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 .
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 “second sensor” recited in claim 3 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 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "vibration" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “errors” in line 4. The interpretation of “errors” requires a subjective determination. What may constitute “errors” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not constitute “errors” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a device configured to direct fluid flow” in line 5. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fluid distribution system” recited in line 1 because the “device” appears to be an element of the “fluid distribution system.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “fluid flow” in line 5. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fluid flow” recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a structure” in line 6. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “device” in line 5. Claim 2 defines the device as a hose. A hose can be device configured to direct fluid flow.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fluid communicating device" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fluid distribution system” recited in line 1 because the “fluid communicating device” appears to be an element of the “fluid distribution system.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “vibrations” in line 7. At least one of the vibrations appears to be a double inclusion of the “vibration” recited in line 3.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the structure in mechanical communication with the device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a sprinkler assembly” in lines 6-7. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fluid distribution system” recited in claim 1 because the “sprinkler assembly” appears to be an element of the “fluid distribution system.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “water” in line 7. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fluid flow” recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the watering system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be double inclusion of the “fluid distribution system” recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the vibration caused by at least one selected from a group consisting…" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “vibration” recited in claim 1 is due to turbulence in the fluid flow.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a source pump, a turbine in a hose reel unit to wind a reel, the reel, a sprinkler and a ticker” in lines 3-4. They appear to be double inclusions of the “fluid distribution system” recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a reel” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “hose reel unit” recited in line 4 because the “reel” is an element of the “hose reel unit.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "fluid flow" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “water flowing through the hose and the pipe” recited in lines 8-9.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "vibration" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "fluid flow" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “water flowing through the hose and the pipe” recited in lines 8-9 and/or the “fluid flow” recited in line 10.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “an error” in line 13. The interpretation of “an error” requires a subjective determination. What may constitute “an error” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not constitute “an error” to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the fluid communicating device comprising the pipe or the hose" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The fluid communicating device defined in lines 3-6 comprises a hose and a pipe.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the vibration caused by at least one selected from a group consisting…" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “vibration” recited in claim 1 is due to turbulence in the fluid flow.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a source pump, a turbine in a hose reel unit to wind a reel, the reel, a sprinkler and a ticker” in lines 3-4. They appear to be double inclusions of the “fluid distribution system” recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a reel” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “hose reel unit” recited in line 3 because the “reel” is an element of the “hose reel unit.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a vibration caused by at least one selected from a group consisting…" in lines 2-4. It is uncertain whether the “vibration” is a double inclusion of the “vibration due to turbulence in the fluid flow” recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a source pump, a turbine in a hose reel unit to wind a reel, the reel, a sprinkler and a ticker” in lines 3-4. They appear to be double inclusions of the “fluid distribution system” recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a reel” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “hose reel unit” recited in lines 3-4 because the “reel” is an element of the “hose reel unit.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the vibration caused by at least one selected from a group consisting…" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “vibration” recited in claim 1 is due to turbulence in the fluid flow.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a source pump, the reel, a sprinkler and a ticker” in lines 3-4. They appear to be double inclusions of the “fluid distribution system” recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the location" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “certain vibrations” in line 2. It is uncertain what “vibrations” are limited by the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a specific action” in line 3. It is uncertain what “actions” are limited by the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “junctions, connections, inlets, outlets, valves, changes in fluid communicating device diameter, pumps, obstacles bends, curves, splits, holes and leakages” in lines 2-4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fluid distribution system” recited in claim 1.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with indefiniteness.
The above listing is only exemplary. Limited time for examination precludes a complete editorial review. Applicant is required to review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 8, 17 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilpatrick (2014/0203102).
Regarding claim 1, Gilpatrick discloses a system that detects a fluid flow in a fluid distribution system (fluid conduit between the water source and the pump), comprising at least one sensor 222, 322, 522 located on the outside of the fluid distribution system (as shown in the figures) that detects and registers the presence of vibration (paragraph 0053) due to turbulence in the fluid flow to detect and locate errors in the fluid distribution system, wherein the at least one sensor is attached to at least one selected from a group consisting of a device (fluid conduit between the water source and the pump) configured to direct fluid flow, and a structure of the fluid distribution system in mechanical communication with the fluid communicating device that is configured to propagate vibrations.
Regarding claim 8, Gilpatrick further discloses a source pump 230, 330, 530.
Regarding claim 17, Gilpatrick further discloses junctions (junction of fluid conduit and the pump).
Claim(s) 1 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Falster-Hansen et al. (2015/0001310).
Hansen et al. disclose a system that detects a fluid flow in a fluid distribution system 40, comprising at least one sensor 71 located on the outside of the fluid distribution system (figure 1 shows sensor 71 mounted on the outside of tank 40) that detects and registers the presence of vibration due to turbulence in fluid flow to detect and locate errors in the fluid distribution system, wherein the at least one sensor is attached to at least one selected from a group consisting of a device 101, 102 configured to direct fluid flow, and a structure in mechanical communication 102 with the fluid communicating device 101 that is configured to propagate vibrations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK