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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least two connecting pipes of different sizes in claim 17, ln. 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“extendable” should be added before “arm” in ln. 2 to ensure consistency of terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the arm segments” should be revised to “the first and second arm segments” in ln. 7 to ensure consistency of terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: an adjustment mechanism in claim 19, ln. 2.
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. It will be interpreted that an adjustment mechanism is at least one elongate rod and two nuts, as described in Pg. 5-6 and 11 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-24 and 26 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second arm segment which is connectable at one thereof to the irrigation pipeline” in ln. 6-7. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what one thereof the applicant is referring to, and whether the applicant is referring to the one end previously recited in the claim or if the applicant is introducing another end different from the one end previously recited. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that one thereof is an end that is different from the one end previously recited in the claim.
Claims 2-24 and 26 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “at one thereof to the irrigation pipeline” in ln. 3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what one thereof the applicant is referring to, and whether the applicant is referring to the one end previously recited in claim 1 or if the applicant is introducing another end different from the one end previously recited. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that one thereof is the one end previously recited in claim 1.
Claims 3-4, 8-14, and 20-21 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 2.
The term “substantially” in claim 4, ln. 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the specification, the applicant does not define what would be considered as the at least one elongate channel extending substantially the length of the arms. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the at least one elongate channel extends the length of the arms.
Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the second arm segment at one thereof” in ln. 2-3. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what one thereof the applicant is referring to, and whether the applicant is referring to the one end previously recited in the claim or if the applicant is introducing another end different from the one end previously recited. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that one thereof is an end that is different from the one end previously recited in the claim.
Claims 6-7 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 5.
The term “substantially” in claim 7, ln. 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the specification, the applicant does not define what would be considered as the at least one elongate channel extending substantially the length of the arms. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the at least one elongate channel extends the length of the arms.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second arms" in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “at least two second arms” or “a plurality of second arms” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second arms" in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “at least two second arms” or “a plurality of second arms” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second arms" in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “at least two second arms” or “a plurality of second arms” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second engagement formations" in ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “at least two second engagement formations” or “a plurality of second engagement formations” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
The term “approximate” in claim 10, ln. 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the specification, the applicant does not define what would be considered as the first engagement formations arranged approximate the second irrigation pipe attachment. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the first engagement formations is arranged adjacent the second irrigation pipe attachment.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second arms" in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “at least two second arms” or “a plurality of second arms” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second engagement formations" in ln. 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “at least two second engagement formations” or “a plurality of second engagement formations” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 11.
The term “slightly” in claim 14, ln. 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the specification, the applicant does not define what would be considered as the first and second arm segments are slightly pivotable relative to each other. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the first and second arm segments are pivotable relative to each other.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “at least two connecting pipes of different lengths” in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant intends to introduce a new feature, or the applicant is referring to the connecting pipe previously recited in claim 1. If applicant is referring to the latter, it is further unclear how the connecting pipe previously recited in claim 1 can have at least two connecting pipes of different lengths, since only one connecting pipe was introduced in claim 1. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the connecting pipe previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the adjustment mechanism" in ln. 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “an adjustment mechanism” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the arrangement" in ln. 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “an arrangement” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 20.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the fluid path" in ln. 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a fluid path” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 is rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 20.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the adjustment mechanism" in ln. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “an adjustment mechanism” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10, 18, 22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davis (US Patent 5,435,495).
