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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the objections to the drawings have been obviated by appropriate amendment to paragraph 0030 in the specification is noted but is not considered persuasive because the specification amendment did not address the drawing objection regarding the missing leader to reference numeral 30 in Fig. 3. This drawing objection is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been obviated by appropriate amendment is noted but is not considered persuasive because many of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections were not addressed by the amendments or by arguments. These 35 USC 112(b) rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference numeral 30 does not have a leader in Fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “is” should be deleted from line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is” should be deleted from line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the wording of “above surface” in the last line remains confusing. What surface? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “above surface” to mean “above a ground surface”. Claims 2-6 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the filter material” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that a filtration material is previously recited, but not a filter material. Further, it remains unclear whether “a proximal end” in line 9 is the same as or different than “a first end” in line 2 because a tube only has two ends which are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a proximal end” to mean “the first end”. Finally, the wording of “above surface” in the last line is confusing. What surface? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “above surface” to mean “above a ground surface”. Claims 9-13 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 14, the wording of “positioned below at least partially below ground” in line 2 is confusing. Are the emitter tubes positioned below the ground or at least partially below the ground? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “positioned below at least partially below ground” to mean “positioned at least partially below ground”. Further, it remains unclear which tube is meant by “said tube” in line 6 because a plurality of tubes are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “said tube” to mean “each of said emitter tubes”. Further, the wording of “an irrigation system in communication with a water pump that is operable to couple to each of said connectors and provides fluid to said tube” in lines 9-10 is confusing. It is unclear which element is being referenced by “that is” because the limitation occurs after “a water pump” but appears to be related to “an irrigation system”. It is unclear which tube is meant by “said tube” because a plurality of tubes are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an irrigation system in communication with a water pump that is operable to couple to each of said connectors and provides fluid to said tube” to mean “an irrigation system in communication with a water pump and operable to couple to each of said connectors to provide fluid to each of said emitter tubes”. Finally, the wording of “when said irrigation system is engaged, the perforations are operable to uniformly distribute water to the soil” in lines 12-13 remains confusing. How can the irrigation system become “engaged”? How can the perforations become operable when the irrigation system is engaged? There is also insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the soil”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “when said irrigation system is engaged, the perforations are operable to uniformly distribute water to the soil” to mean “wherein the perforations are operable to uniformly distribute water from the water pump to a surrounding soil when said irrigation system is coupled to said connectors”. Claims 15-19 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 15, it remains unclear whether “a plurality of perforations” in line 2 are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a plurality of perforations” in claim 14 because of the double positive recitation of “a plurality of perforations”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a plurality of perforations” to mean “the plurality of perforations”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 8-10, 12 and 13 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al (CN 112088758).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses a subterranean water delivery device (e.g. Fig. 3, paragraph 0045), comprising: a. a tube (e.g. 1, Fig.’s 3 and 6) having a first end (e.g. upper end near 11, Fig. 3) and a second end (e.g. lower end near 15, Fig. 3), wherein said first end is operable to receive a connector (e.g. at 12, Fig. 3) and said second end is open (e.g. paragraph 0051); b. a tubular emitter formed as part of said tube positioned between said first end and second end of the tube that is operable to disperse water into surrounding soil (e.g. B, Fig. 3, paragraph 0045); c. a water-permeable filtration material within said tube, wherein the filter material reinforces the structure of the tube and facilitates even distribution of water throughout the length of the tube (e.g. paragraph 0029); and d. a connector at a proximal end of said tube (e.g. 12, Fig. 3, paragraph 0048) operable to connect with an irrigation system having a water pump that is operable to route fluid to said connector of said tube (e.g. 2, Fig. 6, paragraph 0048, wherein Examiner notes that the irrigation system and water pump are not positively recited, and that the connector 12 of Liu is connected to irrigation system 2 and therefore also capable of connecting to an irrigation system having a water pump); wherein said tube is positioned in the ground adjacent to the roots of a plant (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0045) and said connector is above surface (e.g. Fig. 6, wherein the connector is above a surface of the ground created by the path of irrigation pipe 2, or wherein the connector is capable of being installed such that the connector extends above the ground surface especially in the instance of the irrigation pipe 2 being installed on the ground as described in paragraph 0057) and operable to connect to said irrigation system (e.g. Fig. 6, paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 9, Liu further discloses that said tubular emitter includes a plurality of perforations positioned concentrically along the length of said tube and operable to evenly distribute fluid to the roots of a plant (e.g. 14, Fig. 3, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 10, Liu further discloses that said perforations have a consistent shape (e.g. Fig. 3, paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 12, Liu further discloses that said connector is a female or male receiver for a barbed connector that is operable to couple the tube to said irrigation system (e.g. Examiner notes that the barbed connector is not positively recited, and inlet 12 is a female receiver that is capable of receiving a barbed connector).
