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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending
Claims 22-23 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-21 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 03/22/2023 and 04/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-21 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 states “the water supply line and” and instead should state “the at least a first water supply line” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 8 states “for directing water” and instead should state “for directing the water” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 16 states “wherein at least one in-line filter load cell” and instead should state “wherein at least one of the one or more in-line filter load cells” for further clarity. ALSO, line 18 states “wherein at least one in-line filter load cell is” and instead should state “wherein at least one of the one or more in-line filter load cells is” for further clarity. IN ADDITION, line 19 states “wherein at least one in-line wireless reporting device is” and instead should state “wherein at least one of the one or more in-line wireless reporting devices is” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 1 states “the system comprises” and instead should state “the flow monitoring system comprises” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 1-2 state “comprises first trap reporting device” and instead should state “comprises a first trap reporting device” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 1 and 2 each state “the system” and instead should each state “the flow monitoring system” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 2 states “assembly;” and instead should include a period to further recite “assembly.” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 1 states “the system further” and instead should state “the flow monitoring system further” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 1 states “the system further” and instead should state “the flow monitoring system further” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 1-2 state “to adjust one or more” and instead should state “to adjust the one or more” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 1-2 state “to adjust one or more” and instead should state “to adjust the one or more” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 1 states “wherein the crop irrigation parameters” and instead should state “wherein the one or more crop irrigation parameters” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, lines 1-2 state “to adjust predetermined” and instead should state “to adjust the one or more predetermined” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 1 states “wherein at least one in-line filter load cell” and instead should state “wherein the at least one in-line filter load cell” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The system of” and instead should state “The flow monitoring system of” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wherein the inlet transmitter device is configured to transmit” on line 13 of claim 1, “wherein the outlet transmitter device is configured to transmit” on lines 14-15 of claim 1, “in-line wireless reporting device is configured to transmit” on lines 19-20 of claim 1, “wherein the first span tension sensor is configured to sense” on line 1 of claim 10, “a transmitter configured to report” on lines 2-3 of claim 11, “wherein the central control device is configured to open” on line 1 of claim 12, “wherein the central control device is configured to adjust” on line 1 of claim 13, “wherein the central control device is configured to adjust” on line 1 of claim 14, “wherein the central control device is configured to adjust” on line 1 of claim 15, and “wherein the central control device is configured to adjust” on line 1 of claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the weight” on line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-21 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the weight” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6-21 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a second sediment filter assembly;” on lines 1-2. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘a second sediment filter assembly’ as recited on line 2 of claim 7, or a different second sediment filter assembly? Claims 9-21 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the amount of tension” on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 11-21 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 10.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the controller” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malsam et al. (U.S. 2012/0053776 A1) (hereinafter “Malsam”) in view of Drori (U.S. 4,207,181) (hereinafter “Drori”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Malsam teaches a flow monitoring system for use within a field irrigation system (see FIG. 1, irrigation system 10) (see FIG. 2) (see paragraphs 1-2, 4, 12, 14, 16-17 and 21-25), wherein the field irrigation system includes at least a first water supply line (see FIG. 1, at least one water conduit 12) supplying water under pressure through a riser to a lateral span for dispersal through a plurality of sprinklers (see paragraphs 12-16 further discussing pipes, pipe sections, booms 22 and sprinklers); wherein the lateral span is supported by one or more drive towers and supporting cables (see FIG. 1 further illustrating drive towers 16, drive means 18 and cables) (see paragraphs 12-17); the flow monitoring system comprising:
sensors (see FIG. 1, sensors 40) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25);
transmitters and receivers (see FIG. 1, GPS receiver 41) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25);
a central control device (see FIG. 1, a control panel 26) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25); and
one or more in-line wireless reporting devices (see FIG. 1, speed control units 32) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25).