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Davis discloses an extendable arm (32, Fig. 3) that is removably insertable into an irrigation pipeline (interpreting insertable into as to put into the body of something, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 10, 16, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 14, entire pipeline structure, inside part 34 of telescoping pipe joint 32 is put into the body of the entire pipeline structure by attaching to elbow 36 on the vertical pipe 10 by being put onto flange 38, which is connected to half of one of the original flanges 37 of elbow 36, and inside part 34 is removable from elbow 36 through flanges 37, 38, entire center pivot agricultural irrigation system in Fig. 1 is well known in the art and commercially available in the market, annotated and shown in Figs. 1, 3-4, Col. 3, Ln. 27 to Col. 4, Ln. 21) of a centre pivot irrigation system (entire structure, Figs. 1, 3-4), which includes a central tower (10, 14, Figs. 1, 3-5) and at least one movable tower (18, Figs. 1-2) for carrying the pipeline (10, 16, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 14, entire pipeline structure, shown in Figs. 1-4), the arm (32, Fig. 3) comprising –
a first arm segment (34, Figs. 3-4) which is connectable at one end thereof to the irrigation pipeline (10, 16, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 14, entire pipeline structure, inside part 34 of telescoping pipe joint 32 is attached to elbow 36 on left end of the entire pipeline, annotated and shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 3, Ln. 63 to Col. 4, Ln. 21);
a second arm segment (40, Figs. 3-4) which is connectable at one thereof to the irrigation pipeline (interpreting as another end different to the one end of the irrigation pipeline attached to the first arm segment, which connects to the right end of the entire pipeline, 10, 16, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 14, outside part 40 is attached to horizontal pipe 14 through flange 42, annotated and shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 3, Ln. 63 to Col. 4, Ln. 21),
with the first (34, Figs. 3-4) and second arm segments (40, Figs. 3-4) being displaceable relative to each other between a retracted and extended position (outside part 40 is telescoped over the inside part 34 which allows the outside part 40 and the inside part 34 to extend and retract with each other, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 4, Ln. 22-45) to alternate radial distance between the movable tower (18, Figs. 1-2) and the central tower (10, 14, telescoping joint changes distance from center pivot to first vehicle, Figs. 1, 3-5, Col. 1, Ln. 48-52); and
a connecting pipe (60, annotated and shown in Figs. 3-4) extending between the first (34, Figs. 3-4) and second arm segments (40, Figs. 3-4) to enable uninterrupted fluid flow in the irrigation pipeline (36, 16, 14, gaskets 62 and 68 of the sleeve 60 prevent loss of water between the telescoping joints, Figs. 1-5, Col. 5, Ln. 6-16).
Due to the 112(b) issues that surround claim 26, the cited art appears to read on the limitations of that claim as outlined herein.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 1. Davis discloses the first arm segment (34, Figs. 3-4) includes a first irrigation pipe attachment (56, Figs. 3-4) for connecting the first arm segment (34, Figs. 3-4) at one thereof to the irrigation pipeline (36, 16, 14, inside part 34 of telescoping pipe joint 32 is attached to elbow 36 on left end of the entire pipeline and limit switch 56 is attached to elbow 36, shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 3, Ln. 63 to Col. 4, Ln. 21, Col. 4, Ln. 32); and at least two elongate first arms (46, 50, Fig. 3) extending parallel to each other (shown in Fig. 3) and from radially opposite positions from the first irrigation pipe attachment (56, shown in Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 3, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 2. Davis further discloses the first arms (46, 50, Fig. 3) terminate at their free ends (ends opposite of the ends connecting to the pivot support 14, shown in Fig. 3) in first engagement formations (48, 52, 54, Figs. 3-4) for slidingly engaging the second arm segment (40, safety bar 50 slides until locked into position to the slide 52 and clamp means 54, which permits the two parts 34 and 40 of the telescoping joint to be locked into position, shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 4, Ln. 22-45).
With respect to claim 10, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 3. Davis discloses the first (34, Figs. 3-4) and second arm segments (40, Figs. 3-4) are displaceable relative to each other between an extended position (Col. 4, Ln. 22-45), in which the first (48, 52, 54, Figs. 3-4) and second engagement formations (51, 57, 55, Figs. 3-4) are aligned (interpreting as to bring into line or alignment, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, with expansion of the joint 32, long stop 57 contacts limit switch 56 and permits nut 48, slide 52, clamp means 54 to be into line with slide 51, long stop 57, and short stop 55, shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 4, Ln. 22-45); and a retracted position (Col. 4, Ln. 22-45) in which the second engagement formations (51, 57, 55, Figs. 3-4) press against the first irrigation pipe attachment (56, in a contracted position the short stop 55 contacts limit switch 56, Figs. 3-4, Col. 4, Ln. 22-45), with the first engagement formations (48, 52, 54, Figs. 3-4) arranged approximate (interpreting as adjacent to) the second irrigation pipe attachment (42, shown in Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 17, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 1. Davis discloses the extendable arm (32, Fig. 3) includes at least two connecting pipes of different lengths (interpreting as the connecting pipe previously recited in claim 1, 60, Figs. 3-4) to accommodate the extended and retracted positions of the first (34, Figs. 3-4) and second arm segments (40, Figs. 3-4) respectively (sleeve 60 is attached to outside part 40, and rotation of the rod 46, which is connected to annotated connecting pipe, changes the position of the outside part 40 to the inside part 34 between an extended and a retracted position, Col. 4, Ln. 22-45).