Regarding claim 13, Liu further discloses that said filtration material is a packageable crushed material (e.g. paragraph 0029, wherein sand is a packageable crushed material).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 14-16, 18 and 19 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Convertini (WO 2023/031977) in view of Liu et al (CN 112088758).
Regarding claim 1, Convertini discloses a subterranean water delivery device (e.g. Fig. 6), comprising: a. a tube (e.g. 11h, Fig. 6) having a first end (e.g. upper end of 11h, Fig. 6) and a second end (e.g. 11c, Fig. 6), wherein said first end is operable to receive a connector (e.g. 15a, Fig. 6) and said second end is sealed (e.g. Fig. 6, paragraph 0055); b. a tubular emitter formed as part of said tube positioned between said first end and second end of the tube that is operable to disperse water into surrounding soil (e.g. 16, Fig. 6, paragraph 0046); and d. an irrigation system that is operable to route fluid to said connector of said tube (e.g. 4/5, paragraph 0064, similar to paragraph 0012); wherein said tube is positioned in ground adjacent to roots of a plant (e.g. 9, Fig. 6) and said connector is above surface and operable to connect to said irrigation system (e.g. Fig. 6). Convertini further discloses that water pumps are known in the art (e.g. paragraph 0013) but does not explicitly disclose that the irrigation system is in communication with a water pump. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a water pump in communication with the irrigation system of Convertini because such is a known device in the art that would provide the pressure required to adequately move the water through the irrigation system. Convertini also does not disclose a water permeable filtration material. Liu teaches a subterranean water delivery device (e.g. Fig. 3, paragraph 0045), comprising: a. a tube (e.g. 1, Fig.’s 3 and 6) having a first end (e.g. upper end near 11, Fig. 3) and a second end (e.g. lower end near 15, Fig. 3), wherein said first end is operable to receive a connector (e.g. at 12, Fig. 3); b. a tubular emitter formed as part of said tube positioned between said first end and second end of the tube that is operable to disperse water into surrounding soil (e.g. B, Fig. 3, paragraph 0045); c. a water permeable filtration material that structurally reinforces the tube and facilitates even distribution of water throughout said tubular emitter (e.g. paragraph 0029); and d. an irrigation system that is operable to route fluid to said connector of said tube (e.g. 2, Fig. 6, paragraph 0048); wherein said tube is positioned in ground adjacent to roots of a plant (e.g. paragraph 0045). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a water permeable filtration material as taught by Liu to the tube of Convertini because such is a known filling in the art that would provide the expected benefit of greatly increasing permeation efficiency and effectively avoiding clogging problems (e.g. Liu, paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Convertini and Liu further discloses that said tubular emitter includes a plurality of perforations positioned concentrically along the length of said tube and operable to evenly distribute fluid to the roots of a plant (e.g. Convertini, 16, Fig. 6, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Convertini and Liu further discloses that each of said perforations have a consistent shape (e.g. Convertini, 16, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Convertini and Liu further discloses that said connector is a female or male receiver for a barbed connector that is operable to couple the tube to said irrigation system (e.g. Convertini, 15a, Fig. 7, wherein the female connector is capable of receiving a barbed connector).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Convertini and Liu further discloses that said filtration material is a packageable crushed material (e.g. Liu, paragraph 0029, wherein sand is a packageable crushed material).
