DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Each of the information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 06/17/2024 and 07/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 19, 21-25, 27-31, 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bauman (US 2016/0100533);
In the alternative, Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rainone (US 2016/0037736);
Claim(s) 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of VanWagoner (US 2013/0253713);
Claim(s) 6, 17, 26, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman as applied to claims 1, 13, 22, 28, 31 above, and further in view of Fogelstrom (US 7348878);
Claim(s) 8, 9, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Rainone;
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of McAfee (US 2018/0236477.)
Bauman discloses in claim 1: An irrigation device (at 204 figure 2, and see figures 1-9) for an irrigation system (900 figure 9, ph 0073) operable to move fluid from a water source (via 901 supply) toward one or more water emitting devices (irrigation sprinklers 204-208/410-420) to provide irrigation, the irrigation device comprising: a body (200) to be fluidly connected to an irrigation line (912) of the irrigation system to receive pressurized fluid from the water source during an irrigation cycle (ph 0073-0074, the irrigation line delivering pressurized fluid flow to the sprinkler); and a pressure sensor (100/122 is a pressure sensor) mounted to the body to measure pressure in an interior of the irrigation line during the irrigation cycle to detect whether the body has a normal irrigation pressure condition (within Pmin/Pmax 712/714) or an abnormal irrigation pressure condition (122 ph 0044, 0049-0053, 0058, pressure operating within acceptable levels where the max/min 712/714 pressure levels can be read to determine if the pressure is within certain thresholds), the pressure sensor having communication circuitry (via 112/114 or 108/110) to wirelessly communicate pressure data to a remote computing device (to 130 via transceiver 110) to indicate whether the body has the normal irrigation pressure condition or the abnormal irrigation pressure condition (as discussed.)
(in the alternative) Rainone discloses in claim 1: An irrigation device (at 300 figure 3) for an irrigation system (100 figure 1) operable to move fluid from a water source (130 supply) toward one or more water emitting devices (irrigation devices 140 ph 0011) to provide irrigation, the irrigation device comprising: a body (322/340) to be fluidly connected to an irrigation line (310) of the irrigation system to receive pressurized fluid from the water source during an irrigation cycle (ph 0052-0054, the irrigation line delivering pressurized fluid flow to the sprinkler); and a pressure sensor (320 is a pressure sensor, ph 0053) mounted to the body to measure pressure in an interior of the irrigation line during the irrigation cycle to detect whether the body has a normal irrigation pressure condition or an abnormal irrigation pressure condition (pressure operating within acceptable levels per ph 0053), the pressure sensor having communication circuitry (at 324) to wirelessly communicate pressure data to a remote computing device (to 200 via transceiver 230 and controller 220) to indicate whether the body has the normal irrigation pressure condition or the abnormal irrigation pressure condition (per ph 0055 - 0058.)
Bauman discloses in claim 2/14/23/29: wherein the normal irrigation pressure condition exists when the pressure is in a range of normal pressures (min/max) and the abnormal irrigation pressure condition exists when the pressure is outside of the range of normal pressures (as discussed ph 0050-0053.)
Bauman discloses in claims 3/15/24/30: wherein the abnormal irrigation pressure condition is indicative of a problem with the irrigation system (the data indicates the health of the sprinkler, ph 0044,0049, 0058.)
Bauman discloses in claim 4/16: but does not explicitly disclose, although VanWagoner teaches: the problem with the irrigation system includes at least one of a blockage and a leak along the irrigation line (ph 0101, where a defective valve or a leak can be determined, and all provided for the purpose of real time feedback of the system for operational efficiency.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Bauman as taught in VanWagoner with determination of the problem with the irrigation system includes at least one of a blockage and a leak along the irrigation line as taught in VanWagoner, and all provided for the purpose of real time feedback of the system for operational efficiency.
Bauman discloses in claim 5: The irrigation device of claim 1 wherein the pressure sensor is an RFID pressure sensor (i.e. the pressure sensor 122 is correlated with an RFID (102) for identification of the sprinkler 204) operable to measure pressure responsive to a signal of an RFID reader (130, the pressure data max/min is sent via event request to the reader 130, per ph 0073-0074.)
