DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to applicant’s communication filed 09/24/2025.
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 the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art in view of the amendments to the claims have been fully considered but are respectfully moot in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KLEIN (US 2015/0319941 A1) in view of ENDRIZZI (US 2015/0005963 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, KLEIN teaches a method for irrigation control, comprising: (¶ 21: An irrigation control method is disclosed, an overview of the embodiments of which are illustrated in Figs. 9-12.)
receiving, at a cloud-based irrigation controller, (¶ 28: “central controller can be implemented as a distributed computing platform (i.e., cloud-based)”. The central controller, such as controller 210 in Fig 6, is a cloud-based irrigation controller.)
a tethering request from a plurality of irrigation controllers, (¶ 21, 75, 80: A request to register a sprinkler controller, including identifying information about the sprinkler controller, is a tethering request. As shown in Fig. 6 and ¶ 68, there are a plurality of sprinkler controllers, each of which would have to be registered.)
each irrigation controller controlling a plurality of irrigation zones; (¶ 21, 32, 68, Fig. 6: Each sprinkler controller controls a plurality of valves and zones.)
connecting the plurality of irrigation controllers to the cloud-based irrigation controller; (¶ 52, 75, 78-79: The sprinkler controllers are registered with the cloud-based central controller to receive schedule data via a network connection.)
KLEIN also teaches generating, at the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers, irrigation information based on conditions at the plurality of irrigation zones for the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers… (¶ 32-33, 36-37, 39, 56-57: The central controller receives irrigation information for each of the plurality of irrigation zones, including sensor data, sprinkler controller data, zone data, irrigation schedule data (historic and current), historical and forecast weather data, soil and turf types, watering restrictions, water pressure and usage, sprinkler valve and nozzle types, and geolocation data.)
and using the irrigation information, generating irrigation instructions for the plurality of irrigation controllers from the cloud-based irrigation controller. (¶ 38, 44, 76, 95: An irrigation schedule, or instructions, are generated for each zone of each sprinkler controller. The generated instructions may be default instructions or instructions based on similar zones according to a matching and adjustment algorithm.)
KLEIN does not teach during an interruption of connection to the cloud-based irrigation controller with an irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers… storing the irrigation information in a memory cache on the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers; when the connection to the could-based irrigation controller is restored, uploading the irrigation information to the cloud-based irrigation controller
However, ENDRIZZI, which is similarly directed to a cloud-based irrigation control system, teaches during an interruption of connection to the cloud-based irrigation controller with an irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers; generating, at the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers, irrigation information based on conditions at the plurality of irrigation zones for the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers; (¶ 116, 122-124, 128, Fig. 20 steps 2020 and 2060: During operation of an irrigation controller, transcript information, which includes protocol details, date and time information, actual weather data, and other relevant information, is generated and stored in the memory of the controller. This occurs during an interruption of connection with a cloud-based irrigation controller (i.e. the “irrigation server”). During the connection loss, the controller also operates using a historical protocol stored on the controller.)
storing the irrigation information in a memory cache on the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers; when the connection to the could-based irrigation controller is restored, uploading the irrigation information to the cloud-based irrigation controller; (¶ 116, 128, Fig. 20 steps 2060 and 2002: The irrigation controller records the irrigation information for each iteration of the irrigation protocol in its own memory “until communication between the irrigation server and controller is reestablished”.)
and using the irrigation information to generate irrigation instructions. (¶ 120, Fig. 18/19 steps 1802-1810/ 1902-1910 provide background on generation of irrigation instructions using the information received by the irrigation server; ¶ 122, Fig. 20, steps 2060, 2002, 2010: The irrigation information stored by the controller during the loss of connection is fed back to the irrigation server when a connection is reestablished and used to generate irrigation instructions for future iterations.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cloud-based irrigation control system taught by KLEIN by storing irrigation information on a local controller during a connection loss and uploading that information to the server after connection is reestablished as taught by ENDRIZZI. Since the references are similarly directed to cloud-based irrigation systems, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Such an implementation would have allowed the irrigation controllers for each of the plurality of zones to continue operation even during a loss of connection. As suggested by ENDRIZZI (¶ 3-4), this feature would have enabled efficient use of water resources by communicating with a network, including during losses of connection by establishing backup protocols.
Regarding Claim 14, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI further teaches a cloud-based irrigation system, comprising: a cloud-based irrigation controller including a memory and processor, the processor including instructions accessible by the processor to cause the processor to: (KLEIN, ¶ 28, 30, Fig. 1: processor 150, memory 130.)