Regarding claim 14, Convertini discloses a subterranean water delivery system (e.g. Fig. 6), comprising: a. a plurality of emitter tubes (e.g. 11h, Fig. 6) positioned at least partially below ground (e.g. 7, Fig. 6, wherein the perforated portions of 11h are below ground), each tube having a sealed distal end (e.g. 11c, Fig. 6, paragraph 0055) and an open proximal end (e.g. upper end of 11h, Fig. 6), wherein said proximal end is operable to receive a connector (e.g. 15a, Fig. 6); b. a plurality of perforations concentrically distributed between said proximal and distal end of said tube (e.g. 16, Fig. 6, paragraph 0046); and c. an irrigation system that is operable to couple to each of said connectors and provides fluid to said tube (e.g. 4/5, paragraph 0064, similar to paragraph 0012); wherein said plurality of emitter tubes are spaced evenly along a row crop (e.g. 2, Fig. 6) and positioned in the ground adjacent to the roots of a plant (e.g. 9, Fig. 6) and when said irrigation system is engaged, the perforations are operable to uniformly distribute water to the soil (e.g. paragraph 0046). Convertini further discloses that water pumps are known in the art (e.g. paragraph 0013) but does not explicitly disclose that the irrigation system is in communication with a water pump. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a water pump in communication with the irrigation system of Convertini because such is a known device in the art that would provide the pressure required to adequately move the water through the irrigation system. Convertini also does not disclose a water permeable filtration material. Liu teaches a subterranean water delivery system (e.g. Fig. 3, paragraph 0045), comprising: a. a plurality of emitter tubes positioned at least partially below ground (e.g. 1, Fig.’s 1, 3 and 6, paragraph 0045), each tube having a distal end (e.g. lower end near 15, Fig. 3) and a proximal end (e.g. upper end near 11, Fig. 3) operable to receive a connector (e.g. at 12, Fig. 3); b. a plurality of perforations concentrically distributed between said proximal and distal end of said tube (e.g. 14, Fig. 3, paragraph 0045), wherein each of said emitter tubes includes a water-permeable filtration material that reinforces the structure of the tube and facilitates even distribution of water through said plurality of perforations (e.g. paragraph 0029); and c. an irrigation system that is operable to couple to each of said connectors and provides fluid to said tube (e.g. 2, Fig. 6, paragraph 0048); wherein said plurality of emitter tubes are positioned in the ground adjacent to the roots of a plant (e.g. paragraph 0045) and when said irrigation system is engaged, the perforations are operable to uniformly distribute water to the soil (e.g. claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a water permeable filtration material as taught by Liu to the tubes of Convertini because such is a known filling in the art that would provide the expected benefit of greatly increasing permeation efficiency and effectively avoiding clogging problems (e.g. Liu, paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Convertini and Liu further discloses that each of said plurality of emitter tubes includes a plurality of perforations positioned concentrically along the length of said tube and operable to evenly distribute fluid to the roots of a plant (e.g. Convertini, 16, Fig. 6, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Convertini and Liu further discloses that said perforations have a consistent shape (e.g. Convertini, 16, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Convertini and Liu further discloses that said connector is a female or male receiver for a barbed connector that is operable to couple one of said plurality of the emitter tubes to said irrigation system (e.g. Convertini, 15a, Fig. 7, wherein the female connector is capable of receiving a barbed connector).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Convertini and Liu further discloses that said filtration material is a packageable crushed material (e.g. Liu, paragraph 0029, wherein sand is a packageable crushed material).
