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 .
Claims 1-10, 12-13 and 16-23 have been presented for examination.
Specification
The amendment filed 5/11/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The applicant amended paragraph 0044 to define the control unit as “a computer device having a processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” which was not previously disclosed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “flow system”, “flow generating means”, “pressure equalizing means” and “controller” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The structures can be found as follows:
“flow system” [paragraph 0012-0013, 0020, 0022, 0043 of the specification].
“flow generating means” [paragraph 0013, 0020 of the specification].
“pressure equalizing means” [paragraphs 0013, 0022, 0043 of the specification]
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “controller (claim1) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. In particular, the specification states the claimed functions of “operate the valve system so as to provide the route for transporting each of the plurality of batches of irrigating medium”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the control. The use of the term “controller” is not adequate structure for performing the measuring because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which measuring structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “operate the valve system so as to provide the route for transporting each of the plurality of batches of irrigating medium” (claim 1). The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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, 3-6, 10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neesen1 in view of Kung2.
Referring to claim 1, Neesen teaches the irrigation system for horticulture, comprising:
A vessel for preparing a plurality of batches of irrigating medium configured for irrigating a plurality of zones for plant culture [20 Fig. 2, 0043].
a conduit system, comprising:
a conduit network [Fig. 2] comprising:
an inlet fluidly connected to the vessel for preparing the plurality of batches of irrigating medium [Fig. 2].
a plurality of outlets associated with individual ones of the plurality of zones for plant culture [22/26 Fig. 2].
a valve system configured for providing a route for transporting each of the plurality of batches of irrigating medium from the inlet to a corresponding outlet of the plurality of outlets [24 Fig. 2].
a controller configured to operate the valve system to provide the route for transporting each of the plurality of batches of irrigating medium integrally from the inlet to the corresponding outlet of the plurality of outlets [Figs. 1-2, 0045-0047, 0049].
In summary, Neesen teaches an irrigation system which includes a network of pipes to deliver a nutrient solution stored in a tank to plants located at a plurality of zones. The flow of the nutrient solution to each zone is controlled through valves controlled via controller according to one or more irrigation plans.
While Neesen teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to further include a flow system for evacuating each of the plurality of batches of irrigating medium from the corresponding route through the corresponding outlet of the plurality of outlets. In other words, Neesen does not teach injecting gas into the conduit network to clear the lines carrying the irrigating medium. Kung teaches flushing irrigation lines with a cleaning solution and purging with air (i.e., providing a pressure difference across the irrigation medium across a corresponding route) [0071]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kung into Neesen because Kung teaches a way to clean algae buildup which Kung teaches can build up in irrigation systems [0004]. It is interpreted that the Neesen-Kung system would include a gas inlet because without a way to input the air, the air could never enter the irrigation lines. Furthermore, by purging the lines with air, a pressure difference is naturally provided
Referring to claim 3, Neesen teaches the valves control the route of the fluid to each zone within the conduit network [0050]. The zones can be interpreted as the claimed nodes.
Referring to claim 4, Neesen teaches multiple stages [Fig. 2]. Specifically, Fig. 2 shows the irrigating medium being supplied via a singular line and then split into each of the five zones (26) by valves (24). The area before the five valves is interpreted as the claimed first state while the valves and each zone are interpreted as the second stage. We see that the second stage includes multiple valves (26). In addition, the first state also includes a valve which the examiner has highlighted below. The valves in each state are interpreted to be in their own respective valve arrangements.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claims 5, Neeson teaches that the irrigation system comprises an inlet at the first stage [Fig. 2]. We can interpret the piping near the above labeled valve as the first state inlet and the plurality of first stage outlets being the portions of the first stage that couple to the valves (24). The valves (24) are interpreted as the second stage inlets and the plurality of emitters (22) for each zone (26) can be interpreted as the plurality of second stage outlets for each respective zone.