Claim 14 otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI further teaches wherein connecting the plurality of irrigation controllers includes wirelessly connecting the plurality of irrigation controllers. (KLEIN, ¶ 33, 69, 109, Fig. 6: The plurality of irrigation controllers, such as sprinkler controllers A and B, are wirelessly connected via respective routers and network 330 to a central (cloud-based) controller 210.)
Claim 15 recites the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI further teaches wherein the irrigation information includes a location of irrigation devices connected to one or more of the plurality of irrigation controllers. (KLEIN, ¶ 39, 56-57, 80-81, Fig. 5: Information received includes location information, such as zip code information or latitude and longitude, of devices connected to the irrigation controllers, such as the sprinklers and valves.)
Claim 17 recites the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 5, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI further teaches wherein the irrigation information includes flow rate information for each of the plurality of irrigation zones. (KLEIN, ¶ 57, 86, Fig. 5: Zone characteristics include flow rate. See the first table on Page 10, which shows characteristics of a plurality of zones, including their flow rates.)
Claim 18 recites the same limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 6, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI further teaches wherein the irrigation information includes hardware specifications for hardware connected to the plurality of irrigation controllers. (KLEIN, ¶ 39, 56-57, Fig. 5: Hardware specifications received include valve type, nozzle type, number of nozzles, make, model, flow rate, and water pressure.)
Claim 19 recites the same limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI further teaches further comprising: receiving, from the plurality of irrigation controllers, local irrigation programs for the plurality of irrigation zones; (KLEIN, ¶ 100-102, Fig. 12: A plurality of irrigation schedules for multiple zones are received from a plurality of sprinkler controllers, each controlling their own local zones.)
and generating a master irrigation program for the plurality of irrigation controllers. (KLEIN, ¶ 104-105: In one embodiment, an aggregate irrigation schedule of the multiple zones is generated, such as by averaging the number of cycles or cycle times. The resulting irrigation schedule is sent to the requesting sprinkler controller. In another embodiment, qualitative feedback of a schedule of a first zone is received, and if it is determined to be beneficial for other zones, an identical or adjusted schedule is sent to the plurality of sprinkler controllers for the similarly situated zones. Both embodiments read on “a master irrigation program” being generated and sent to relevant irrigation controllers.)
Claim 20 recites the same limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 8, KLEIN teaches a method for irrigation control, comprising: (¶ 21: An irrigation control method is disclosed, an overview of which is illustrated in Figs. 9-12.)
at an irrigation controller, transmitting, to a cloud-based irrigation controller (¶ 28: “central controller can be implemented as a distributed computing platform (i.e., cloud-based)”. The central controller, such as controller 210 in Fig 6, is a cloud-based irrigation controller.), a tethering request; (¶ 21, 75, 80: A request to register a sprinkler controller, including identifying information about the sprinkler controller, is a tethering request. While the claim only requires one irrigation controller to send a tethering request, as shown in Fig. 6 and ¶ 68, there are a plurality of sprinkler controllers each controlling a plurality of zones, and each of them would have to be registered.)
connecting the irrigation controller to the cloud-based irrigation controller; (¶ 52, 75, 78-79: The sprinkler controllers are registered with the cloud-based central controller to receive schedule data via a network connection.)
KLEIN further teaches generating, at the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers, irrigation information based on conditions at the plurality of irrigation zones for the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers… (¶ 32-33, 36-37, 39, 56-57: The central controller receives irrigation information for each of the plurality of irrigation zones, including sensor data, sprinkler controller data, zone data, irrigation schedule data (historic and current), historical and forecast weather data, soil and turf types, watering restrictions, water pressure and usage, sprinkler valve and nozzle types, and geolocation data.)
and at the irrigation controller, receiving irrigation instructions from the cloud-based irrigation controller based on the irrigation information. (¶ 38, 44, 76-77, 95-97: Irrigation schedules, or instructions, are generated for each zone of each sprinkler controller and sent to the sprinkler controllers. The generated instructions may be default instructions or instructions based on similar zones according to a matching and adjustment algorithm.)
