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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 19, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the stationary supporting structure as recited in claims 1 and 28; and
the upper pipe segment is mounted in the frame for rotation about a pivot axis (of 24) relative to the lower pipe segment as recited in claims 1, 11, 28 and 32 (Applicant figures fail to show the upper pipe segment 21 is “mounted” in the frame 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“supporting structure” in line 3 of claim 1 where the “structure” is the placeholder for the function of “supporting.”
“support member” in line 3 of claims 6 and 16, where the “member” is the placeholder for the function of “support.”
“contact member” in line 2 of claims 7 and 17, where the “member” is the placeholder for the function of “contact.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 and 28-31 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. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the frame providing a stationary supporting structure as amended in claims 1 and 28.
While there appears to be basis for these terms in the original specification nonetheless the meaning of every terms, especially terms now used to patentably define over the prior art, used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing or the use of same terms to refer a variety of different things should not be permitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10, 11, 13, 16-17, 20, 21, 24-29 and 32is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fizmaurice (US 3,724,758).
With respect to claim 1, Fizmaurice discloses a pivot assembly (Figures 1-14, column 2, lines 39-54, column 3, lines 13-32) for an irrigation system (20), especially for a center-pivot (at 24) irrigation system, the pivot assembly comprising:
a frame (24 and 36) that provides a stationary (relative to the field) supporting structure (Figs 1, 8 and 9) to support the pivot assembly in a field to be irrigated; and
an inlet pipe assembly (22) supported by the frame for inlet of water from a water supply (34) to the irrigation system;
wherein the inlet pipe assembly comprises an upper pipe segment (84, inner pipe of 124 defining the tubular screen chamber 126, 124, 146, 148 and 84) and a lower pipe segment (50, 54, 56 and 58) that extend coaxially (between 54 and 84. Fig. 5 and between at least the inner pipe of 124 defining the tubular screen chamber 126 and stationary tubular stake 50) with one another, wherein a lower end region (of 54) of the lower pipe segment is configured for (capable of) fluid connection to the water supply and a top end region (at 124. Fig. 5) of the upper pipe segment is configured for (capable of) fluid connection with a distribution pipeline (24, 148) of a span assembly (under 32), and wherein the upper pipe segment is mounted in the frame (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention) for rotation about a pivot axis (of 24) relative to the lower pipe segment;
wherein the frame includes a bearing arrangement (58) that mounting and/or supports the upper pipe segment for rotation about the pivot axis relative to the lower pipe segment, the bearing arrangement comprising a first bearing part (body of 58 including the unmarked weld under 58) that is fixed in the frame and a second bearing part (60) for secure or rigid attachment to the upper pipe segment, wherein a lower end region of the upper pipe segment (of 84) extends through the (upper rim portion of 58) first bearing part and connects with an upper end region of the lower pipe segment, and wherein the second bearing part is configured to (capable of) seat and/or bear against the first bearing part during rotation of the upper pipe segment about the pivot axis relative to the lower pipe segment.
With respect to claim 2, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the upper pipe segment and the lower pipe segment comprise straight pipe lengths (between 54 and 84. Fig. 5) and are arranged upright and extend vertically, and wherein the pivot axis about which the upper pipe segment is mounted for rotation relative to the lower pipe segment is a common axis of the upper and lower pipe segments.
With respect to claim 3, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the lower end region (84) of the upper pipe segment is received within the upper end region (portion of 54 above 58 and 58) of the lower pipe segment (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 6, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the lower pipe segment is mounted or supported fixed in the frame, wherein the first bearing part includes a support member (body of 58 including the unmarked weld under 58) fixed in the frame which is configured to (capable of) receive and support the inlet pipe assembly, wherein the support member is generally cylindrical and encompasses (encircling) or surrounds the upper pipe segment, which extends through the support member (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 7, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the second bearing part comprises a contact member (downwardly and outwardly inclined raceway 60) configured to (capable of) be fixed at or on a periphery of the upper pipe segment for movement therewith, wherein the contact member is configured to (capable of) seat or bear against an upper (top) face of the first bearing part.
With respect to claim 10, Fizmaurice discloses the pivot assembly according to 1, further comprising a conduit (passage from 54 to 148 including 160 and 148) that extends within and/or through the upper and lower pipe segments, generally centrally thereof, for accommodating cables or (fluid passages) lines that may provide power and/or (fluid) control pathways to an associated span assembly (under 32) of the irrigation system.