Referring to claim 6, Neeson describes valves (24) as being able to be opened and closed based on instruction from the irrigation controller [0046]. These valves are clearly not multi-way valves and are instead interpreted as shut off valves since each valve can close (i.e., shut off) in response to a control signal from the irrigation controller.
Referring to claim 10, this is rejected since limitation (ii) has been amended to be an optional condition and the Neeson-Kung combination taught limitation (i). Since claim 10 expands on condition (ii), claim 10 is also conditional.
Referring to claim 16, Neesen teaches the irrigation can be drip irrigation [0042].
Referring to claim 17, the examiner is taking official notice that irrigation pipes are commonly constructed using PVC or “poly”. PVC is otherwise known as schedule 40 and would qualify as a compliant and commonly used in irrigation. “Poly” rather is polyethylene and is a black flexible conduit also common for irrigation conduit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the irrigation pipes in the Neesen-Kung combination using either PVC or poly because they are already commonly used for such purposes and provide the ability to transport water and nutrients to plants in the irrigation system.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neesen and Kung as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 10 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Houser3.
Referring to claim 2, while Neesen and Kung teach receiving air to purge the irrigation lines, it is not explicitly taught to include a gas inlet valve to receive the air. Houser teaches that air for purging irrigation lines can be introduced through the use of an air valve [col. 2 lines 3-11, col. 4 lines 33-42]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the air valve taught by Houser into the Neesen-Kung combination because it provides a way to introduce air into the irrigation lines to purge them as required by Kung. While the examiner acknowledges that the air valve in Houser is coupled to a pump, it should be apparent that the valve is simply a mechanism to allow air to enter the irrigation lines. Clearly one position the air valve anywhere that a user may want to introduce the air to purge their irrigation lines.
Referring to claim 7, the Neesen-Kung combination only consists of the first and second stages. The area before zone valves (24) is interpreted as the first stage and the zone valves and the area thereafter is interpreted as the second zone. Kung teaches that air must be introduced into the lines to purge them. Therefore, in the Neesen-Kung-Houser combination, the air valve would necessarily be positioned somewhere within the first or second stage.
Referring to claim 8, Kung teaches that the valve is an air valve [col. 4 lines 33-35]. Since air enters the irrigation system through the air valve, the valve is interpreted as an intake valve.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neesen and Kung as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 10 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Vinchesi, Blow by blow.
Referring to claim 9, while Kung teaches purging the irrigation line with air, it is not explicitly taught that it is done so via compressor. Vinchesi teaches purging irrigation lines via air compressor [pgs. 1-2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try purging the irrigation lines in the Neesen-Kung combination using an air compressor because Vinchesi teaches that a compressor can perform that function and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neesen and Kung as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 10 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Bertram4.
Referring to claims 12-13, while Neesen teaches a tank for storing fertilizers, pesticides and other substances [20 Fig. 2 and 0043] it is not explicitly taught to condition the fertilizers, pesticides and other substances by mixing them. Bertram teaches a similar environment where a nutrient mixture (i.e., fertilizer) used to feed plants is to be premixed using pumps [0147]. It would have been obvious to try mixing the contents in the storage tank in Neesen because it would ensure that the contents are mixed and ready to be supplied to the irrigation system. The examiner is taking official notice that mixtures like fertilizers and pesticides tend to have their contents separate over time and require mixing to ensure a uniform distribution of the fertilizer/pesticide’s contents.
--------------------
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neesen in view of Kung in view of Vinchesi.
Referring to claim 1, Neesen teaches the irrigation system for horticulture, comprising:
A vessel for preparing a plurality of batches of irrigating medium configured for irrigating a plurality of zones for plant culture [20 Fig. 2, 0043].
a conduit system, comprising:
a conduit network [Fig. 2] comprising:
an inlet fluidly connected to the vessel for preparing the plurality of batches of irrigating medium [Fig. 2].
a plurality of outlets associated with individual ones of the plurality of zones for plant culture [22/26 Fig. 2].
a valve system configured for providing a route for transporting each of the plurality of batches of irrigating medium from the inlet to a corresponding outlet of the plurality of outlets [24 Fig. 2].
a controller configured to operate the valve system to provide the route for transporting each of the plurality of batches of irrigating medium integrally from the inlet to the corresponding outlet of the plurality of outlets [Figs. 1-2, 0045-0047, 0049].
