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 Objections
Claims 9 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, “whereon” should be --wherein--.
Claim 14 recites two instances of “wherein the” in line 1. One instance should be removed.
Claim 15 recites two instances of “wherein the” in line 1. One instance should be removed.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20, line 4, it is unclear what is meant by “transferring volume located intermediate the inlet flow and the outlet flow” in the context of the method claim. Is this a structure? Or a step provided in the method?
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 13-18, and 20, claim 20 as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinon et al. (U.S. 3,122,155).
Martinon discloses a mechanically automated irrigation device, comprising: an inlet flow (the upstream flow that leads to 35); at least an outlet flow located downstream from the inlet flow (the downstream flow that leads away from 36); a transfer volume (the volume located between the inlet flow and outlet flow as described above, including the volume where the components in fig. 1 are located) located intermediate the inlet flow and the outlet flow; and a floating valve system (fig. 1) coupled to the inlet flow and the outlet flow (via 35 and 36), the floating valve system having a liquid container (10) designed to facilitate evaporation, an internal flow duct (at 35 and 36) extending from the inlet flow to the outlet flow, wherein the internal flow duct is positioned at least partially in the transfer volume (fig. 1), a floating valve duct (the vertically extending duct in which the components such as 38, 30-34, 43-46, etc. are located), wherein the floating valve duct intersects the internal flow duct to form a junction of the top of the floating valve duct and the internal flow duct (fig. 1, intersecting where 38 resides in the closed position, it is noted the term “top” is relative and the internal flow duct is seen to form the junction at the “top” of the floating valve duct as the duct is above or on top of the internal flow duct), a floating valve (38) positioned within the floating valve duct (selectively positioned in the floating valve duct when in the open position, like the applicant’s device), wherein the floating valve is configured to move vertically within the floating valve duct in response to a volume level in the liquid container (col. 3, ll. 31-64), wherein the floating valve is configured to block the transfer volume when positioned at the junction of the internal flow duct and the floating valve duct (fig. 1 position, see also col. 3, ll. 31-64), and a feedback array (50, 51) connected to a downstream portion of the internal flow duct, wherein the feedback array is configured to feed liquid to the liquid container (col. 2, ll. 52-61).
Regarding claim 2, Martinon further discloses wherein the liquid container has a strainer mesh top design (the lid 21 with vent holes as described in col. 2, ll. 5-6, which is seen to be a strainer mesh as the holes allow liquid to flow through the lid 21).
Regarding claim 5, Martinon further discloses wherein the inlet flow can come from any water source (such as the upstream water source that leads to 35).
Regarding claim 6, Martinon further discloses wherein the mechanically automated irrigation device is portable (see fig. 1, the assembly is seen to be portable in at least some manner, and especially as there is a support 11 that is not affixed to anything).
Regarding claim 8, Martinon further discloses wherein the feedback array is removable (the conduit 50 and regulating device 51 is seen to be removable in some manner, including by means such as cutting).
Regarding claim 9, Martinon further discloses whereon the feedback array is replaceable (the conduit 50 and regulating device 51 is seen to be replaceable in some manner, including by means such as cutting and then affixing a new feedback array).
Regarding claim 13, Martinon further discloses wherein the mechanically automated irrigation device blocks the volume transfer at a predetermined volume level in the liquid container (when in the closed position shown in fig. 1, see col. 3, ll. 31-64).
Regarding claim 14, Martinon further discloses wherein the wherein the internal flow duct is parallel to an horizontal axis (as 35 and 36 extending horizontally).
Regarding claim 15, Martinon further discloses wherein the wherein the floating valve duct is perpendicular to an horizontal axis (as the floating valve duct extends vertically, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Martinon further discloses wherein the volume level in the liquid container changes depending on evaporation rate (col. 3, ll. 56-64).
Regarding claim 17, Martinon further discloses wherein the design allows precipitation to enter the liquid container (via the lid 21 with vent holes as described in col. 2, ll. 5-6, the vent holes allow for liquid to enter, including precipitation).