In regards to claim 18, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 1. Davis discloses the connecting pipe (60, Figs. 3-4) terminates at each of its opposite ends in a pipe flange (38, 42, safety bar 50, which is connected to annotated connecting pipe, slides until locked into position to the slide 52 and clamp means 54, which permits the two parts 34 and 40 of the telescoping joint to be locked into position, and at a left end of the sleeve 60 and annotated connecting pipe, the sleeve 60 and the annotated connecting pipe terminates at flange 38 when retracted, and at a right end of the sleeve 60 and annotated connecting pipe, the sleeve 60 and the annotated connecting pipe terminates at flange 42 when extended, shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 4, Ln. 22-45) which is complimentarily configured for connecting the connecting pipe (60, Figs. 3-4) to the first (34, Figs. 3-4) and second arm segments (40, Figs. 3-4) respectively (safety bar 50, which is connected to the annotated connecting pipe, slides until locked into position to the slide 52 and clamp means 54, which permits the two parts 34 and 40 of the telescoping joint to be locked into position, shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 4, Ln. 22-45).
With respect to claim 22, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 1. Davis discloses the extendable arm (32, Fig. 3) includes two intermediate pipe connectors (46, 48, Figs. 3-4) for connecting the connecting pipe (60, annotated and shown Figs. 3-4) to the first (34, Figs. 3-4) and second arm segments (40, Figs. 3-4) respectively (threaded rod 46 is journalled to the elbow 36 and also connects to inside part 34, and threaded nut is connected and attached directly to the outside part 40. Col. 4, Ln. 10-21), with the irrigation pipeline (36, 16, 14, Figs. 1-5) being connected to opposite sides of the first (34, Figs. 3-4) and second arm segments (40, Figs. 3-4) respectively (shown in Figs. 3-4), thus completing the fluid path (interior channel within telescoping pipe joint 32, shown in Fig. 3) of the extendable arm (32, shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 25, Davis discloses a centre pivot irrigation system (entire structure, entire center pivot agricultural irrigation system in Fig. 1 is well known in the art and commercially available in the market, shown in Figs. 1, 3-4, Col. 3, Ln. 27 to Col. 4, Ln. 21), comprising –
a central tower (10, 14, Figs. 1, 3-5); an irrigation pipeline (36, 16, 14, Figs. 1-5) extending from the central tower (10, 14, shown in Figs. 1, 3-5); and at least one moveable tower (18, Figs. 1-2) for carrying the pipeline (36, 16, 14, shown in Figs. 1-2); and
an extendable arm (32, Fig. 3) which is removably insertable into the irrigation pipeline (interpreting insertable into as to put into the body of something, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 10, 16, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 14, entire pipeline structure, inside part 34 of telescoping pipe joint 32 is put into the body of the entire pipeline structure by attaching to elbow 36 on the vertical pipe 10 by being put onto flange 38, which is connected to half of one of the original flanges 37 of elbow 36, and inside part 34 is removable from elbow 36 through flanges 37, 38, annotated and shown in Figs. 1, 3-4, Col. 3, Ln. 27 to Col. 4, Ln. 21) and which comprises –
a first arm segment (34, Figs. 3-4) which is connectable at one end thereof to the irrigation pipeline (10, 16, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 14, entire pipeline structure, inside part 34 of telescoping pipe joint 32 is attached to elbow 36 on left end of the entire pipeline, annotated and shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 3, Ln. 63 to Col. 4, Ln. 21);
a second arm segment (40, Figs. 3-4) which is connectable at one thereof to the irrigation pipeline (interpreting as another end different to the one end of the irrigation pipeline attached to the first arm segment, which connects to the right end of the entire pipeline, 10, 16, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 14, outside part 40 is attached to horizontal pipe 14 through flange 42, annotated and shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 3, Ln. 63 to Col. 4, Ln. 21), with the first (34, Figs. 3-4) and second arm segments (40, Figs. 3-4) being displaceable relative to each other between a retracted and extended position (outside part 40 is telescoped over the inside part 34 which allows the outside part 40 and the inside part 34 to extend and retract with each other, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 4, Ln. 22-45) to alternate radial distance between the movable tower (18, Figs. 1-2) and the central tower (10, 14, telescoping joint changes distance from center pivot to first vehicle, Figs. 1, 3-5, Col. 1, Ln. 48-52); and