With respect to claim 11, Fizmaurice discloses an irrigation system (20. Figures 1-14) for crop irrigation, the irrigation system comprising:
a pivot assembly comprising a frame (24 and 36) which mounts and supports an inlet pipe assembly (22) for inlet of water from a water supply (34) to the irrigation system in a field to be irrigated, wherein the inlet pipe assembly comprises an upper pipe segment (84, inner pipe of 124 defining the tubular screen chamber 126, 124, 146, 148 and 84) and a lower pipe segment (50, 54, 56 and 58), the upper pipe segment and the lower pipe segment extending coaxially (between 54 and 84. Fig. 5 and between at least the inner pipe of 124 defining the tubular screen chamber 126 and stationary tubular stake 50) with one another, and wherein the upper pipe segment is mounted in the frame for rotation about a pivot axis (of 24) relative to the lower pipe segment; and
a span assembly (under 32) for connection to the pivot assembly to extend radially therefrom across the field, the span assembly comprising a distribution pipeline (24, 148) for fluid connection with the upper pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly to convey the water along the span assembly for distributing the water to a plurality of sprinkler heads (40 and 44) located along the span assembly for applying the water to the field, wherein the span assembly is configured to (capable of) rotate about the pivot axis together with the upper pipe segment;
wherein the frame of the pivot assembly includes a bearing arrangement (58) for mounting the upper pipe segment for rotation about the pivot axis relative to the lower pipe segment, the bearing arrangement comprising a first bearing part (body of 58 including the unmarked weld under 58) which is fixed in the frame and a second bearing part for rigid attachment to the upper pipe segment, wherein the first bearing part encompasses (encircling) the upper pipe segment and a lower end region of the upper pipe segment (of 84) extends through the (upper rim portion of 58) first bearing part to connect with an upper end region of the lower pipe segment, and wherein the second bearing part (60) is configured to (capable of) seat or bear against the first bearing part during rotation of the upper pipe segment about the pivot axis relative to the lower pipe segment.
With respect to claim 13, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the upper pipe segment and the lower pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly are arranged to extend vertically (Fig. 5), and wherein the lower end region (84) of the upper pipe segment is received within the upper end region (portion of 54 above 58 and 58) of the lower pipe segment.
With respect to claim 16, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the lower pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly is mounted or suspended fixed in the frame of the pivot assembly, wherein the first bearing part includes a support member (body of 58 including the unmarked weld under 58), which is fixed in the frame and is configured to (capable of) receive and support the inlet pipe assembly which extends there-through, wherein the support member encompasses (encircling) the upper pipe segment (Fig. 5), and wherein (a lower end region of) the upper pipe segment (of 84) extends through the (upper rim portion of 58) support member for connection with the lower pipe segment.
With respect to claim 17, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the second bearing part comprises a contact member (downwardly and outwardly inclined raceway 60), configured to (capable of) be fixed at a periphery of the upper pipe segment for movement therewith, the contact member being configured to (capable of) seat or bear against an upper (top) face of the support member.
With respect to claim 20, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the span assembly comprises an elongate framework, which extends radially from the pivot assembly, wherein the distribution pipeline is mounted or suspended on the elongate framework (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 21, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the elongate framework or truss has a generally triangular cross-sectional configuration (formed by 32 and 30. Fig. 1) having a central, radially extending structural member arranged at an apex (top of 112) of that configuration, wherein the distribution pipeline is mounted below and/or suspended from the elongate structural member.
With respect to claim 24, Fizmaurice discloses wherein an (inner) end region (at 160) of the elongate framework of the span assembly is configured to (capable of) be securely fastened to an upper part (124) of the inlet pipe assembly for rotation with the upper pipe segment about the pivot axis relative to the lower pipe segment.
With respect to claim 25, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the upper pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly is connected in fluid communication with the distribution pipeline of the span assembly via a connector pipe (146 and 160).
With respect to claim 26, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the span assembly includes at least one motorised ground-engaging drive unit (pump motor) for driven movement of the span assembly about the pivot axis, at an opposite end region of the elongate framework of the span assembly.