In summary, Neesen teaches an irrigation system which includes a network of pipes to deliver a nutrient solution stored in a tank to plants located at a plurality of zones. The flow of the nutrient solution to each zone is controlled through valves controlled via controller according to one or more irrigation plans.
While Neesen teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to further include a flow system for evacuating each of the plurality of batches of irrigating medium from the corresponding route through the corresponding outlet of the plurality of outlets. In other words, Neesen does not teach injecting gas into the conduit network to clear the lines carrying the irrigating medium. Kung teaches flushing irrigation lines with a cleaning solution and purging with air (i.e., providing a pressure difference across the irrigation medium across a corresponding route) [0071]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kung into Neesen because Kung teaches a way to clean algae buildup which Kung teaches can build up in irrigation systems [0004]. It is interpreted that the Neesen-Kung system would include a gas inlet because without a way to input the air, the air could never enter the irrigation lines. Furthermore, by purging the lines with air, a pressure difference is naturally provided
While the Neesen-Kung combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to include both a pressure equalizing means to substantially maintain a pressure difference across the batches along with providing the pressure difference. Vinchesi teaches purging irrigation lines via air compressor [pgs. 1-2]. In addition, Vinchesi further teaches air-release valves to prevent pressure buildup to a dangerous level where something could break [pgs. 1-2]. Preventing excess pressure in the lines is interpreted as maintaining a pressure difference to an amount less than that which would cause damage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try purging the irrigation lines in the Neesen-Kung combination using an air compressor because Vinchesi teaches that a compressor can perform that function and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Referring to claim 3, Neesen teaches the valves control the route of the fluid to each zone within the conduit network [0050]. The zones can be interpreted as the claimed nodes.
Referring to claim 4, Neesen teaches multiple stages [Fig. 2]. Specifically, Fig. 2 shows the irrigating medium being supplied via a singular line and then split into each of the five zones (26) by valves (24). The area before the five valves is interpreted as the claimed first state while the valves and each zone are interpreted as the second stage. We see that the second stage includes multiple valves (26). In addition, the first state also includes a valve which the examiner has highlighted below. The valves in each state are interpreted to be in their own respective valve arrangements.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claims 5, Neeson teaches that the irrigation system comprises an inlet at the first stage [Fig. 2]. We can interpret the piping near the above labeled valve as the first state inlet and the plurality of first stage outlets being the portions of the first stage that couple to the valves (24). The valves (24) are interpreted as the second stage inlets and the plurality of emitters (22) for each zone (26) can be interpreted as the plurality of second stage outlets for each respective zone.
Referring to claim 6, Neeson describes valves (24) as being able to be opened and closed based on instruction from the irrigation controller [0046]. These valves are clearly not multi-way valves and are instead interpreted as shut off valves since each valve can close (i.e., shut off) in response to a control signal from the irrigation controller.
Referring to claim 9, Vinchesi teaches purging irrigation lines via air compressor [pgs. 1-2].
Referring to claim 10, Vinchesi teaches including an air-release valve [pg. 1].
Referring to claim 16, Neesen teaches the irrigation can be drip irrigation [0042].
Referring to claim 17, the examiner is taking official notice that irrigation pipes are commonly constructed using PVC or “poly”. PVC is otherwise known as schedule 40 and would qualify as a compliant and commonly used in irrigation. “Poly” rather is polyethylene and is a black flexible conduit also common for irrigation conduit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the irrigation pipes in the Neesen-Kung combination using either PVC or poly because they are already commonly used for such purposes and provide the ability to transport water and nutrients to plants in the irrigation system.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neesen, Kung and Vinchesi as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 10 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Houser et al [Houser] US Pat No 4755112.