Regarding claim 18, Martinon discloses an irrigation system, comprising: a liquid source (the source of the inlet flow that then leads to 35, see also col. 1, ll. 11-20 describing the overall device of a sprinkling device for domestic gardens); a mechanically automated irrigation device (fig. 1), comprising: an inlet flow (the upstream flow that leads to 35) located upstream from at least an outlet flow (the downstream flow that leads away from 36); a transfer volume (the volume located between the inlet flow and outlet flow as described above, including the volume where the components in fig. 1 are located) located intermediate the inlet flow and the outlet flow; and a floating valve system (fig. 1) coupled to the inlet flow and outlet flow, the floating valve system having a liquid container (10) designed to facilitate evaporation, an internal flow duct (at 35 and 36) extending from the inlet flow to the outlet flow, wherein the internal flow duct is positioned at least partially in the transfer volume (fig. 1), a floating valve duct (the vertically extending duct in which the components such as 38, 30-34, 43-36, etc. are located), wherein the floating valve duct intersects the internal flow duct to form a junction of the top of the floating valve duct and the internal flow duct (fig. 1, intersecting where 38 resides in the closed position, it is noted the term “top” is relative and the internal flow duct is seen to form the junction at the “top” of the floating valve duct as the duct is above or on top of the internal flow duct), a floating valve (38) positioned within the floating valve duct (selectively positioned in the floating valve duct when in the open position, like the applicant’s device), wherein the floating valve is configured to move vertically within the floating valve duct in response to a volume level in the liquid container (col. 3, ll. 31-64), wherein the floating valve is configured to block the transfer volume when positioned at the junction of the internal flow duct and the floating valve duct (col. 3, ll. 31-64), a feedback array (50, 51) connected to a downstream portion of the internal flow duct (fig. 3), wherein the feedback array is configured to feed liquid to the liquid container (col. 2, ll. 52-61), and an irrigation distributor (not depicted but the outlet distributor for the domestic garden sprinkling, see col. 1, ll. 11-20 and col. 4, ll. 6-25).
Regarding claim 20, Martinon discloses a method for automatically irrigating with a mechanically automated irrigation device, the method comprising: routing an inlet flow (the upstream flow that leads to 35) to an outlet flow (the downstream flow that leads away from 36) located downstream; transferring volume (the volume located between the inlet flow and outlet flow as described above, including the volume where the components in fig. 1 are located) located intermediate the inlet flow and the outlet flow; and coupling a floating valve system (fig. 1) between the inlet flow and outlet flow, the floating valve system having a liquid container (10) designed to facilitate evaporation, an internal flow duct (at 35 and 36) extending from the inlet flow to the outlet flow, wherein the internal flow duct is positioned at least partially in the transfer volume (fig. 1), a floating valve duct (the vertically extending duct in which the components such as 38, 30-34, 43-46, etc. are located), wherein the floating valve duct intersects the internal flow duct to form a junction of the top of the floating valve duct and the internal flow duct (fig. 1, intersecting where 38 resides in the closed position, it is noted the term “top” is relative and the internal flow duct is seen to form the junction at the “top” of the floating valve duct as the duct is above or on top of the internal flow duct), a floating valve (38) positioned within the floating valve duct (selectively positioned in the floating valve duct when in the open position, like the applicant’s device), wherein the floating valve is configured to move vertically within the floating valve duct in response to a volume level in the liquid container (col. 3, ll. 31-64), wherein the floating valve is configured to block the transfer volume when positioned at the junction of the internal flow duct and the floating valve duct (col. 3, ll. 31-64), and feeding liquid to the liquid container through a feedback array (50, 51) connected to a downstream portion of the internal flow duct (col. 2, ll. 52-61).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinon in view of Millius et al. (U.S. 11,990,823).
Martinon discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose an inlet flow filter.
Millius teaches it was known in the art to have a filter (602) for inlet flow (see col. 14, ll.18-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinon such that there is a filter for the inlet flow as taught by Millius in order to filter out any particles, sediment, and/or other such materials in order to protect the components downstream of the fluid source and filter (see col. 14, ll. 18-24 of Millius).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinon in view of Sanner (U.S. 4,014,359) and Bertolotti (U.S. 5,249,745).
