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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “of the present invention”, and “improved” etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied terminology, specifically “of the present invention” in lines 6 and 7 and “improved” in line 1 thereof. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 2 of claim 19, the recitation “a channel bracket 406” appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected to -- a channel bracket--.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ames US 4,041,975.
Regarding Claim 1, Ames US 4,041,975 discloses an irrigation pipe attachment system (Fig. 1-5; ABSTRACT), wherein the system comprises:
a truss angle bracket assembly (102, Fig. 3; col 4, In 20-54);
a hitch channel lock assembly (40, Fig. 2; col 2, In 57-64); and
a truss rod bracket assembly (25, Fig. 2, Fig. 4; col 2, In 34-42).
Regarding Claim 10, Ames US 4,041,975 discloses a hitch channel lock assembly (40, Fig. 2; col 2, In 65-68, col 3, In 1 -15) comprising a hitch ball assembly (52, 56, Fig. 4; col 3, In 22-32) and a hitch channel body (42, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, the hitch ball assembly (52, 56, Fig. 4; col 3, In 22-32) comprises a hitch securing block (52, Fig. 4; col 3, In 22-32) and a hitch ball (56, Fig. 4: col 3, In 22-32).
Regarding Claim 12, the hitch ball assembly (52, 56, Fig. 4; col 3, In 22-32) is located within the hitch channel body (42, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 13, the hitch channel body (42, Fig. 4) comprises a single surface of uniform composition (Fig. 4-5 - the uniform surface of body 42).
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.
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 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames US 4,041,975 in view of Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2.
Regarding Claim 2, Ames US 4,041,975 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the truss angle bracket assembly (102, Fig. 3; col 4, In 20-54) comprises:
a central backing section (105, Fig. 3; col 4, In 41-44); a right extension arm (103, Fig. 2-3; col 4, In 41-44); wherein the right extension arm (103, Fig. 2-3) is connected to the central backing section (105, Fig. 3) via a first bent section (Fig. 3 the bend between 103 and 105); wherein the right extension arm comprises a right securing surface (Fig. 3 the surface of 103);
wherein the right securing surface (Fig. 3 the surface of 103) is substantially perpendicular to the central backing section (105, Fig. 3); wherein the position of the right securing surface (Fig. 3 the surface of 103) relative to the central backing section is determined at least in part by a degree of bend in the first bent section (Fig. 3 - the bend between 103 and 105); and
a left extension arm (104, Fig. 2-3; col 4, In 41-44), wherein the left extension arm is connected to the central backing section via a second bent section (Fig. 3 the bend between 104 and 105); wherein the left extension arm comprises a left securing surface (Fig. 3 - the surface of 104);
wherein the left securing surface (Fig. 3 the surface of 104) is substantially perpendicular to the central backing section (105, Fig. 3); wherein the position of the left securing surface (Fig. 3 the surface of 104) relative to the central backing section is determined at least in part by a degree of bend in the second bent section (Fig. 3 the bend between 104 and 105), but does not specifically teach wherein the right securing surface comprises at least one bolt hole; wherein the left securing surface comprises at least one bolt hole.
However, Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 teach an irrigation pipe attachment system (Fig. 1-3; ABSTRACT) comprising a truss angle bracket assembly (88, Fig. 2) wherein a right securing surface (104, Fig. 2 the right surface of 90 connected to the bolt 110) comprises at least one bolt hole (Fig. 2 the hole of 90 for right bolt 110; col 7, In 30-47); wherein a left securing surface (102, Fig. 2 - the left surface of 90 connected to the bolt 110) comprises at least one bolt hole (Fig. 2 the hole of 90 for left bolt 110; col 7, In 30-47).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted for the truss angle bracket assembly, based on the teaching of Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2, as a routine substitution of a known equivalent type of truss angle bracket assembly for performing the same function.
Regarding Claim 3, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 disclose the modified system of claim 2, Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 teaches wherein the right extension arm (104, Fig. 2; col 7, In 4-16) comprises a right outer surface (100, Fig. 2); wherein the right extension arm (104, Fig. 2) is connected to the right outer surface (100, Fig. 2) via a third bent section (Fig. 2 - the bend section between 100 and 104).
Regarding Claim 4, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 disclose the modified system of claim 3, Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 teaches wherein the right outer surface (100, Fig. 2; col 7, In 4-16) is substantially parallel to the central backing section (Fig. 2 the middle portion of 90).
Regarding Claim 5, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 disclose the modified system of claim 4, Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 teaches wherein the position of the right outer surface (100, Fig. 2; coll 7, In 4-16) relative to the central backing section (Fig. 2 the middle portion of 90) is determined at least in part by a degree of bend in the third bent section (Fig. 2 - the bend section between 100 and 104).
Regarding Claim 6, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 disclose the modified system of claim 5, Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 teaches wherein the left extension arm (102, Fig. 2; col 7, in 4-16) comprises a left outer surface (98, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 disclose the modified system of claim 6, Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 teaches wherein the left extension arm (102, Fig. 2; col 7, In 4-16) is connected to the left outer surface (98, Fig. 2) via a fourth bent section (Fig. 2 the bend section between 98 and 102).
Regarding Claim 8, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 disclose the modified system of claim 7, Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 teaches wherein the left outer surface (98, Fig. 2; col 7, In 4-16) is substantially parallel to the central backing section (Fig. 2 - the middle portion of 90).