a connecting pipe (60, Figs. 3-4) extending between the first (34, Figs. 3-4) and second arm segments (40, Figs. 3-4) to enable uninterrupted fluid flow in the irrigation pipeline (36, 16, 14, gaskets 62 and 68 of the sleeve 60 prevent loss of water between the telescoping joints, Figs. 1-5, Col. 5, Ln. 6-16).
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.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Patent 5,435,495) in view of Davenport et al. (US 20210051866 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 3. However, Davis does not disclose each of the first arms includes at least one elongate channel extending substantially the length of the arms and located in inwardly facing faces of the first arms as claimed. Davenport teaches an extendable arm (206, Fig. 7A) comprising each of the first arms (232, Fig. 7A) includes at least one elongate channel (internal surface within external support structures 232, external support structures 232 may be hollow and define conduits configured to slidably receive a portion of the inner support structure 234, Fig. 7A, Paragraph 0052) extending substantially the length of the arms (length of external support structures 232, shown in Fig. 7A, Paragraph 0052) and located in inwardly facing faces (side of external support structure 232 connecting to internal support structure 234, shown in Fig. 7A) of the first arms (232, Fig. 7A).
Davis and Davenport are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extendable arms for center pivot irrigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the first arms taught in Davenport’s extendable arm to the first arms taught in Davis’ extendable arm, to have each of the first arms includes at least one elongate channel extending substantially the length of the arms and located in inwardly facing faces of the first arms. Doing so provides low friction sliding between the parts (Davenport, Paragraph 0052).
With respect to claim 5, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 1. Davis discloses the second arm segment (40, Figs. 3-4) includes a second irrigation pipe attachment (42, Fig. 3) for connecting the second arm segment (40, Figs. 3-4) at one thereof to the irrigation pipeline (36, 16, 14, right end of entire pipeline, shown in Figs. 3-4). However, Davis does not disclose the second arm segment includes at least two elongate second arms extending parallel to each other and from radially opposite positions from the second irrigation pipe attachment as claimed. Davenport teaches an extendable arm (206, Fig. 7A) comprising an arm segment (232, 234, 244, Fig. 7A) includes at least two elongate second arms (234, Fig. 7A) extending parallel to each other (shown in Fig. 7A) and from radially opposite positions from the second irrigation pipe attachment (246, shown in Fig. 7A).
Davis and Davenport are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extendable arms for center pivot irrigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the arm segment taught in Davenport’s extendable arm to the second arm segment taught in Davis’ extendable arm, to have the second arm segment includes at least two elongate second arms extending parallel to each other and from radially opposite positions from the second irrigation pipe attachment as claimed. Doing so provides low friction sliding between the parts (Davenport, Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 6, Davis, as modified by Davenport, discloses the extendable arm according to claim 5. Davenport further teaches the second arms (234, Fig. 7A) terminate at their free ends in second engagement formations (244, Fig. 7A) for slidingly engaging the first arm segment (240, bushing 244 facilitates sliding of inner support structures 234 and is pushed against stop flange 240, shown in Fig. 7A, Paragraph 0052).