KLEIN does not teach during an interruption of connection to the cloud-based irrigation controller with an irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers… storing the irrigation information in a memory cache on the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers; when the connection to the could-based irrigation controller is restored, uploading the irrigation information to the cloud-based irrigation controller
However, ENDRIZZI, which is similarly directed to a cloud-based irrigation control system, teaches during an interruption of connection to the cloud-based irrigation controller with an irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers, generating, at the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers, irrigation information based on conditions at the plurality of irrigation zones for the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers; (¶ 116, 122-124, 128, Fig. 20 steps 2020 and 2060: During operation of an irrigation controller, transcript information, which includes protocol details, date and time information, actual weather data, and other relevant information, is generated and stored in the memory of the controller. This occurs during an interruption of connection with a cloud-based irrigation controller (i.e. the “irrigation server”). During the connection loss, the controller also operates using a historical protocol stored on the controller.)
storing the irrigation information in a memory cache on the irrigation controller of the plurality of irrigation controllers; when the connection to the could-based irrigation controller is restored, uploading the irrigation information to the cloud-based irrigation controller… (¶ 116, 128, Fig. 20 steps 2060 and 2002: The irrigation controller records the irrigation information for each iteration of the irrigation protocol in its own memory “until communication between the irrigation server and controller is reestablished”.)
and the irrigation instructions being based on the irrigation information. (¶ 120, Fig. 18/19 steps 1802-1810/ 1902-1910 provide background on generation of irrigation instructions using the information received by the irrigation server; ¶ 122, Fig. 20, steps 2060, 2002, 2010: The irrigation information stored by the controller during the loss of connection is fed back to the irrigation server when a connection is reestablished and used to generate irrigation instructions for future iterations.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cloud-based irrigation control system taught by KLEIN by storing irrigation information on a local controller during a connection loss and uploading that information to the server after connection is reestablished as taught by ENDRIZZI. Since the references are similarly directed to cloud-based irrigation systems, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Such an implementation would have allowed the irrigation controllers for each of the plurality of zones to continue operation even during a loss of connection. As suggested by ENDRIZZI (¶ 3-4), this feature would have enabled efficient use of water resources by communicating with a network, including during losses of connection by establishing backup protocols.
Regarding Claim 9, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI further teaches further comprising implementing the irrigation instructions. (KLEIN, ¶ 31-32, 44, 107: After receiving an irrigation schedule from a central controller, the schedule is implemented by sending signals for turning sprinkler valves off and on at certain times. After being implemented, a new schedule to be re-implemented can be sent based on quantitative and qualitative feedback.)
Regarding Claim 11, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI further teaches wherein the irrigation information includes flow rate information for a plurality of irrigation zones. (KLEIN, ¶ 57, 86, Fig. 5: Zone characteristics include flow rate. See the first table on Page 10, which shows characteristics of a plurality of zones, including their flow rates.)
Regarding Claim 12, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI further teaches further comprising receiving measurements from one or more sensors connected to the irrigation controller. (KLEIN, ¶ 32, 107, 117, Fig. 2: The sprinkler controller receives (see ¶ 32) measurement data from sensors in each zone connected to the sprinkler controller.)
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KLEIN (US 2015/0319941 A1) in view of ENDRIZZI (US 2015/0005963 A1) and further in view of BANGALORE (US 2016/0259309 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI teaches all the limitations of claim 12, on which claim 13 depends.
KLEIN further teaches further comprising: transmitting the measurements to the cloud-based irrigation controller; (¶ 32, Fig. 2: “Sensors 251, 255, 259 can send information to the central controller 210 directly, via network router 230, via sprinkler controller 220, or via some other device”. The sprinkler controller transmits the measurement information to the cloud-based central controller.)
While KLEIN teaches adjustment of an irrigation program based on sensor measurements (¶ 107), KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI does not explicitly teach and receiving an adjustment to a measurement program from the cloud-based irrigation controller, the cloud-based irrigation controller generating the adjustment to the measurement program based on the measurements.
However, BANGALORE, which is similarly directed to network-based irrigation control (¶ 43), teaches and receiving an adjustment to a measurement program from the cloud-based irrigation controller, the cloud-based irrigation controller generating the adjustment to the measurement program based on the measurements. (¶ 24, 32-34, 74-77: Adjustment to the calculation (by a host device and server in communication with an irrigation controller; See Fig. 2 and ¶ 39-42) of an evapotranspiration value, which is a metric used in determining a watering schedule for a zone, is based on sensor measurements, such as temperature and rainfall.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connection between a cloud-based controller and a plurality of local irrigation zone controllers for communicating information relevant to irrigation schedules, including sensor measurements, taught by KLEIN in view of ENDRIZZI by incorporating the adjustment to a relevant irrigation metric based on sensor data taught by BAGALORE. Since the references are similarly directed to irrigation control, including updating irrigation schedules based on sensor measurements, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by BANGALORE (¶ 86), such an implementation would “allow for more precise measurements of evapotranspiration and water deficits for that particular site, which may prevent water waste by allowing the system to use an efficient irrigation schedule appropriate for that particular site.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 EST.
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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118