DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Preliminary amendments to the clams, filed on 03/08/2023, are accepted and do not introduce new matter.
Claims 1-6, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 and 38 are pending and examined hereafter; claims 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25-26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37 and 39 were cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
Some claims disclose a “rigid wall” and a “flexible wall”. Although, the terms rigid and flexible are relative, Examiner is interpreting them in comparison with each other and in view of the Specification. That is, one wall is more structurally firm than the other one.
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 24, 27, 28, 30 and 38 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.
Independent claim 24 discloses both “an external elongated hollow structure formed with through holes at a wall thereof” and “an outlet on said external structure for allowing water to drip out of said pathway”. It is unclear if there are two types of outlets claimed or if the through holes are the structure that defines the outlet, since they are both defined on the external structure. For examination purposes and based on disclosure, Examiner will interpret the through holes as part of the claimed outlet.
Claims 27, 28 and 30 are indefinite for depending on claim 24.
Independent claim 38 discloses “an irrigation pipe” twice. Once in the preamble and again in the body of the claim. This is considered indefinite because it is unclear if the pipe comprises another pipe, or if the device only has one pipe. For examination purposes and based on disclosure, Examiner will interpret the claim as having a single irrigation pipe.
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, 2, 3, 6, 10, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perkins (U.S. 6,382,530).
Regarding claim 1, Perkins teaches an irrigation dripper (see abstract) comprising:
an external elongated hollow structure (defined by web 94, seen in Fig 14) having a rigid wall (shown below – the rigid wall shown below is rigid in comparison to the flexible wall due to the structure of strip 70 supporting it) and a flexible wall (shown below – the flexible wall shown below is part of web 94 which is disclosed as flexible in col 4, lines 30-37);
an internal elongated structure (defined by strip 70, seen in Figs 10-14) introduced into said external structure (as seen in Fig 14) to form a pathway (defined by pathway 97 which extends into the inside of the strip 70 seen in Fig 10) for flow between said internal structure and said walls (pathway starts inside flexible wall of 94 and goes in between the internal structure and the rigid wall, as seen in Figs 10-14);
an inlet for providing water to said pathway (shown below); and
an outlet on said external structure for allowing water to drip out of said pathway (as shown below, the outlet is on the external structure).
Regarding claim 2, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein said flexible wall is generally planar in the absence of pressure difference between an inner side and an outer side thereof (the web 94 is discloses as a flexible plastic film in col 4, line 32; therefore, when there is no water pressure inside the bottom portion of 94 that rests on the ground is generally planar).
Regarding claim 3, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein said flexible wall is curved in the absence of pressure difference between an inner side and an outer side thereof (because the flexible wall, i.e. web 94, is cylindrical, as seen in Fig 14, when there is not water pressure inside it, the side portions of 94 will be curved).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein an outer surface of said rigid wall has two generally planar structures intersecting with said flexible wall (as shown below, two planar structure intersect the flexible wall; Examiner notes that “planar structures” is a broadly claimed term; thus this interpretation is valid).
Regarding claim 10, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein an outer surface of said rigid wall is tapered towards said flexible wall (as shown below).
Regarding claim 14, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein said flexible wall is a membrane attached (as seen in Fig 14) to said rigid wall (the flexible wall 94 is disclosed as a flexible plastic film in col 4, line 32, wherein a flexible plastic film is considered a membrane).
Regarding claim 16, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein said flexible wall is made of the same material as said rigid wall (as seen in Figs 2 and 14 both walls are the same material) except at a smaller thickness (accounting for the strip on the rigid wall, the flexible wall has a smaller thickness; This can be seen in the cross-section seen in Fig 14).
Regarding claim 20, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein said internal elongated structure is non-hollow (as seen in Figs 11-12, the internal structure 70 comprises strip portions 80 and 86, which are non-hollow; as such portions of the internal structure 70 are non-hollow).
Regarding claim 22, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein said external elongated hollow structure is formed with through holes at said rigid wall (holes defined by slits 96 which are on the rigid wall, see Fig 14; col 2, line 45-51 disclose a plurality of slits), said holes being shaped to perturb said flow in response to a pressure drop across said holes (col 6, lines 20-24 disclose the holes closing in response to lack of pressure in the dripper).
