DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-10, and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yankovitz (US 2008/0191464) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yankovitz in view of Marsarwa (US 7,900,656).
Regarding claim 1, Yankovitz discloses a drip irrigation lateral that comprises:
a pipe (20) comprising a multi-layered wall (31, 32, 33) including a core layer (32), an inner layer (31) that comes in contact with water flowing inside the pipe (The inner layer is positioned closest to the water and will therefore come into contact with the inner water), and an outer layer (33), wherein the core layer (32) is sandwiched between the inner layer and the outer layer (Figure 1), wherein each of the inner layer and the outer layer is made of a polymeric material that degrades/decomposes over the course of time (Paragraph 25, the material may be dimethylsiloxane, which degrades or decomposes over time) and wherein the multi-layered wall is made of a multi-layered sheet folded into a pipe configuration and joined along two overlapped edges to form an axial overlapping seam (Figure 1), wherein the overlapping seam comprises a polymeric layer (33) between the two overlapped edges of the multi-layered sheet (Figure 1);
a plurality of drip emitters (40) as discrete means that are disposed along and inside of said pipe, and spaced apart from each other (Paragraphs 22 and 26, A plurality of emitters are formed along the interior of the pipe, though only one is shown in the drawings), each of which enables reducing the water pressure inside the pipe, so that the water emitted from each of said drip emitters to the designated irrigation area will be in the form of droplets (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; The emitters are capable of performing the claimed function), wherein the drip emitters (40) are embossed (The limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claimed structure is the same as or obvious from the prior art structure, and is therefore rejected even though the product may be made by a different process) into the polymeric layer of the overlapping seam and are enclosed by the two overlapped edges of the multi-layered sheet (Figure 1), wherein each of the plurality of drip emitters comprises:
a water inlet opening that allows for entry of water into the drip emitter from the inside (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1);
a water pressure reducer reduction means that communicates with the flow of water inside the water pressure reduction means from saif water inlet opening, and the water pressure reduction means is formed in a baffle labyrinth configuration (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1);
a water outlet opening (42) that communicates with the flow of water whose pressure has been reduced from said water pressure reduction means and outside form the water outlet opening to the designated irrigation area; and
wherein said core layer (32) is made from one of the materials selected from the group of materials consisting of: paper, paper pulp, board, sawdust, wood, wood chippings, bamboo, bagasse, oil palm stem, popula, wood flour, fruit hull powder, moss, peat, mulch, grasses, straw, hay, cotton, starch, seeds, seed husks, silage, cereal and cereal husks, kernels, bread, flour, skin, feces, manure, dung, fish cartilage, leaves of various flora, bark of various flora, plant stems, seaweed and other naturally growing flora, bone, bone meal, vegetables, fruit, fiber, hair, fur, feathers, clay, shell, ash, rags, felt and other commercially produced fabrics and mixtures of any of the preceding materials (Seeds (Paragraph 14, polymerized seed oil)).
Should it be found that Yankovitz fails to disclose the device including a plurality of drip emitters spaced along the length, Yankovitz Figure 2 discloses an embodiment that includes a plurality of spaced apart emitters (Paragraph 26, “Inline emitters 60 (only one of which is shown) are optionally bonded or attached to an internal surface 61 of the pipe and outlet ports 62 formed using any of various methods known in the art”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yankotiz to include a plurality of the drip emitters spaced along the length, as the configurations were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of discharge of nutrients to neighboring areas.
Should it be found that Yankovitz fails to disclose an additional polymeric layer, Masarwa discloses that the number of layers of material may be optimized in order to provide for the ability of the pipe to withstand various stresses (Column 1, lines 43-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yankovitz with the disclosures of Masarwa, providing the device to include an additional polymeric layer, in order to provide for the ability of the pipe to withstand various stresses.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 4, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral according to claim 1, wherein said pipe is made in said multi-layered configuration (Figure 1) by a continuous extrusion process that involves extruding said layers one after the other, one on top of the other (The limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claimed structure is the same as or obvious from the prior art structure, and is therefore rejected even though the product may be made by a different process).