Bauman discloses in claim 6: The irrigation device of claim 5 but Bauman does not disclose, although Fogelstrom teaches: the RFID pressure sensor is electrically powered (via radio wave energy) by the signal of the RFID reader (Col 1 ln 50-58, all provided for the purpose of reducing energy use and reading back location specific pressure readings);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for Bauman as taught in Fogelstrom, an arrangement for receiving the signal from the remote device includes using energy such as the radio wave energy of the signal as taught in Fogelstrom so as to electrically power the pressure sensor of Bauman as taught in Fogelstrom, while being coupled to an RFID, for the steps of measuring and sending as taught in Fogelstrom, and all provided for the purpose of reducing energy use and reading back location specific pressure readings.
Bauman discloses in claim 7: The irrigation device of claim 1 wherein the pressure sensor is configured to: receive a signal from a user device via the communication circuitry; measure the pressure of the interior of the irrigation system responsive to the signal (130 is in range and the controller 100 sends signal of the readings via transceiver 110 to the controller 130); and send pressure data to the remote computing device via the communication circuitry based on the measured pressure (per ph 0074.)
Bauman discloses in claim 8/20: The irrigation device but Bauman does not explicitly disclose, although Rainone teaches: the pressure sensor is secured to an interior of the body (pressure sensor 320 figure 3 is secured inside line 310 or in the alternative inside the irrigation sprinkler head 340 per ph 0051, 0052, for the purpose of providing a location specific pressure reading directly relative to the irrigation device);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Bauman as taught in Rainone with the pressure sensor being secured to an interior of the body as taught in Rainone, such as secured inside line or in the alternative inside the irrigation sprinkler head as taught in Rainone, and all for the purpose of providing a location specific pressure reading directly relative to the irrigation device.
Bauman discloses in claim 9: The irrigation device of claim 1 But Bauman does not explicitly disclose, although Rainone teaches: the pressure sensor is at least partially embedded in the body (pressure sensor 320 figure 3 is secured partially inside line body 310 or in the alternative inside the irrigation sprinkler head 340 per ph 0051, 0052, for the purpose of providing a location specific pressure reading directly relative to the irrigation device);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Bauman as taught in Rainone with the pressure sensor being secured to an interior of the body as taught in Rainone, such as secured partially inside line body or in the alternative inside the irrigation sprinkler head as taught in Rainone, and all for the purpose of providing a location specific pressure reading directly relative to the irrigation device.
Bauman discloses in claim 10: The irrigation device of claim 1 wherein the body forms at least a portion of an irrigation line end plug (at 902-910 the body 200 is at the end of 912 and the valve therein provides for plugging the line when closed.)
Bauman discloses in claim 11: The irrigation device of claim 1 wherein the body forms at least a portion of tube connector (as shown 200 forms a portion of the tube connection for 902-910.)
Bauman discloses in claim 12: The irrigation device of claim 1 wherein the body includes a sprinkler body (202) including: a housing (200) having an inlet connectable to an irrigation system (as seen figure 9); Bauman does not disclose, although McAfee teaches: a sprinkler with a riser (at 14 and see abstract) movable relative to the housing between a retracted position and an extended position (provided for the purpose of for example, reducing the exposure of the sprinkler outlet to the environment when not in use.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Bauman as taught in McAfee with a sprinkler with a riser that is movable relative to the housing between a retracted position and an extended position, as taught in McAfee, all provided for the purpose of for example, reducing the exposure of the sprinkler outlet to the environment when not in use.