Claim 4 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Convertini (WO 2023/031977) in view of Liu et al (CN 112088758) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Richardson (WO 2010/046945).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Convertini and Liu discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that said consistent shape has a substantially conical geometry. Richardson teaches a subterranean water delivery device (e.g. 10, Fig. 1), comprising: a. a tube having a first end and a second end (e.g. upper 21, Fig. 1); b. a tubular emitter formed as part of said tube positioned between said first end and second end of the tube that is operable to disperse water into surrounding soil (e.g. 15, Fig. 1); and d. an irrigation system that is operable to route fluid to said connector of said tube (e.g. P, Fig. 4); wherein said tubular emitter includes a plurality of perforations positioned concentrically along the length of said tube and operable to evenly distribute fluid to the roots of a plant (e.g. 15, Fig. 1), each of said perforations have a consistent shape (e.g. Fig. 1), and said consistent shape has a substantially conical geometry (e.g. page 6, paragraph 7 of translation). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the apertures of Convertini and Liu with a substantially conical geometry as taught by Richardson because such is a known shape in the art and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim 11 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 112088758) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Summers (US 2022/0287253).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that said consistent shape is a substantially triangular geometry. Summers teaches a subterranean water delivery device (e.g. 100, Fig. 1), comprising: a. a tube (e.g. 120, Fig.’s 1 and 6) having a first end (e.g. 620, Fig. 6) and a second end (e.g. lower end of 120, Fig.’s 1 and 6), wherein said first end is operable to receive a connector (e.g. 110, Fig. 1) and said second end is open (e.g. Fig. 7); b. a tubular emitter formed as part of said tube positioned between said first end and second end of the tube that is operable to disperse water into surrounding soil (e.g. 120, Fig.’s 1 and 6); and d. a connector at a proximal end of said tube (e.g. 110, Fig. 1) operable to connect with an irrigation system that is operable to route fluid to said connector of said tube (e.g. paragraph 0080); wherein said tube is positioned in the ground adjacent to the roots of a plant (e.g. paragraph 0066) and said connector is operable to connect to said irrigation system (e.g. paragraph 0080); wherein said tubular emitter includes a plurality of perforations positioned concentrically along the length of said tube and operable to evenly distribute fluid to the roots of a plant (e.g. 140, Fig.’s 1 and 6, paragraph 0068) said perforations have a consistent shape (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 6, paragraph 0068), and said consistent shape is a substantially triangular geometry (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 6, paragraph 0068). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the apertures of Liu with a substantially triangular geometry as taught by Summers because such is a known shape in the art and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim 17 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Convertini (WO 2023/031977) in view of Liu et al (CN 112088758) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Summers (US 2022/0287253).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Convertini and Liu discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose that said consistent shape is a substantially triangular geometry. Summers teaches a subterranean water delivery system (e.g. 100, Fig. 1), comprising: a. an emitter tube (e.g. 120, Fig.’s 1 and 6) positioned at least partially below ground (e.g. paragraph 0066), the tube having a distal end (e.g. lower end of 120, Fig.’s 1 and 6) and an open proximal end (e.g. 620, Fig. 6), wherein said proximal end is operable to receive a connector (e.g. 110, Fig. 1); and b. a plurality of perforations concentrically distributed between said proximal and distal end of said tube (e.g. 140, Fig.’s 1 and 6, paragraph 0068); wherein said tubular emitter includes a plurality of perforations positioned concentrically along the length of said tube and operable to evenly distribute fluid to the roots of a plant (e.g. 140, Fig.’s 1 and 6, paragraph 0068), said perforations have a consistent shape (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 6, paragraph 0068), and said consistent shape is a substantially triangular geometry (e.g. Fig.’s 1 and 6, paragraph 0068). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the apertures of Convertini and Liu with a substantially triangular geometry as taught by Summers because such is a known shape in the art and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
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 STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678