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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-6, 10-12 and 14-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 20, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group II, Species I and Flowchart Species II in the reply filed on June 20, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the “Inventions I and II would substantially overlap in strategy and search field to a degree removing any serious burden from the Examiner” and “the species are not necessarily mutually exclusive.” This is not found persuasive because, as elaborated in the previous Office Action, Inventions II and I are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because Invention II does not require the means for adjusting the proportions of the components. The subcombination has separate utility such as automated paint spraying platform/robot. As for the Species the lowering and elevating mechanism and flowchart shown in the figures are mutually exclusive and these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The Applicant asserts that claims 1, 2, 7-9 and 13 read on the elected Invention Group and Species. However, claim 13 depends on the withdrawn non-elected claim 11. A telephonic call and message were made to Mr. Michael B. Priddy, Reg. No. 68,451, at (720) 383-4531 on July 24, 2025. During a return telephonic call received from the Applicant on July 25, 2025. The Examiner and the Applicant agreed to interpret Claim 13 to depend on claim 7 and will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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 pair of axle sleeves as recited in claim 8 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the pair of axle sleeves as recited in claim 8.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first end of each coupled” in line 2, should read --a first end of each vertical member of the pair of vertical members coupled.--
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a second end of each of the pair of vertical members” in line 4, should read -- a second end of each vertical member of the pair of vertical members.--
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one of the horizontal member" in line 7, should read --one of the horizontal members.-- Appropriate correction is required. Same objection applies to all pending claims.
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, 2, 7-9 and 13 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.
The term “each end,” in line 4 of claim 1 rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “end” refers to an end of the horizontal member or the vertical member? Clarification is respectfully requested. Alternatively, the limitation should read --…horizontal member, each end of the horizontal member.-- Similar rejection applies to the limitation “each coupled” in line 6 of claim 1. Alternatively, the limitation should read -- each wheel is coupled.-- Similar rejection applies to the limitation “each coupled” in line 2 of claim 2 and all pending claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein a distance between ends of one of the horizontal member or the pair of vertical members is configured to change to lower or raise the water pipe with respect to the horizontal member" in lines 6-9. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect. First, it is unclear if the “or” in line 7 provide alternative reading of the limitations among "a distance between ends of one of the horizontal member,” "ends of one of the horizontal member” or “the pair of vertical members?” Second, the two vertical members are connected to the water pipe, therefore, it is unclear how a “distance” of the pair of vertical members is configured to change to lower or raise the water pipe with respect to the horizontal member? Clarification is respectfully requested. Alternatively, the limitation "ends of one of the horizontal member" in line 7 lacks sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “vertical” in line 2 of claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “generally upright,” while the accepted meaning is “perpendicular to the plane of the horizon or to a primary axis. Merriam-Webster” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purpose of examination, the term “vertical” will be interpreted as “generally upright.”
The term “one of the horizontal member" in line 7 of claim 1 rendering the claim indefinite because line 4 requires only one “horizontal member," however, the term “one of” in line 7 implies more than one “horizontal member." Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ends" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it depends on a withdrawn non-elected claim 11.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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, 2, 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Provaznik (US 11,272,673).
With respect to claim 1, Provaznik discloses an irrigation tower (22A. Figs. 1-12, especially the embodiment in Figs. 6-11), comprising:
a pair of vertical members (42A. Fig. 7), a first (top) end of each coupled to a water pipe (12A) and configured to (capable of) pivot in relation to the water pipe (Figs. 9 and 10);
a horizontal member (102), each end (left and right ends of 102) coupled to a second (lower) end of each of the pair of vertical members and configured to (capable of) pivot in relation to the second ends; and
a plurality of wheels (66A), each coupled (indirectly) to the horizontal member,
wherein a distance between ends of one of the horizontal member or the pair of vertical members is configured to change to lower or raise the water pipe with respect to the horizontal member (Figs. 9 and 10).
With respect to claim 2, Provaznik discloses the irrigation tower of claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of drive units (motor 82A), each coupled to one of the plurality of wheels and configured to (capable of) independently rotate an associated wheel as directed by a controller (90A), wherein the controller directs the drive units to one of:
rotate the plurality of wheels in a first (right or forward) direction of rotation to move the irrigation tower in a first direction; or
rotate the plurality of wheels in a second (left or reverse) direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation to move the irrigation tower in a second direction opposite the first direction,
wherein the controller is further configured to (capable of) enable or disable (cut off) power to the plurality of drive units, wherein in response to the controller disables power to the plurality of drive units, movement of the irrigation tower in the first or second directions is inhibited.
With respect to claim 7, Provaznik discloses the irrigation tower of claim 2, wherein the controller further directs the plurality of drive units to one of:
rotate two or more of the wheels apart to lower the water pipe (Fig. 9), and in response increase a distance between the ends of the horizontal member; or
rotate two or more of the wheels toward one another to raise the water pipe (Fig. 10) and in response decrease a distance between the ends of the horizontal member (Col 7, line 34 to Col. 8, line 65).
With respect to claim 8, Provaznik discloses the irrigation tower of claim 7, wherein the horizontal member comprises one of:
a pair of axle sleeves (left and middle sleeves of 102 in Fig. 9), wherein one (left) end of each axle sleeve is coupled to the second end of one of the pair of vertical members; and
a beam axle (right axle/portion of 102 in Fig. 9); retained by and configured to slide within, the pair of axle sleeves;
or
a pair of axle sleeves (left and middle sleeves of 102 in Fig. 9), wherein one (left) end of each axle sleeve is coupled to the second end of one of the pair of vertical members; and
a beam axle (right axle/portion of 102 in Fig. 9); retained by and configured to slide outside, the pair of axle sleeves.
With respect to claim 9, Provaznik discloses the irrigation tower of claim 7, wherein the horizontal member comprises:
a plurality of telescoping horizontal member sections (left, middle and right sections of 102 in Fig. 9), configured to (capable of) collapse to a minimum horizontal member length (Fig. 10) and expand to a maximum horizontal member length (Fig. 9),
wherein the water pipe is at a maximum height over the horizontal member in response to the horizontal member is collapsed to a minimum length, wherein the water pipe is at a minimum height over the horizontal member in response to the horizontal member is expanded to a maximum length.
With respect to claim 13, Provaznik discloses the irrigation tower of claim 11, wherein the plurality of drive units are configured to (capable of) receive power from a power source, wherein the controller inhibits power to the drive units in response to the irrigation tower is lowered and a current wind speed is at or above a maximum wind speed threshold (Col. 1, lines 14-24, lines 34-38; Col. 2, lines 11-28; Col. 5, lines 36-53; Col. 6, lines 45-65; Col. 7, lines 18-26; Col. 9, lines 47-62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to an irrigation tower: Gunter, Williams ‘475, Buller, Wang, Catton, Vorderstrasse, Rosenboom et al. and Williams ‘459.
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 July 26, 2025