Regarding claim 32, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein said inlet is peripheral with respect to said internal elongated structure (as shown below).
Regarding claim 34, Perkins teaches an irrigation dripping pipe (disclosed col 1, lines 9+), comprising an irrigation pipe (disclosed as a hose) provided with a plurality of drippers (Col 1, lines 9+ disclose a plurality of strips, i.e. drippers, such as strip 70, in parallel along the pipe), wherein at least one of said drippers is the irrigation dripper according to claim 1 (Perkins teaches the drippers according to claim 1, see rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
292
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
367
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Perkins teaches an irrigation dripper (see abstract) comprising:
an external elongated hollow structure (defined by web 94, seen in Fig 14) formed with through holes (holes defined by slits 96 which are on the rigid wall, see Fig 14; col 2, line 45-51 disclose a plurality of slits) at a wall thereof (as seen in Fig 14, 96 are defined on a wall of structure 94);
an internal elongated structure (defined by strip 70, seen in Figs 10-14) introduced into said external structure (as seen in Fig 14) to form a pathway (defined by pathway 97 which extends into the inside of the strip 70 seen in Fig 10) for flow between said structures (pathway starts inside flexible wall of 94 and goes in between the internal structure 70 and the wall of the external structure, as seen in Figs 10-14), wherein said holes are shaped to perturb said flow in response to a pressure drop across said holes (col 6, lines 20-24 disclose the holes closing in response to lack of pressure in the dripper);
an inlet for providing water to said pathway (shown below); and
an outlet on said external structure for allowing water to drip out of said pathway (shown below).
Regarding claim 27, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 24, wherein a cross section of an outer surface of said external structure, perpendicular to a longitudinal axis, is generally rectangular (as shown below).
Regarding claim 28, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 24, wherein an outer surface of said external structure is tapered (as shown below).
Regarding claim 30, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 24, wherein said internal elongated structure is non-hollow (as seen in Figs 11-12, the internal structure 70 comprises strip portions 80 and 86, which are non-hollow; as such portions of the internal structure 70 are non-hollow).
PNG
media_image4.png
434
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
616
727
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
367
505
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qin et al (WO 2020143359 A1). Note: Examiner is referencing the translation of Qin provided herewith.
Regarding claim 38, as best understood, Qin teachers an irrigation dripping pipe (11), comprising: an irrigation pipe (11) having first end (left side, seen in Fig 1) connectable to a water source (as disclosed in Par 16, the pipe 11 is connected to a source that sends water in the direction of the arrow seen in Fig 1) or a water distribution line, and second end distal to said first end (right side, seen in fig 1, defined downstream of the flow arrow); and a plurality of drippers (dripper defined by 12, 13 and 14, seen in Fig 1; which are placed in connectors 102 in Fig 8) distributed along said irrigation pipe (Par 15 discloses a plurality of connectors 102), wherein each dripper has an inlet (1400) for receiving water flowing in said irrigation pipe (as seen by the flow arrow that enters 1400, seen in Figs 1 and 2) and an outlet (outlet 132, seen in Fig 2) for allowing water flowing in said dripper to drip out of said dripper (see Fig 2), and wherein for at least one of said dripper said inlet is facing said second end (1400 faces the right side of the pipe, see fig 2) such that an inflow of water into said at least one dripper is opposite to a flow of water in said irrigation pipe (as seen in Fig 2, the water enters the dripper in a direction opposite to the flow; see the flow arrow of the source pointing right and compare to the arrow representing the flow entering the dripper pointing generally to the left, i.e. opposite).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (U.S. 6,382,530).
Regarding claim 4, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1. However, Perkins does not teach the dripper wherein a volume defined by said rigid wall has a shape of a cylindrical segment, instead the volume defined by said rigid wall has a shape of a rectangular segment (as seen in the cross-section of Fig 14).