In regards to claim 7, Davis, as modified by Davenport, discloses the extendable arm according to claim 6. Davenport further teaches each of the second arms (234, Fig. 7A) includes at least one elongate channel (interior surface within interior support structures 234, not explicitly shown, but there is an internal surface within interior support structures 234 that allow it to slide in and out of the external support structure 232, Fig. 7A, Paragraph 0052) extending substantially the length of the arms (length of interior support structures 234, shown in Fig. 7A) and located in outwardly facing faces (sides of interior support structures 234 facing toward the exterior support structures 232, shown in Fig. 7A) of the second arms (234, Fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 8, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 2. However, Davis does not disclose the second arms of the second arm segment are arranged closer to each other compared to the distance between the first arms of the first arm segment, such that the second arms fit between and slidingly engage the first arms as claimed. Davenport teaches an extendable arm (206, Fig. 7A) comprising the second arms (234, Fig. 7A) are arranged closer to each other (shown in Fig. 7A) compared to the distance between the first arms (232, shown in Fig. 7A), such that the second arms (234, Fig. 7A) fit between and slidingly engage the first arms (232, inner support structure 234 slides in and out of the external support structure 234, shown in Fig. 7A, Paragraph 0052).
Davis and Davenport are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extendable arms for center pivot irrigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the first arms and the second arms taught in Davenport’s extendable arm to the first arm segment and the second arm segment taught in Davis’ extendable arm, to have the second arms of the second arm segment are arranged closer to each other compared to the distance between the first arms of the first arm segment, such that the second arms fit between and slidingly engage the first arms. Doing so provides low friction sliding between the parts (Davenport, Paragraph 0052).
With respect to claim 9, Davis, as modified by Davenport, discloses the extendable arm according to claim 4. However, Davis does not disclose the channels of the second arms face the channels of the first arms. Davenport teaches an extendable arm (206, Fig. 7A) comprising the channels (interior surface within interior support structures 234, not explicitly shown, but there is an internal surface within interior support structures 234 that allow it to slide in and out of the external support structure 232, Fig. 7A, Paragraph 0052) of the second arms (234, Fig. 7A) face the channels (internal surface within external support structures 232, external support structures 232 may be hollow and define conduits configured to slidably receive a portion of the inner support structure 234, Fig. 7A, Paragraph 0052) of the first arms (232, shown in Fig. 7A).
Davis and Davenport are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extendable arms for center pivot irrigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the first arms and the second arms taught in Davenport’s extendable arm to the first arm segment and the second arm segment taught in Davis’ extendable arm, to have the channels of the second arms face the channels of the first arms. Doing so provides low friction sliding between the parts (Davenport, Paragraph 0052).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Patent 5,435,495) in view of Davenport et al. (US 20210051866 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sherwin (US Patent 4,277,027).
In regards to claim 11, Davis, as modified by Davenport, discloses the extendable arm according to claim 4. However, Davis and Davenport do not teach the first and second arms are connected to each other through at least one connecting pin connected to either one of the first or second engagement formations and being slidable in the elongate channel of the other of the second or first arms, as the case be. Sherwin teaches a centre pivot irrigation system (10, Fig. 1) comprising the first (36, Figs. 4-5) and second arms (60, Figs. 4-5) are connected to each other through at least one connecting pin (52, Figs. 4-5) connected to either one of the first or second engagement formations (48, shown in Figs. 4-5) and being slidable in the elongate channel of the first arm (36, pin 52 extends and slides through pipe 36, shown in Figs. 4-5, Col. 3, Ln. 39-44), as the case be.
Davis, Davenport, and Sherwin are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of center pivot irrigation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the connecting pin taught in Sherwin’s system to Davis’ extendable arm, as modified by Davenport, to have the first and second arms are connected to each other through at least one connecting pin connected to either one of the first or second engagement formations and being slidable in the elongate channel of the other of the second or first arms, as the case be. Doing so provides a more secure way to install the system while reducing costs (Sherwin, Col. 1, Ln. 66 to Col. 2, Ln. 14).
