) coupling at least one of a plurality of spans (104) to at least one of a plurality of towers (106), wherein one or more of a plurality of distributed controllers (tower control units 108) are configured for controlling the span joint (as disclosed in Pars 0047-0048).
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 Burkey to provide a span joint and configure the distributed controllers to control the span joint in order to align and adjust the spans to ideal positions (as disclosed in Par 0048 of Burkey), or to avoid collisions (as disclosed in Par 0049).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thatcher (U.S. 2021/0076579) in view of Choat (U.S. 2010/0274398).
Regarding claim 11, Thatcher teaches the smart irrigation system of claim 8. However, Thatcher does not teach the system further comprising a corner arm pivotally connected to an end one of the plurality of towers, wherein one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers are configured for controlling pivoting of the corner arm.
Choat teaches a smart irrigation system (see abstract) comprising a corner arm (14) pivotally connected to an end one (23) of the plurality of towers (as seen in Fig 2), wherein a control system (disclosed in Par 0020) is configured for controlling pivoting of the corner arm (as disclosed in Pars 0020+ and seen In Fig 3).
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 Choat to provide a corner arm that is controlled by one or more of the plurality of distributed controllers in order to allow for uniform and optimal irrigation in fields that are square-shaped or irregularly-shaped (as disclosed in abstract, Pars 0002-0007, and seen in Fig 3 of Choat).
Conclusion
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