It would have been an obvious matter to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable shape for the volume defined by the rigid wall, including the shape of a cylinder, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, selecting any shape for the volume involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Dailey: the court found that shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). In the present case, Perkins discloses all the general structure of the claim; therefore, it would be obvious to select any workable shape for the device to function as desired. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the volume be of a cylindrical shape. In fact, Applicant’s specification (page 6) discloses that the volume may not necessarily be cylindrical, it can also be a triangular prism, a parallelepiped, a square cuboid, a rectangular cuboid, a square cuboid, etc. As such, many shapes can achieve the function of the dripper, and a cylindrical shape does not offer any benefit.
Regarding claim 5, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1. However, Perkins does not teach the dripper wherein a volume defined by said rigid wall has a shape of a prism, instead the volume defined by said rigid wall has a shape of a rectangular segment (as seen in the cross-section of Fig 14).
It would have been an obvious matter to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable shape for the volume defined by the rigid wall, including the shape of a prism, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, selecting any shape for the volume involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Dailey: the court found that shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). In the present case, Perkins discloses all the general structure of the claim; therefore, it would be obvious to select any workable shape for the device to function as desired. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the volume be of a prism. In fact, Applicant’s specification (page 6) discloses that the volume may not necessarily be a prism, it can also be cylindrical, a parallelepiped, a square cuboid, a rectangular cuboid, a square cuboid, etc. As such, many shapes can achieve the function of the dripper, and a prism does not offer any benefit.
Regarding claim 18, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripper according to claim 1. However, Perkins does not teach the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, wherein a size and a material of said flexible wall are both selected such that a pressure difference of ΔP between an inner side and an outer side thereof, generates an inward displacement of said flexible wall by Δr, wherein said ΔP is at most 400 cmH20 and said Δr is at least 5 µm and at most 200 µm.
It would have been an obvious matter to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable shape for the flexible wall, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, selecting any shape for the volume involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Dailey: the court found that shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). In the present case, Perkins discloses all the general structure of the claim; therefore, it would be obvious to select any workable shape for the flexible wall to function as desired.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flexible wall out of any suitable material, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is considered prima facie obviousness given that it performs the same function as it was determined in In re Leshin (see MPEP 2144.07). In the present case, Perkins discloses all the general structure of the claim.
Furthermore, Applicant has not provided criticality for making achieving the claimed pressure difference of ΔP (at most 400 cmH20) and inward displacement of said flexible wall Δr (5 µm to 200 µm). In fact, Applicant discloses multiple other ranges for these two parameters in page 10 of their Specification, whilst lacking any criticality for such ranges. Therefore, choosing the material and size of the flexible wall this is further considered an obvious design choice.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (U.S. 6,382,530) in view of Qin et al (WO 2020143359 A1). Note: Examiner is referencing the translation of Qin provided herewith.
Regarding claim 36, Perkins teaches the irrigation dripping pipe according to claim 34. However, Perkins does not explicitly teach wherein said irrigation pipe has a first end connectable to a water source or a water distribution line, and second end distal to said first end, and wherein for at least one of said drippers, said inlet is facing said second end such that an inflow of water into said at least one dripper is opposite to a flow of water in said irrigation pipe.
Qin teaches a drip irrigation system wherein an irrigation pipe (11) has a first end (left side, seen in Fig 1) connectable to a water source (as disclosed in Par 16, the pipe 11 is connected to a source that sends water in the direction of the arrow seen in Fig 1) or a water distribution line, and second end distal to said first end (right side, seen in fig 1, defined downstream of the flow arrow), and wherein for at least one of drippers (dripper defined by 12, 13 and 14, seen in Fig 1), an inlet (1400) is facing said second end (1400 faces the right side of the pipe, i.e. the second end) such that an inflow of water into said at least one dripper is opposite to a flow of water in said irrigation pipe (as seen in Fig 2, the water enters the dripper in a direction opposite to the flow; see the flow arrow of the source pointing right and compare to the arrow representing the flow entering the dripper pointing generally to the left, i.e. opposite).
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 Perkins to incorporate the teachings of Qin to provide the flow of water in the dripper in the opposite direction as the direction of the source in order for the water flow to form a decompression zone at the water inlet, so that the flow velocity of the water flowing into the inlet of the dripper becomes slower, this will prevent impurities from entering the dripper (as disclosed in Par 18 of Qin).
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