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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 – line 14, claim 6 – line 6, claim 7 – line 1, claim 10 – line 2, claim 15 – line 6, claim 16 – line 1 and claim 19 – line 2 all recite the verb “trigged” which appears to be a typographical error, for clarity this should read --triggered--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble ends with “the system comprising” however as this is a method claim, this should read --the method comprising--. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US Pub No 2023/0210067 A1).
Re claim 1, Miller et al. show a system (Figs. 1-3) for implementing tilt monitoring and automatic safety shut-off for one or more self-propelled irrigation towers affixed to a common irrigation span, the system comprising:
a tilt monitor (118A-D) installed upon an irrigation tower, wherein the tilt monitor is to measure a degree of tilt of the irrigation tower away from vertical reference perpendicular to a horizontal ground reference (paragraph 0039);
a drive controller (116A-D) of the irrigation tower having a safety switch integrated therein via which to halt drive wheels of the irrigation tower when the irrigation tower is not operating within a safe condition (paragraphs 0035 & 0053);
an irrigation tower tilt monitoring system (120A-D) installed upon the irrigation tower and communicably interfaced with the tilt monitor, wherein the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system is to iteratively receive tilt angles from the tilt monitor and compare the tilt angles received with pre-configured tilt thresholds stored by the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system to determine whether the irrigation tower is presently operating within a safe condition (paragraphs 0051 & 0052);
an operational halt signal trigged by the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system and transmitted to the drive controller of the irrigation tower when the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system determines the irrigation tower is no longer operating within the safe condition based upon the tilt angles received falling outside of the pre-configured tilt thresholds (paragraph 0053); and
wherein the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system issues the operational halt signal to all irrigation towers affixed to the common irrigation span, causing the entire common irrigation span to cease operation (paragraph 0053).
Re claim 2, Miller et al. show wherein the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system (120A-D) installed upon the irrigation tower (112A-D) comprises one of:
the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system configured for installation upon the irrigation tower in-situ at a deployed operating location for the irrigation tower;
the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system configured for installation upon the irrigation tower at a manufacturing facility which manufactures the irrigation tower; and
the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system configured for installation upon the irrigation tower at a value added reseller or distributor subsequent to manufacture of the irrigation tower and prior to resale to an end-consumer of the irrigation tower.
Re claims 4 & 13, Miller et al. disclose wherein irrigation tower tilt monitoring system issues the operational halt signal further comprises the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system of a first irrigation tower issuing the operational halt signal to at least a second and a third irrigation tower upstream or downstream from the first irrigation tower at which absence of operating within the safe condition was first determined (paragraph 0044).
Re claims 5 & 14, Miller et al. disclose wherein irrigation tower tilt monitoring system issues the operational halt signal further comprises the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system of first irrigation tower issuing the operational halt signal to a centralized controller (paragraph 0044);
wherein the centralized controller responsively issues the halt command to all irrigation towers operating as part of the common irrigation forcing the entire common irrigation span to cease operation (paragraph 0044).
Re claims 6 & 15, Miller et al. disclose wherein the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system is to iteratively receive tilt angles from the tilt monitor and compare the tilt angles received with pre- configured tilt thresholds stored by the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system comprises:
the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system to require multiple tilt angles to be received and determined to be outside of the pre-configured tilt thresholds within a pre-configured period of time before the operational halt signal trigged by the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system (paragraph 0052).
Re claims 8 & 17, Miller et al. show wherein self-propelled irrigation towers (112A-D) affixed to the common irrigation span comprise one of:
a center-pivot irrigation system (Fig. 1);
a lateral movement irrigation system; or
a linear movement irrigation system.
Re claims 9 & 18, Miller et al. disclose wherein the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system is further configured to:
transmit a signal to a third-party cloud service provider via a public internet network interface (paragraphs 0015, 0017 & 0043); and
wherein the third-party cloud service provider receives and re-transmits the signal to a mobile device authenticated with and subscribed to the third-party cloud service provider (paragraphs 0021 & 0043).
Re claims 10 & 19, Miller et al. disclose wherein the signal comprises one of:
a notification of a safety event resulting in the operational halt signal trigged by the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system (abstract; paragraph 0054);
a log of iteratively received tilt angles;
a status of operational condition (paragraphs 0020 & 0054).