Regarding claim 9, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral according to claim 4,
wherein said pipe is additionally formed with openings (42) that communicate with the passage of water through them from said water outlet openings of said drip emitters and from them to the designated irrigation area (Paragraph 22)
Regarding claim 10, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral according to claim 4, wherein the polymeric layer comprises a strip in which the drip emitters are formed therein from the outset (Figure 1), and said strip is adapted for installation along the inner wall of the said pipe (Figure 1); and
wherein said pipe is additionally formed with openings (42) that communicated with the passage of water through them from said water outlet openings of said drip emitters and from them to the designated irrigation area (Paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 14, Yankovitz discloses a drip irrigation lateral comprising:
a multi-layer sheet (30) wrapped to form a pipe (Figure 1) and joined along two overlapped edges to form an axial overlapping seam (Figure 1, the sheet is folded to provide for each edge of the sheet to overlap and form an overlapping seam), the overlapping seam including a polymeric layer (33) positioned between the two overlapped edges (of 32) (Figure 1), wherein the multi-layer sheet comprises an inner layer (31), an outer layer (33), and a core layer (32) sandwiched between the inner layer and the outer layer (Figure 1), each of the inner layer (31) and the outer layer (33) being formed of a polymeric material (Paragraph 25) configured to degrade or decompose over time (Paragraph 25, the material may be dimethylsiloxane, which is capable of degrading or decomposing over time); and
a plurality of drip emitters (40) spaced apart along a length of the pipe (Paragraph 23), each drip emitter being formed in the polymeric layer of the overlapping seam and enclosed by the overlapped edges (Figure 1);
wherein the core layer (32) is made from a material selected from the group of materials consisting of: paper, paper pulp, board, sawdust, wood, wood chippings, bamboo, bagasse, oil palm stem, popula, wood flour, fruit hull powder, moss, peat, mulch, grasses, straw, hay, cotton, starch, seeds, seed husks, silage, cereal and cereal husks, kernels, bread, flour, skin, feces, manure, dung, fish cartilage, leaves of various flora, bark of various flora, plant stems, seaweed and other naturally growing flora, bone, bone meal, vegetables, fruit, fiber, hair, fur, feathers, clay, shell, ash, rags, felt and other commercially produced fabrics and mixtures of any of the preceding materials (Paragraph 14, polymerized seed oil).
Should it be found that Yankovitz fails to disclose the device including a plurality of drip emitters spaced along the length, Yankovitz Figure 2 discloses an embodiment that includes a plurality of spaced apart emitters (Paragraph 26, “Inline emitters 60 (only one of which is shown) are optionally bonded or attached to an internal surface 61 of the pipe and outlet ports 62 formed using any of various methods known in the art”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yankotiz to include a plurality of the drip emitters spaced along the length, as the configurations were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of discharge of nutrients to neighboring areas.
Should it be found that Yankovitz fails to disclose an additional polymeric layer, Masarwa discloses that the number of layers of material may be optimized in order to provide for the ability of the pipe to withstand various stresses (Column 1, lines 43-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yankovitz with the disclosures of Masarwa, providing the device to include an additional polymeric layer, in order to provide for the ability of the pipe to withstand various stresses.
Regarding claim 15, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 14, wherein each of the plurality of drip emitters comprises:
a water inlet opening fluidly coupling the drip emitter with the pipe (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1);
a water outlet opening (42) fluidly coupling the drip emitter with an exterior of the pipe;
a water pressure reducer configured to pass water from the water inlet opening to the water outlet opening, wherein the water pressure reducer is formed as a baffle labyrinth (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 15, wherein the pipe has outlet perforations (42) configured to pass water from the water outlet openings of the drip emitters to the designated irrigation area (Paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 17, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 14, wherein the polymeric layer is a prefabricated polymeric strip formed prior to insertion into the overlapping seam (The material (Paragraph 23, the layers are assembled, and then folded to provide the strip in the overlapping seam).
Regarding claim 18, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 14, wherein the pipe is formed by a continuous extrusion process comprising extruding said layers one after the other, one on top of the other (The limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claimed structure is the same as or obvious from the prior art structure, and is therefore rejected even though the product may be made by a different process).
Regarding claim 19, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 14, wherein the polymeric layer (as modified) is disposed within the axial overlapping seam and is bounded on both sides by the overlapped edges (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Yankovitz discloses a drip irrigation lateral comprising:
a pipe (20) having a multi-layer wall (30) with an inner layer (31), an outer layer (33), and a core layer (32) sandwiched between the inner layer and the outer layer (Figure 1), the inner layer and the outer layer being biodegradable (Paragraph 25, the material of the inner and outer layer may be dimethylsiloxane, which is biodegradable);
wherein the multi-layer wall is joined along overlapped edges to define an axial overlapping seam (Figure 1);
at least one polymeric seam layer (33) positioned within the axial overlapping seam between the overlapped edges (Figure 1); and a plurality of drip emitters (40) spaced apart along the pipe, each drip emitter being formed in the polymeric seam layer and enclosed by the overlapped edges (Figure 1).