Malsam does not explicitly teach the flow monitoring system comprising an in-line filter, wherein the in-line filter is connected between the water supply line and the riser; wherein the in-line filter comprises an inlet assembly; wherein the in-line filter comprises one or more internal filters for screening inlet water for sediment; wherein the in-line filter further comprises an outlet assembly for directing water from the in-line filter to the riser;
wherein the inlet assembly comprises an inlet pressure sensor and an inlet transmitter device; wherein the outlet assembly comprises an outlet pressure sensor and an outlet transmitter device;
a central control device; wherein the inlet transmitter device is configured to transmit an inlet pressure reading to the central control device; wherein the outlet transmitter device is configured to transmit an outlet pressure reading to the central control device; and
one or more in-line filter load cells; wherein at least one in-line filter load cell comprises a sensor for actively sensing the weight of the in-line filter;
wherein at least one in-line filter load cell is linked to one or more in-line wireless
reporting devices; wherein at least one in-line wireless reporting device is configured to
transmit load cell sensor readings to the central control device, as recited in independent claim 1.
Drori further teaches an in-line self-cleaning filter for use in water irrigation systems (see Drori FIGS. 1-12), wherein the in-line filter is connected to a water supply line (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32), wherein the in-line filter comprises an inlet assembly (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55), wherein the in-line filter comprises one or more internal filters for screening inlet water for sediment (see Drori FIG. 1, a filter screen) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55), wherein the in-line filter further comprises an outlet assembly for directing water from the in-line filter (see Drori FIGS. 1-2, connections 8 and 16) (see Drori col. 3 line 63 through col. 4 line 17), wherein the inlet assembly comprises an inlet pressure sensor and an inlet transmitter device (see Drori FIG. 6, a differential pressure sensor unit 342 capable of measuring pressure at two points, and valve actuator unit) (see Drori col. 8 line 67 through col. 9 line 2), wherein the outlet assembly comprises an outlet pressure sensor and an outlet transmitter device (see Drori FIG. 6, a differential pressure sensor unit 342 capable of measuring pressure at two points, and valve actuator unit) (see Drori col. 8 line 67 through col. 9 line 2).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Drori further teaches the system comprises a first riser sediment trap (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 2, wherein Drori further teaches the first riser sediment trap is installed between the in-line filter and the lateral span (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 3, wherein Drori further teaches the first riser sediment trap comprises a first sediment filter and a first trap load cell (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 4, wherein Drori further teaches the first trap load cell comprises a first trap sensor for detecting the weight of the sediment retained within the first riser sediment trap (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 5, wherein Drori further teaches the first riser sediment trap comprises first trap reporting device for transmitting first trap load cell data to the central control device (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 6, wherein Drori further teaches the system further comprises a lateral span clean out; wherein the system further comprises a second sediment filter assembly (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 7, wherein Drori further teaches the system further comprises a second sediment filter assembly; wherein the second sediment filter assembly comprises a second load cell for detecting sediment levels within the lateral span clean out (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 8, wherein Drori further teaches the system further comprises a first span tension sensor (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55) (see Drori FIG. 6, a differential pressure sensor unit 342 capable of measuring pressure at two points, and valve actuator unit) (see Drori col. 8 line 67 through col. 9 line 2).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 9, wherein Drori further teaches the first span tension sensor is configured to sense the amount of tension applied to one or more support cables attached to the lateral span (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55) (see Drori FIG. 6, a differential pressure sensor unit 342 capable of measuring pressure at two points, and valve actuator unit) (see Drori col. 8 line 67 through col. 9 line 2).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 10, wherein Drori further teaches the first span tension sensor comprises a first tension sensor transmitter; wherein the first tension sensor transmitter comprises a transmitter configured to report tension sensor data to the central control device (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55) (see Drori FIG. 6, a differential pressure sensor unit 342 capable of measuring pressure at two points, and valve actuator unit) (see Drori col. 8 line 67 through col. 9 line 2).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 11, wherein Malsam further teaches the central control device is configured to open selected valves in response to detected weights exceeding predetermined levels (see Malsam FIG. 1, a control panel 26) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25).