Referring to claim 2, while Neesen, Kung and Vinchesi teach receiving air to purge the irrigation lines, it is not explicitly taught to include a gas inlet valve to receive the air. Houser teaches that air for purging irrigation lines can be introduced through the use of an air valve [col. 2 lines 3-11, col. 4 lines 33-42]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the air valve taught by Houser into the Neesen-Kung-Vinchesi combination because it provides a way to introduce air into the irrigation lines to purge them as required by Kung. While the examiner acknowledges that the air valve in Houser is coupled to a pump, it should be apparent that the valve is simply a mechanism to allow air to enter the irrigation lines. Clearly one position the air valve anywhere that a user may want to introduce the air to purge their irrigation lines.
Referring to claim 7, the Neesen-Kung-Vinchesi combination only consists of the first and second stages. The area before zone valves (24) is interpreted as the first stage and the zone valves and the area thereafter is interpreted as the second zone. Kung teaches that air must be introduced into the lines to purge them. Therefore, in the Neesen-Kung-Vinchesi-Houser combination, the air valve would necessarily be positioned somewhere within the first or second stage.
Referring to claim 8, Kung teaches that the valve is an air valve [col. 4 lines 33-35]. Since air enters the irrigation system through the air valve, the valve is interpreted as an intake valve.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neesen, Kung and Vinchesi as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 10 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Bertram et al [Bertram] PGPUB 2019/0159415.
Referring to claims 12-13, while Neesen teaches a tank for storing fertilizers, pesticides and other substances [20 Fig. 2 and 0043] it is not explicitly taught to condition the fertilizers, pesticides and other substances by mixing them. Bertram teaches a similar environment where a nutrient mixture (i.e., fertilizer) used to feed plants is to be premixed using pumps [0147]. It would have been obvious to try mixing the contents in the storage tank in Neesen because it would ensure that the contents are mixed and ready to be supplied to the irrigation system. The examiner is taking official notice that mixtures like fertilizers and pesticides tend to have their contents separate over time and require mixing to ensure a uniform distribution of the fertilizer/pesticide’s contents.
Response to Arguments
In the REMARKS applicants argue in substance that 1) the rejections under 112(a) and (b) have been overcome due to amending the specification incorporating the required structure and 2) the claims are allowable due to incorporating allowable claims 9 and 10 into claim 1.
Regarding applicants first argument, the amendment to the specification is considered new matter. Therefore, applicants’ amendment does not solve the prior 112 issues. The examiner recommends applicants amend “controller” to “control circuit”. The term “circuit” has been deemed as incorporating structure and therefore, interpretation under 112(f) and by extension 112(a) and (b) would be overcome. Applicant clearly recites control within the specification as originally filed and thus, amending the control to be performed via “control circuit” would not necessitate new matter nor would it require structure to be disclosed.
Referring to applicants’ second argument, applicant only moved portions of claims 9 and 10 part into claim 1. In addition, applicants framed the amendment as a conditional requirement (i.e., use of “and/or”). It is the examiners position that the prior art taught limitation (i) and that rejection has been updated above. Furthermore, limitation (ii) is not required due to it being conditional. Since limitation (ii) is conditional, claim 10 also only further narrows conditional element (ii). Claim 9 was amended to further incorporate an air compressor as the flow generating means. As necessitated by amendment, the examiner searched and discovered the reference to Vinchesi which taught an air compressor system for evacuating irrigation lines.
Since Vinchesi also taught an air-release valve for use with the air compressor, the combination of limitations (i) and (ii) was rejected in view of Vinchesi and was necessitated by amendment since previous claims 9 and 10 were alternatives to each other rather than used in conjunction with each other (i.e., and/or). Because claim 10 further narrows limitation (ii) which is now a combination of (i) and (ii), the rejection of claim 10 in view of Vinchesi is also necessitated by amendment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st and 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action (claim 18 refers to claim 1).
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 MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 7/24/26
1 Cited in the previous office action
2 Cited in the previous office action
3 Cited in the previous office action
4 Cited in the previous office action
Prosecution Insights