With respect to claim 27, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the inlet pipe assembly has a conduit (rotary booms 22) extending through the upper and lower pipe segments, generally centrally thereof, for (capable of) accommodating cables or (fluid passages) lines that provide electrical power and/or (fluid) control pathways to the span assembly (under 32).
With respect to claim 28, Fizmaurice discloses a pivot assembly (Figures 1-14, column 2, lines 39-54, column 3, lines 13-32) for an irrigation system (20), especially for a center-pivot (at 24) irrigation system, the pivot assembly comprising:
a frame (24 and 36) that provides a stationary (relative to the field) supporting structure (Figs 1, 8 and 9) to support the pivot assembly in a field to be irrigated; and
an inlet pipe assembly (22) mounted in the frame and supported by the frame for inlet of water from a water supply (34) to the irrigation system;
wherein the inlet pipe assembly comprises an upper pipe segment (84, inner pipe of 124 defining the tubular screen chamber 126, 124, 146, 148 and 84) and a lower pipe segment (50, 54, 56 and 58) that extend coaxially (between 54 and 84. Fig. 5 and between at least the inner pipe of 124 defining the tubular screen chamber 126 and stationary tubular stake 50) with one another, wherein a lower end region (of 54) of the lower pipe segment is configured for (capable of) fluid connection to the water supply and a top end region (at 124. Fig. 5) of the upper pipe segment is configured for (capable of) fluid connection with a distribution pipeline (24, 148) of a span assembly (under 32), wherein the lower pipe segment is mounted fixed in the frame, wherein a lower end region of the upper pipe segment (of 84) is received within an upper end region (upper rim portion of 58) of the lower pipe segment, and wherein the upper pipe segment is mounted in the frame for rotation about a vertical pivot axis (of 24) relative to the lower pipe segment;
wherein the frame has a bearing arrangement (58) that mounts or supports the upper pipe segment for rotation about the pivot axis relative to the lower pipe segment, the bearing arrangement comprising a first bearing part (body of 58 including the unmarked weld under 58) that is fixed in the frame and a second bearing part (60) for secure or rigid attachment to the upper pipe segment, wherein the first bearing part encompasses (encircling) or surrounds the upper pipe segment.
With respect to claim 29, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the second bearing part contacts or seats against the first bearing part during rotation of the upper pipe segment (fig. 5).
With respect to claim 32, Fizmaurice discloses an irrigation system (Figures 1-14, column 2, lines 39-54, column 3, lines 13-32) for crop irrigation, the irrigation system (20) comprising:
a pivot assembly (Figures 1-14) comprising a frame (24 and 36) which mounts and supports an inlet pipe assembly (84, inner pipe of 124 defining the tubular screen chamber 126, 124, 146, 148, 84, and 50, 54, 56 and 58) for inlet of water from a water supply (34) to the irrigation system in a field to be irrigated, wherein the inlet pipe assembly comprises an upper pipe segment (84, inner pipe of 124 defining the tubular screen chamber 126, 124, 146, 148 and 84) and a lower pipe segment (50, 54, 56 and 58), the upper pipe segment and the lower pipe segment extending generally vertically and coaxially with one another, wherein a lower end region of the upper pipe segment (of 84) is received within an upper end region (upper rim portion of 58) of the lower pipe segment and wherein the upper pipe segment is mounted in the frame for rotation about a pivot axis (of 24) relative to the lower pipe segment; and
a span assembly (under 32) for connection to the pivot assembly to extend radially therefrom across the field, the span assembly comprising a distribution pipeline (24, 148) for fluid connection with the upper pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly to convey the water along the span assembly for distributing the water to a plurality of sprinkler heads (40 and 44) located along the span assembly for applying the water to the field, wherein the span assembly is configured to (capable of) rotate about the pivot axis together with the upper pipe segment;
wherein the frame of the pivot assembly includes a bearing arrangement (58) for mounting the upper pipe segment for rotation about the pivot axis relative to the lower pipe segment, the bearing arrangement comprising a first bearing part (body of 58 including the unmarked weld under 58) fixed in the frame and a second bearing part (60) for (radially) rigid attachment to the upper pipe segment, wherein the first bearing part encompasses (encircling) or surrounds the upper pipe segment (of 84) which extends through the (upper rim portion of 58) first bearing part to connect with the lower pipe segment, and wherein the second bearing part contacts or seats against the first bearing part for rotation of the upper pipe segment about the pivot axis (Fig. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 14, 19, 22, 23, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fizmaurice.