Re claim 11, Miller et al. disclose a method for implementing tilt monitoring and automatic safety shut-off for one or more self-propelled irrigation towers affixed to a common irrigation span, the system comprising:
iteratively measuring and outputting, via a tilt monitor (118A-D) installed upon an irrigation tower, a degree of tilt of the irrigation tower away from vertical reference perpendicular to a horizontal ground reference (paragraph 0039);
communicably interfacing with a drive controller (116A-D) of the irrigation tower having a safety switch integrated therein via which to halt drive wheels of the irrigation tower when the irrigation tower is not operating within a safe condition (paragraphs 0035 & 0053);
executing monitoring instructions at an irrigation tower tilt monitoring system (120A-D) installed upon the irrigation tower and communicably interfaced with the tilt monitor, wherein the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system iteratively receives as input, tilt angles generated as output from the tilt monitor and wherein the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system further compares the tilt angles received with pre-configured tilt thresholds stored by the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system to determine whether the irrigation tower is presently operating within a safe condition (paragraphs 0051 & 0052);
triggering an operational halt signal from the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system and transmitting the operational halt signal from the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system to the drive controller of the irrigation tower when the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system determines the irrigation tower is no longer operating within the safe condition based upon the tilt angles received falling outside of the pre-configured tilt thresholds (paragraph 0053); and
issuing, from the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system, the operational halt signal to all irrigation towers affixed to the common irrigation span, causing the entire common irrigation span to cease operation (paragraph 0053).
Re claim 20, Miller et al. disclose a non-transitory computer (Fig. 2, 126) readable storage media having instructions stored thereupon that, when executed by a system having at least a processor and a memory therein, the instructions cause the processor to execute instructions for implementing tilt monitoring and automatic safety shut-off for one or more self-propelled irrigation towers affixed to a common irrigation span (paragraph 0046), by performing the following operations:
iteratively measuring and outputting, via a tilt monitor (118A-D) installed upon an irrigation tower, a degree of tilt of the irrigation tower away from vertical reference perpendicular to a horizontal ground reference (paragraph 0039);
communicably interfacing with a drive controller (116A-D) of the irrigation tower having a safety switch integrated therein via which to halt drive wheels of the irrigation tower when the irrigation tower is not operating within a safe condition (paragraphs 0035 & 0053);
executing monitoring instructions at an irrigation tower tilt monitoring system (120A-D) installed upon the irrigation tower and communicably interfaced with the tilt monitor, wherein the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system iteratively receives as input, tilt angles generated as output from the tilt monitor and wherein the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system further compares the tilt angles received with pre-configured tilt thresholds stored by the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system to determine whether the irrigation tower is presently operating within a safe condition (paragraphs 0051 & 0052);
triggering an operational halt signal from the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system and transmitting the operational halt signal from the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system to the drive controller of the irrigation tower when the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system determines the irrigation tower is no longer operating within the safe condition based upon the tilt angles received falling outside of the pre-configured tilt thresholds (paragraph 0053); and
issuing, from the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system, the operational halt signal to all irrigation towers affixed to the common irrigation span, causing the entire common irrigation span to cease operation (paragraph 0053).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US Pub No 2023/0210067 A1) in view of Korus (US Pub No 2021/0059132 A1).
Re claims 3 & 12, Miller et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system issues the operational halt signal further comprises the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system issuing a signal to close a water valve supplying water to the common irrigation span.
However, Korus disclose one or more valves automatically controlled with an electronic signal or digital data from a control system locally integrated with the irrigation system (paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the system of Miller et al. issue a signal to close a water valve as taught by Korus to provide remote control of the valve (Korus – paragraph 0033).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US Pub No 2023/0210067 A1) in view of Miller et al. (US Pub No 2022/0030785 A1).
Re claims 7 & 16, Miller et al. ‘067 disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach wherein the operational halt signal trigged by the irrigation tower tilt monitoring system and transmitted to the drive controller of the irrigation tower comprises:
irrigation tower tilt monitoring system cutting power to an electrical relay held closed within the safety switch of the drive controller of the irrigation tower; and
wherein the drive controller cannot operate a drive motor or drive wheels of the irrigation tower when the electrical relay of the safety switch is in an open condition due to loss of power.
However, Miller et al. ‘785 disclose a system cutting power to an electrical relay held closed within the safety switch of the drive controller of the irrigation tower (paragraph 0044); and
wherein the drive controller cannot operate a drive motor or drive wheels of the irrigation tower when the electrical relay of the safety switch is in an open condition due to loss of power (paragraph 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to open an electrical relay, since the equivalence of transmitting a signal to open a circuit breaker to interrupt power in a drive controller and transmitting a deactivation signal to a drive controller for their use in the mobile irrigation art and the selection of any known equivalents to deactivate a drive controller would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 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 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752