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 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) 1-5, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 111296238) in view of Loebinger (US 20120085455).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses an irrigation dripper comprising a generally straight water pathway (interior defined between members 1 and 21) for allowing a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional flow of water therein (The pipe is capable of allowing the claimed flow), an inlet for providing water to said pathway (Left most entry of pipe 21), an outlet (inlet of member 25) for allowing water to drip out of said pathway at an angle to said pathway (The outlet is capable of allowing for fluid to drip out perpendicularly to the passage), but fails to disclose an antimicrobial coating at least partially surrounding said inlet.
Loebinger discloses a drip emitted wherein an antimicrobial coating is at least partially surrounds an outlet (and inlet) (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 32-33, The anti-bacterial and anti-fungal material is at least coated onto the pipe; Figure 1 depicts the coating coated about the inlet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou with the disclosures of Loebinger, providing an anti-bacterial coating to surround the outlet (and inlet), in order to provide for delay of degradation of the pipe, as disclosed by Loebinger (Paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Loebinger discloses the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, comprising:
an external elongated hollow structure (21, 3, 32) enclosing an internal elongated structure (1), wherein said water pathway surrounds said internal structure in a space between said structures (Figure 4), wherein said inlet is on a face of said external structure (Figure 11), said outlet is on said external structure (Figure 11), and said antimicrobial coating is on said face of said external elongated hollow structure, but not within said pathway (As modified).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in view of Loebinger discloses the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, comprising:
an external elongated hollow structure (21, 3, 32) having a rigid wall (primary wall of element 21) and a flexible wall (3) (All elements have a level of flexibility and rigidity, dependent upon the element applying force), and an internal elongated structure (1) introduced into said external structure (Figure 4), wherein said pathway is formed between said internal structure and said walls (Figure 4), said inlet is on a face of said external structure (Figure 4), said outlet is on said external structure at said rigid wall (Figure 4), and said antimicrobial coating is on said face of said external elongated hollow structure, but not within said pathway (As modified).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou in view of Loebinger discloses the irrigation dripper according to claim 3, wherein said flexible wall (3) is generally planar in the absence of pressure difference between an inner side and an outer side thereof (Examiner interprets planar to mean of or relating to a plane; Figure 6, portion 3 of the wall is generally planar).
Regarding 5, Zhou in view of Loebinger discloses the irrigation dripper according to claim 3, wherein said flexible wall is curved in the absence of pressure difference between an inner side and an outer side thereof (Figure 6, element 32 of the wall is curved).
Regarding claims 19, 21, 23 and 25, the limitations are product-by-process limitations. "[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. The products of the process are put forth by Zhou in view of Loebinger, as described above.
Regarding claim 27, Zhou in view of Loebinger discloses an irrigation dripping pipe, comprising an irrigation pipe provided with a plurality of drippers (Figure 1), wherein at least one of said drippers is the irrigation dripper according to claim 1 (As modified).
Regarding claim 29, Zhou in view of Loebinger discloses the irrigation dripping pipe according to claim 27, wherein said irrigation pipe has a first end connectable to a water source or a water distribution line (left end), and second end distal to said first end (right end), but fails to disclose wherein for at least one of said drippers, said inlet is facing said second end such that an inflow of water into said at least one dripper is opposite to a flow of water in said irrigation pipe.
It would have been obvious to provide one of the drippers arranged as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 31, Zhou in view of Loebinger discloses a method of irrigation, the method comprising deploying the irrigation dripping pipe according to claim 27 (as modified) in a field (Figure 8), and supplying water to the irrigation dripping pipe (The step is suggested by the disclosure of water being provided in the pipe).
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 111296238) in view of Loebinger (US 20120085455) and Gaya (US 2009/0116907).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9, Zhou in view of Loebinger discloses the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said antimicrobial coating is inorganic, wherein said antimicrobial coating is metallic, or wherein said antimicrobial coating comprises copper.
Gaya discloses a device wherein a coating is inorganic, metallic, and comprises copper (Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou in view of Loebinger with the disclosures of Gaya, providing the coating to be inorganic, metallic, or comprising copper in order to minimize the proliferation of algae, as disclosed by Gaya (Paragraph 32).
Claim(s) 11, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 111296238) in view of Loebinger (US 20120085455) and Delmer (FR2691669).
Regarding claims 11, 13, 15 and 17, Zhou in view of Loebinger discloses the irrigation dripper according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein said antimicrobial coating comprises a partially melted powder, wherein said powder comprises particles less than 80 microns in diameter, wherein at least 99% of said particles are less than 80 microns in diameter, wherein at least 95% of said particles are less than 40 microns in diameter.
Delmer discloses a pipe wherein powder is coated with powder (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou in view of Loebinger with the disclosures of Delmer, providing the coating to be a powder, in order to prevent the growth of biological products, as disclosed by Delmer (Abstract).
As to the limitation partially melted, 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
Zhou in view of Loebinger and Delmer further disclose wherein said powder comprises particles less than 80 microns in diameter, wherein at least 99% of said particles are less than 80 microns in diameter, wherein at least 95% of said particles are less than 40 microns in diameter (Page 3, last paragraph, the particle size is between 5 and 20 microns).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s position that the rejection fails to articulate why it would be obvious to provide the coating about the inlet, Examiner references “Paragraphs 32-33” and states that “the anti-bacterial and anti-fungal material is at least coated onto the pipe; Figure 1 depicts the coating coated about the inlet.” The prior art depicts the coating provided throughout the body of the pipe, and specifically shows the coating surrounding the inlet, as the body of the pipe, which includes the coating all throughout, encircles the inlet. The highlighted paragraphs state in pertinent part, “Preferably, the active anti-bacterial and anti-fungal agent is mixed with the biodegradable plastic material prior to formation of the pipe, for example, prior to extrusion of the pipe or of a sheet from which the pipe is formed. Alternatively, the active anti-bacterial and anti-fungal agent is co-extruded onto one or more surface of the pipe or sheet or coated thereon. As seen in FIG. 1, the active anti-bacterial and anti-fungal agent may appear throughout the thickness of the pipe.” The teaching discloses that the agent may be mixed with the material, or coated thereon. Figure 1 depicts the placement of the coating, which encompasses essentially the entire body of the pipe, and therefore surrounding of the inlet. Examiner further highlights the motivation for the inclusion of the coating, which is, to provide for delay of degradation of the pipe, as disclosed by Loebinger (Paragraph 31). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place the coating to surround the inlet, in order to provide for delay of degradation of the pipe.
As to Applicant’s position that the inventions are focused on different operating principles, Examiner disagrees. The devices are analogous. The devices are each concerned with plastic drip irrigation pipes that includes portions above ground and underground. Applicant notes that Zhou depicts portions of pipe placed underground, and portions placed above ground. Examiner notes that Loerbinger also includes piping that includes portions underground and above ground (Figure 2).
The proposed modification of Loerbinger is concerned with protection against degradation, bacteria, mold, and yeast on the entirety of a plastic drip irrigation pipe. The Loerbinger solution encompasses portions above ground and underground. Bacteria, mold and yeast do not only form on portions underground, and the pipe does not only degrade in portions underground. Loerbinger is concerned with addressing the degradability of an entire pipe, which includes portions underground and above ground, as shown in Figure 2 of Loerbinger. A skilled person would be motivated by Loerbinger to apply the coating to the entirety of a pipe, as disclosed by Loerbinger, which would encompass the portions underground and portions above ground.
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