Martinon discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose an inlet flow valve and an outlet flow valve.
Sanner teaches it was known in the art to have a valve at the source of an inlet flow (outdoor valves 13 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinon such that there is an inlet flow valve at the source of fluid as taught by Sanner in order to be able to control the flow of fluid at the source of the inlet flow, especially if a user desires to stop fluid flow entirely at the source in order to repair or replace any components downstream of the source.
Bertolotti teaches it was known in the art to have an outlet flow valve (emitter valves 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinon by having an outlet flow valve or valves as taught by Bertolotti in order to be able to control fluid flow at the output of the irrigation system, such as at the emitter, if so desired by a user, especially to selectively stop irrigation at a certain area.
Claim(s) 7, 10-11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinon in view of Kypris (U.S. 4,967,789).
Regarding claim 7, Martinon discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the feedback array comprises a feedback filter (64).
Martinon does not appear to disclose a feedback valve; and a feedback control knob configured to control an amount of liquid fed to the liquid container through the feedback valve, wherein the feedback control knob is partially external of the floating valve system.
Kypris teaches it was known in the art to have a feedback line with a feedback valve; and a feedback control knob configured to control an amount of liquid fed to the liquid container through the feedback valve, wherein the feedback control knob is partially external of the floating valve system (feedback line 20 with adjustable flow restrictor/regulator valve 22, see fig. 1 showing a knob and col. 2, ll. 5-12 and 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinon by having the feedback line have an adjustable valve and knob as taught by Kypris in order to allow a user to control the rate at which water is replaced in the evaporation tank and thus the time during which the irrigation system is active (see col. 2, ll. 5-12).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Martinon as modified discloses the claimed invention and, while Kypris teaches adjusting the regulator on the feedback array to control the rate at which water is replaced in the evaporation tank and thus the time during which the irrigation system is active (see col. 2, ll. 5-12), Martinon as modified is silent as to the rate of the feedback array being at least half gallon of liquid per hour or a quarter gallon of liquid per hour.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Martinon by having the adjustable regulator be set to any rate desired by a user, including a rate such as at least half gallon of liquid per hour or a quarter gallon of liquid per hour, as an engineering expedient or matter of design choice and as applicant has not placed any criticality as to the specific rate and Kypris teaches it was known to adjust the rate so that the time of irrigation can be adjusted to a desired amount (see col. 2, ll. 5-12 of Kypris).
Regarding claim 19, Martinon discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the feedback array comprises a feedback filter (64).
Martinon does not appear to disclose a feedback valve; and a feedback control knob configured to control an amount of liquid fed to the liquid container through the feedback valve, wherein the feedback control knob is partially external of the floating valve system.
Kypris teaches it was known in the art to have a feedback line with a feedback valve; and a feedback control knob configured to control an amount of liquid fed to the liquid container through the feedback valve, wherein the feedback control knob is partially external of the floating valve system (feedback line 20 with adjustable flow restrictor/regulator valve 22, see fig. 1 showing a knob and col. 2, ll. 5-12 and 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinon by having the feedback line have an adjustable valve and knob as taught by Kypris in order to allow a user to control the rate at which water is replaced in the evaporation tank and thus the time during which the irrigation system is active (see col. 2, ll. 5-12).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinon in view of Utchell (U.S. 3,896,854).
Martinon discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the irrigation device being made of corrosion resistant material.
Utchell teaches it was known in the art to have components of an irrigation device made of corrosion resistant material (col. 4, ll. 37-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martinon such that the irrigation device is made of corrosion resistant materials as taught by Utchell in order to have the components, especially the components that come into contact with water, be able to resist corrosion or other deterioration under their conditions and environment of use (see col. 4, ll. 37-41 of Utchell).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Balet (U.S. 7,921, 865) discloses a mechanical device for controlling watering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753