Should it be found that Yankovitz fails to disclose the device including a plurality of drip emitters spaced along the length, Yankovitz Figure 2 discloses an embodiment that includes a plurality of spaced apart emitters (Paragraph 26, “Inline emitters 60 (only one of which is shown) are optionally bonded or attached to an internal surface 61 of the pipe and outlet ports 62 formed using any of various methods known in the art”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yankotiz to include a plurality of the drip emitters spaced along the length, as the configurations were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of discharge of nutrients to neighboring areas.
Should it be found that Yankovitz fails to disclose an additional polymeric layer, Masarwa discloses that the number of layers of material may be optimized in order to provide for the ability of the pipe to withstand various stresses (Column 1, lines 43-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yankovitz with the disclosures of Masarwa, providing the device to include an additional polymeric layer, in order to provide for the ability of the pipe to withstand various stresses.
Regarding claim 21, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 20, wherein each of the plurality of drip emitters comprises:
a water inlet opening fluidly coupling the drip emitter with the pipe (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1);
a water outlet opening (42) fluidly coupling the drip emitter with an exterior of the pipe;
a water pressure reducer configured to pass water from the water inlet opening to the water outlet opening, wherein the water pressure reducer is formed as a baffle labyrinth (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 21, wherein the pipe has outlet perforations (42) configured to pass water from the water outlet openings of the drip emitters to the designated irrigation area (Paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 23, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 20, wherein the polymeric seam layer is a prefabricated polymeric strip formed prior to insertion into the overlapping seam (The material (Paragraph 23, the layers are assembled, and then folded to provide the strip in the overlapping seam).
Regarding claim 24, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 20, wherein the pipe is formed by a continuous extrusion process comprising extruding said layers one after the other, one on top of the other (The limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claimed structure is the same as or obvious from the prior art structure, and is therefore rejected even though the product may be made by a different process).
Regarding claim 25, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 20, wherein the polymeric seam layer (as modified) is disposed within the axial overlapping seam and is bounded on both sides by the overlapped edges (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 26, Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the drip irrigation lateral of claim 20, wherein the polymeric seam layer (as modified) is contained within the overlapping seam between the overlapped edges (Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinokur (US 10,874,061) in view of Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa.
Regarding claims 11-13, Vinokur discloses an irrigation system that includes a plurality of laterals (12A-12F), a feeding pipe (10) to which said laterals are connected to a flow passage from the feeding pipe to said lateral (Figure 12F), but fails to disclose the laterals being according to claim 1.
Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses the lateral of claim 1 (See above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed 1 to modify Vinokur in view of Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa to provide the laterals to be of the structure of the laterals of claim 1, as the configuration would have yielded predictable results, including supply of fluid to respective greenery for discharge.
Vinokur further fails to disclose as to claim 12 wherein said feeding pipe comprises a multi-layered wall, a core layer,
Or as to claim 13 wherein said core layer comprises the group of materials consisting of. paper, paper pulp, board, sawdust, wood, wood chippings, bamboo, bagasse, oil palm stem, popula, wood flour, fruit hull powder, moss, peat, mulch, grasses, straw, hay, cotton, starch, seeds, seed husks, silage, cereal and cereal husks, kernels, bread, flour, skin, feces, manure, dung, fish cartilage, leaves of various flora, bark of various flora, plant stems, seaweed and other naturally growing flora, bone, bone meal, vegetables, fruit, fiber, hair, fur, feathers, clay, shell, ash, rags, felt and other commercially produced fabrics and mixtures of any of the preceding materials.
Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa discloses pipes made of a multi-layered wall and core layer (See claims 1-2), and wherein the core layer is made of seed (See claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vinokur with the disclosures of Yankovitz alone or in combination with Marsarwa, providing the feeding pipe to have the claimed structure and material, as the configuration would have yielded predictable results, including supply of fluid to respective greenery for discharge.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As to the limitations of the emitter being embossed, the limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claimed structure is the same as or obvious from the prior art structure, and is therefore rejected even though the product may be made by a different process.
As to Applicant’s position that the polymeric material of Yankovitz does not degrade over time, dimethylsiloxane degrades over time after breach.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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 R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752