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 12, wherein Malsam further teaches the central control device is configured to adjust one or more predetermined weight levels based on detected water pressure levels (see Malsam FIG. 1, a control panel 26) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25).
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 13, wherein Malsam further teaches the central control device is configured to adjust one or more predetermined weight levels based on a system parameter selected from the group of system parameters comprising: pump duty cycle, pump/motor temperatures, well water levels and filter type (see Malsam FIG. 1, a control panel 26) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25).
Regarding Claim 15:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 14, wherein Malsam further teaches the central control device is configured to adjust one or more predetermined weight levels based on one or more crop irrigation parameters (see Malsam FIG. 1, a control panel 26) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25).
Regarding Claim 16:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 15, wherein Malsam further teaches the crop irrigation parameters comprise a parameter selected from the group of parameters comprising: growth status, health indicators, ground moisture, and weather (see Malsam FIG. 1, a control panel 26) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25) (see Malsam FIG. 1, sensors 40) (see Malsam paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25).
Regarding Claim 17:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 16, wherein Malsam further teaches the central control device is configured to adjust predetermined weight levels based on whether chemigation/fertigation is active (see Malsam FIG. 1, a control panel 26) (see paragraphs 12-17 and 22-25).
Regarding Claim 18:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 17, wherein Drori further teaches the in-line filter is supported by one or more attached feet (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55) (see Drori FIG. 6, a differential pressure sensor unit 342 capable of measuring pressure at two points, and valve actuator unit) (see Drori col. 8 line 67 through col. 9 line 2).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 19:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 18, wherein Drori further teaches at least one in-line filter load cell is incorporated into the one or more attached feet of the in-line filter (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55) (see Drori FIG. 6, a differential pressure sensor unit 342 capable of measuring pressure at two points, and valve actuator unit) (see Drori col. 8 line 67 through col. 9 line 2).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 20:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 19, wherein Drori further teaches the second sediment filter assembly comprises a ring lock connector and a sealing gasket (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55) (see Drori FIG. 6, a differential pressure sensor unit 342 capable of measuring pressure at two points, and valve actuator unit) (see Drori col. 8 line 67 through col. 9 line 2).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Regarding Claim 21:
The combination of Malsam in view of Drori teaches the system of claim 20, wherein Drori further teaches the second sediment filter assembly comprises a release valve; wherein the release valve is controllable by the controller to flush the lateral span clean out when a detected weight exceeds a predetermined level (see Drori FIGS. 1-12) (see Drori FIG. 1, a tubular housing 2, a cylindrical filter body 6, a chamber 7, and an inlet opening 4) (see Drori col. 4 lines 28-32) (see Drori col. 1 lines 49-50) (see Drori col. 3 lines 52-55) (see Drori FIG. 6, a differential pressure sensor unit 342 capable of measuring pressure at two points, and valve actuator unit) (see Drori col. 8 line 67 through col. 9 line 2).
Malsam and Drori are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a water irrigation system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the water irrigation flow monitoring system and method of Malsam to include an in-line filter with all the structural components, as taught by Drori, in order to remove all the contaminants and particles from the water irrigation flow monitoring system of Malsam (see Drori col. 1 lines 5-11).
Other References Considered
Saxton (U.S. 2002/0144952 A1) (hereinafter “Saxton”) teaches a self-cleaning filter.
Bavel (U.S. 2005/0121536 A1) (hereinafter “Bavel”) teaches an integrated flow monitoring system and method.
Nalbandian et al. (U.S. 2005/0279856 A1) (hereinafter “Nal”) teaches a water-conserving surface irrigation system and method.
Madama et al. (U.S. 2008/0230131 A1) (hereinafter “Madama”) teaches an irrigation system and shut-off control device.
Hohm et al. (U.S. 2018/0329442 A1) (hereinafter “Hohm”) teaches a system and method for energy generation and routing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773