With respect to claim 4, Fizmaurice discloses the pivot assembly according to claim 3 except for wherein the length of the upper pipe segment is in the range of 300mm to 1000mm, and wherein the length of the lower pipe segment is in the range of 500mm to 1500mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the length of the upper pipe segment is in the range of 300mm to 1000mm, and wherein the length of the lower pipe segment is in the range of 500mm to 1500mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 9, Fizmaurice discloses the pivot assembly according to claim 1 and wherein at least one or both of the upper pipe segment (146 and 148) and the lower pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly is/are comprised of a polymer plastic material. Fizmaurice fails to disclose wherein the polymer plastic material selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the polymer plastic pipe segments from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in order to form the conduits. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the polymer plastic pipe segments from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) because these material are well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the polymer plastic pipe segments from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained.
With respect to claim 14, Fizmaurice discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein each of the upper pipe segment and the lower pipe segment is comprised of a straight length of pipe (between 54 and 84. Fig. 5).
Fizmaurice fails to disclose wherein the length of the upper pipe segment is in the range of 400mm to 1000mm, and the length of the lower pipe segment is in the range of 500mm to 1500mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the length of the upper pipe segment is in the range of 400mm to 1000mm, and the length of the lower pipe segment is in the range of 500mm to 1500mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 19, Fizmaurice discloses the pivot assembly according to claim 11 and wherein at least one or both of the upper pipe segment (146 and 148) and the lower pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly is/are comprised of a polymer plastic material. Fizmaurice fails to disclose wherein the polymer plastic material selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the polymer plastic pipe segments from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in order to form the conduits. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the polymer plastic pipe segments from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) because these materials are well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the polymer plastic pipe segments from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained.
With respect to claim 22, Fizmaurice discloses the pivot assembly according to claim 19 except for wherein the distribution pipeline is comprised of a polymer plastic material, selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), polypropylene (PP-R), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the distribution pipeline comprised of a polymer plastic material, selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), polypropylene (PP-R), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in order to form the conduits. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the distribution pipeline comprised of a polymer plastic material, selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), polypropylene (PP-R), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) because these materials are well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the distribution pipeline comprised of a polymer plastic material, selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), polypropylene (PP-R), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained.
With respect to claim 23, Fizmaurice discloses wherein the distribution pipeline comprises a series of coaxially arranged pipe lengths in fluid connection with one another via expandable joints (Figs. 8 and 9).
With respect to claim 30, Fizmaurice discloses the pivot assembly according to claim 28 except for wherein the length of the upper pipe segment is in the range of 300mm to 1000mm, and wherein the length of the lower pipe segment is in the range of 500mm to 1500mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the length of the upper pipe segment is in the range of 300mm to 1000mm, and wherein the length of the lower pipe segment is in the range of 500mm to 1500mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 31, Fizmaurice discloses the pivot assembly according to claim 28 except for wherein at least one or both of the upper pipe segment and the lower pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly is/are comprised of a polymer plastic material selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the at least one or both of the upper pipe segment and the lower pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly is/are comprised of a polymer plastic material selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least one or both of the upper pipe segment and the lower pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly is/are comprised of a polymer plastic material selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) because these materials are well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the at least one or both of the upper pipe segment and the lower pipe segment of the inlet pipe assembly is/are comprised of a polymer plastic material selected from the group consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (e.g., PP-R), cross-linked polyethylene (PEX), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Fizmaurice fails to disclose wherein a lower end region of the upper pipe segment extends through the first bearing part and connects with an upper end region of the lower pipe segment. The applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot due to the new interpretation of the Fizmaurice reference. The first bearing part is now being interpreted as the “body of 58 including the unmarked weld under 58.” Therefore, a lower end region of the upper pipe segment (of 84) extends through the (upper rim portion of 58) first bearing part and connects with an upper end region of the lower pipe segment (see new rejection above).
The Applicant also argues that the frame of Fizmaurice is not stationary. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the term “stationary” has been interpreted as not mobile or portable relative to the field. Second, the interpretation appears to match or meet the Applicant’s configuration where the frame 11, of the Applicant’s invention, is not mobile or portable relative to the field. Third, the added limitation of “stationary supporting structure” frame violates 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See the detailed rejections elaborated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 13, 2025