With respect to claim 12, Davis, as modified by Davenport and Sherwin, discloses the extendable arm according to claim 11. Sherwin further teaches the connecting pins (52, Figs. 4-5) are connected to each of the first engagement formations (48, shown in Figs. 4-5) of the first arms (36, Figs. 4-5), extending inwardly and being slidable in the elongate channels of the second arms (60, pin 52 extends and slides through arm 60, shown in Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 13, Davis, as modified by Davenport and Sherwin, discloses the extendable arm according to claim 11. Sherwin further teaches the connecting pins (52, Figs. 4-5) are connected to each of the second engagement formations (50, shown in Figs. 4-5) of the second arms (60, shown in Figs. 4-5), extending outwardly and being slidable in the elongate channels of the first arms (36, pin 52 extends and slides through pipe 36, shown in Figs. 4-5, Col. 3, Ln. 39-44).
With respect to claim 14, Davis, as modified by Davenport and Sherwin, discloses the extendable arm according to claim 11. Sherwin further teaches first (36, Figs. 4-5) and second arm segments (60, Figs. 4-5) are slightly pivotable relative to each other at the connecting pin connection (52, arm 60 has pivotal movement with respect to pipe 36, Figs. 4-5, Col. 3, Ln. 45 to Col. 4, Ln. 6), thus allowing for a measure of flexibility over uneven ground conditions (pivotal movement of arm 60 allows for adjustment of attachment in the system, Col. 3, Ln. 45 to Col. 4, Ln. 6).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Patent 5,435,495) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reinke (US Patent 3,608,826).
Regarding claim 15, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 1. However, Davis does not disclose the connecting pipe is a flexible pipe deformable to accommodate the extended and retracted positions of the first and second arm segments. Reinke teaches an extendable arm (entire structure, Figs. 1a-2a) comprising the connecting pipe (38, Fig. 5) is a flexible pipe deformable to accommodate the extended and retracted positions of the first and second arm segments (36, flexible hose 38 is clamped to adjacent ends of the pipe sections 36 to allow for elongated and short pipe sections 36 with the flexible hose 38 in between, Col. 3, Ln. 1-18).
Davis and Reinke are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extendable arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the connecting pipe taught in Reinke’s extendable arm to Davis’ extendable arm, to have the connecting pipe is a flexible pipe deformable to accommodate the extended and retracted positions of the first and second arm segments. Doing so provides a more flexible and secure structure in the system (Reinke, Col. 1, Ln. 17-43).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Patent 5,435,495) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Reinke (US Patent 3,608,826) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hatton (US 20150275629 A1).
In regards to claim 16, Davis, as modified by Reinke, discloses the extendable arm according to claim 15. However, Davis and Reinke do not teach the connecting pipe is a concertina pipe. Hatton teaches an extendable arm (10, Fig. 1) comprising the connecting pipe (44, Fig. 1) is a concertina pipe (Paragraphs 0064, 0120).
Davis, Reinke, and Hatton are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extendable arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teaching of the connecting pipe taught in Hatton’s extendable arm to Davis’ extendable arm, as modified by Reinke, to have the connecting pipe is a concertina pipe. Doing so provides enables easier adjustment between the connectors (Hatton, Paragraph 0064).
Claims 19-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Patent 5,435,495) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sage et al. (US Patent 4,034,778).
With respect to claim 19, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 1. Davis discloses the extendable arm (32, Fig. 3) includes an adjustment mechanism (interpreting as at least one elongate rod and two nuts, 46, 50, 48, there are two elongate rods and one nut, Fig. 3) to adjust the arm between the retracted and the extended configurations (safety bar 50 slides until locked into position to the slide 52 and clamp means 54, which permits the two parts 34 and 40 of the telescoping joint to be locked into position between a retracted and an extended configuration, shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 4, Ln. 22-44).
However, Davis does not disclose the adjustment mechanism as claimed. Sage teaches an extendable arm (entire structure, Fig. 1) includes an adjustment mechanism (interpreting as at least one elongate rod and two nuts, 110, 122, there is one elongate rod 110 and two nuts 122, Fig. 3).