Regarding Claim 9, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 disclose the modified system of claim 8, Korus et al. US 11,242,947 B2 teaches wherein the position of the left outer surface (98, Fig. 2; col 7, In 4-16) relative to the central backing section (Fig. 2 the middle portion of 90) is determined at least in part by a degree of bend in the fourth bent section (Fig. 2 - the bend section between 98 and 102).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames US 4,041,975 in view of Malsam US 7,384,008 B1.
Regarding Claim 14, Ames US 4,041,975 discloses the system of claim 13, but does not specifically teach wherein the hitch channel body comprises a right wall surface, a left side wall surface and a connector plate.
However, Malsam US 7,384,008 B1 teaches an irrigation pipe attachment system (Fig. 1A- B; ABSTRACT) comprising a hitch channel lock assembly (20, Fig. 1A-B) wherein a hitch channel body (26, Fig. 1A-B; col 2, In 13-30) comprises a right wall surface (Fig. 1A-B - the rear wall of 26), a left side wall surface (Fig. 1A-B the front wall of 26) and a connector plate (Fig. 1A-B the middle plate of 26 extending between the front and rear wall of 26).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted for the hitch channel lock assembly, based on the teaching of Malsam US 7,384,008 B1, as a routine substitution of a known equivalent type of hitch channel lock assembly for performing the same function.
Regarding Claim 15, Ames US 4,041,975 and Malsam US 7,384,008 B1 disclose the modified system of claim 14, Malsam US 7,384,008 B1 teaches wherein the right wall surface (Fig. 1A- B - the rear wall of 26) and the left wall surface (Fig. 1A-B the front wall of 26) are integrally connected by the connector plate (Fig. 1A-B the middle plate of 26 extending between the front and rear wall of 26).
Regarding Claim 16, Ames US 4,041,975 and Malsam US 7,384,008 B1 disclose the modified system of claim 15, but do not specifically teach wherein the hitch channel body further comprises a plurality of overlay sections.
It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the shape of the top end of the left and right wall surface to overlay the connector plate and hitch ball assembly.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shape of the top end of the left and right wall surface to overlay the connector plate and hitch ball assembly to protect the hitch ball assembly from debris and dirt, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 17, Ames US 4,041,975 and Malsam US 7,384,008 B1 disclose the modified system of claim 16, but do not specifically teach wherein the plurality of overlay sections are attached to a plurality of bent sections.
It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the shape of the top end of the left and right wall surface with bends to overlay the connector plate and hitch ball assembly.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shape of the top end of the left and right wall surface with bends to overlay the connector plate and hitch ball assembly to protect the hitch ball assembly from debris and dirt, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 18, Ames US 4,041,975 and Malsam US 7,384,008 B1 disclose the modified system of claim 17, and Ames US 4,041,975 teaches wherein the hitch channel body (40, Fig. 2; col 2, In 65-68, col 3, In 1-15) is attached to the irrigation pipe (20, Fig. 2) at one or more welding locations (col 2, In 65-68, col 3, In 1-15 welding).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames US 4,041,975 in view of Korus US 2007/0176030 A1.
Regarding Claim 19, Ames US 4,041,975 discloses the system of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the truss rod bracket assembly comprises a right attachment wall, a left attachment wall and a channel bracket.
However, Korus US 2007/0176030 A1 teaches an irrigation pipe attachment system (Fig. 1-5; ABSTRACT) wherein a truss rod bracket assembly (52, Fig. 2-5; para [0016]) comprises a right attachment wall (62a, Fig. 5), a left attachment wall (62b, Fig. 5) and a channel bracket (collectively 54, 64, 68, Fig. 5; para [0020]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted for the truss rod bracket assembly, based on the teaching of Korus US 2007/0176030 A1, as a routine substitution of a known equivalent type of truss rod bracket assembly for performing the same function.
Regarding Claim 20, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus US 2007/0176030 A1 disclose the modified system of claim 19, Korus US 2007/0176030 A1 teaches wherein the channel bracket (collectively 54, 64, 68, Fig. 5; para [0020]) comprises an internal channel (56, Fig. 4-5); wherein the internal channel (56, Fig. 4-5) is configured to secure a first truss rod (40, Fig. 4-5; para [0015]).
Regarding Claim 21, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus US 2007/0176030 A1 disclose the modified system of claim 20, Korus US 2007/0176030 A1 teaches wherein the channel bracket (collectively 54, 64, 68, Fig. 5; para [0020]) is located between the right attachment wall (62a, Fig. 5) and the left attachment wall (62b, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 22, Ames US 4,041,975 and Korus US 2007/0176030 A1 disclose the modified system of claim 21, Korus US 2007/0176030 A1 teaches wherein the channel bracket (collectively 54, 64, 68, Fig. 5; para [0020]) is mechanically interlocked with the right attachment wall (62a, Fig. 5) and the left attachment wall (62b, Fig. 5).
Examiner Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chapman et al. US 4,434,936 discloses an irrigation system.
Toman US 9,066,475 discloses an alignment apparatus for an articulating irrigation system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J NOVOSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6993. The examiner can normally be reached on a variable schedule.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rocca M Joseph can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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 J. Novosad/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
February 8, 2026