Davis and Sage are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extendable arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the adjustment mechanism taught in Sage’s extendable arm to Davis’ extendable arm, to have the adjustment mechanism as claimed. Doing so provides permits pivoting and rotational movement while limiting lateral movement (Sage, Col. 5, Ln. 40-64).
With respect to claim 20, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 2. Davis further discloses the adjustment mechanism (46, 50, 48, Fig. 3) comprises at least one elongate rod (46, 50, Fig. 3); and a nut (48, Fig. 3) for engaging the threaded rod end (end of rod 46 connecting through nut 48, shown in Fig. 3) for securing the threaded rod (46, Fig. 3) in place (shown in Fig. 3); the arrangement being such that rotation of the nut on the threaded rod end displaces the arm segments between the extended and retracted positions (rotation of the rod 46, which is threaded to nut 48, changes the position of the outside part 40 to the inside part 34 between an extended and a retracted position, Col. 4, Ln. 22-44)
However, Davis does not disclose the adjustment mechanism comprises at least one elongate rod terminating in two opposite threaded ends, with one threaded end extending through the first irrigation pipe attachment and the second threaded end extending through the second irrigation pipe attachment as claimed. Sage teaches an extendable arm (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising the adjustment mechanism (110, 122, Fig. 3) comprises at least one elongate rod (110, Fig. 3) terminating in two opposite threaded ends (111, shown in Fig. 3), with one threaded end (left end of rod 110, shown in Fig. 3) extending through the first irrigation pipe attachment (120 on the left side, shown in Fig. 3) and the second threaded end (right end of rod 110, shown in Fig. 3) extending through the second irrigation pipe attachment (120 on the right side, shown in Fig. 3); and two nuts (122, Fig. 3) for engaging the threaded rod ends (111, shown in Fig. 3) for securing the threaded rod (110, Fig. 3) in place (shown in Fig. 3).
Davis and Sage are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extendable arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the adjustment mechanism taught in Sage’s extendable arm to Davis’ extendable arm, to have the adjustment mechanism comprises at least one elongate rod terminating in two opposite threaded ends, with one threaded end extending through the first irrigation pipe attachment and the second threaded end extending through the second irrigation pipe attachment as claimed. Doing so provides permits pivoting and rotational movement while limiting lateral movement (Sage, Col. 5, Ln. 40-64).
Regarding claim 21, Davis, as modified by Sage, discloses the extendable arm according to claim 20. Davis discloses the extendable arm (32, Fig. 3) includes two rods (46, 50, Fig. 3) extending parallel to each other (shown in Fig. 3), and as modified by Sage regarding claim 20 above, would result in two threaded rods extending parallel to each other and penetrating at radially opposite positions through the first and second irrigation pipe attachments.
Regarding claim 23, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 22. However, Davis does not disclose the extendable arm includes a series of intermediate pipe connectors of different lengths to accommodate different connector pipe lengths intermediate the first and second arm segments. Sage teaches an extendable arm (entire structure, Fig. 1) includes a series of intermediate pipe connectors (54, Fig. 1) of different lengths (flexible connections 54 are placed at different lengths of the arm, shown in Fig. 1) to accommodate different connector pipe lengths (shown in Fig. 1) intermediate the first and second arm segments (22, shown in Fig. 1).
Davis and Sage are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of extendable arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the series of intermediate pipe connectors taught in Sage’s extendable arm to Davis’ extendable arm, to have the extendable arm includes a series of intermediate pipe connectors of different lengths to accommodate different connector pipe lengths intermediate the first and second arm segments. Doing so minimizes deflection in the structure (Sage, Col. 5, Ln. 21-40).
Regarding claim 24, Davis discloses the extendable arm according to claim 1. Davis discloses the adjustment mechanism (46, 50, 48, Fig. 3) is a hydraulic, electronic, or robotic adjustment means (motor is electronic, Col. 4, Ln. 5-9) for automated displacement of the first and second arm segments relative to each other (Col. 4, Ln. 22-44). However, Davis does not disclose the adjustment mechanism as claimed. Sage teaches an e