Bauman discloses in claim 13: [An apparatus that performs…] A method of measuring water pressure (Pmin/Pmax 71/714 figure 7 via pressure sensor 122 figure 1) at an irrigation device (at 204 figure 2, and see figures 1-9) of an irrigation system (900) operable to move fluid from a water source (via 901) toward one or more water emitting devices (204 etc…) to provide irrigation, the method comprising: at a pressure sensor (100/122) mounted to the irrigation device (figure 2 at 204) to measure pressure of an interior of the irrigation system (inside of 200) during an irrigation cycle to detect whether the irrigation system has a normal irrigation pressure (in healthy normal pressure range) condition or an abnormal irrigation pressure condition (122 ph 0044, 0049-0053, 0058, pressure operating within acceptable levels where the max/min 712/714 pressure levels can be read to determine if the pressure is within certain thresholds) at the irrigation device, the pressure sensor having communication circuitry (via 112/114 or 108/110) to wirelessly communicate with a remote device (to 130 via transceiver 110): receiving a signal from the remote device via the communication circuitry (when in range, 130 will have 100 sends signal of the readings via transceiver 110 to the controller 130); measuring the pressure of the interior of the irrigation system responsive to the signal (per ph 0074); and sending pressure data (the pressure data is collected and sent to 130, which includes the max/min pressure readings that indicated the health threshold pressure operational levels of the irrigation line) of the interior of the irrigation system to the remote device via the communication circuitry to indicate whether the irrigation system has the normal irrigation pressure condition or the abnormal irrigation pressure condition at the irrigation device (as discussed.)
Bauman discloses in claim 17: The method of claim 13 but Bauman does not disclose, although Fogelstrom teaches: receiving the signal from the remote device includes using energy (the radio wave energy) of the signal to electrically power the pressure sensor (coupled to an RFID) for the steps of measuring and sending (Col 1 ln 50-58, all provided for the purpose of reducing energy use and reading back location specific pressure readings.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for Bauman as taught in Fogelstrom, an arrangement for receiving the signal from the remote device includes using energy such as the radio wave energy of the signal as taught in Fogelstrom so as to electrically power the pressure sensor of Bauman as taught in Fogelstrom, while being coupled to an RFID, for the steps of measuring and sending as taught in Fogelstrom, and all provided for the purpose of reducing energy use and reading back location specific pressure readings.
Bauman discloses in claim 18: The method of claim 13 wherein the pressure sensor is an RFID pressure sensor (i.e. the pressure sensor 122 is correlated with an RFID (102) for identification of the sprinkler 204.)
Bauman discloses in claim 19: The method of claim 13 wherein the remote device includes an RFID reader (130, the pressure data max/min is sent via event request to the reader 130, per ph 0073-0074) and wherein receiving the signal from the remote device includes receiving an interrogation signal from the RFID reader (to read the id sent from 110.)
Bauman discloses in claim 21: The method of claim 13 wherein the irrigation device is one of (the following alternative grouping under MPEP 2131): an irrigation line end plug; a tube connector; a valve; a dripline; and a sprinkler (204 is a sprinkler.)
Bauman discloses in claim 22: An irrigation system (900 figure 9) comprising: a plurality of irrigation devices (irrigation sprinklers 204-208/410-420/902-910) to be mounted along one or more irrigation lines (912) of the irrigation system to carry fluid from a water source (via 901) toward one or more water emitting devices (204) during an irrigation cycle, each irrigation device of the plurality of irrigation devices having a pressure sensor (100/122) mounted thereto to measure pressure of the irrigation system at the irrigation device (122 ph 0044, 0049-0053, 0058, pressure operating within acceptable levels where the max/min 712/714 pressure levels can be read to determine if the pressure is within certain thresholds); and a remote device (130) configured to wirelessly (via 112/114 or 108/110) communicate with the pressure sensors of the plurality of irrigation devices, the remote device operable to retrieve pressure data (Pmax/Pmin figure 7) from a first irrigation device (204/904) of the plurality of irrigation devices during the irrigation cycle to determine the pressure of the irrigation system at the first irrigation device (when 130 passes there by in figure 9 to collect the data from each irrigation device as discussed ph 0073 – 0074) to detect whether the irrigation system has a normal irrigation pressure condition (within 712/714) or an abnormal irrigation pressure condition (un-healthy threshold level) at the first irrigation device (via 122 ph 0044, 0049-0053, 0058, pressure operating within acceptable levels where the max/min 712/714 pressure levels can be read to determine if the pressure is within certain thresholds.)
Bauman discloses in claim 25: The irrigation system of claim 22 wherein the remote device (130) is configured to: send a first signal to cause a first pressure sensor of the first irrigation device to measure pressure in the first irrigation device (where when 130 is in range and the controller 100 sends signal of the readings via transceiver 110 to the controller 130); and receive a second signal from the first pressure sensor including pressure data (per ph 0074.)
Bauman discloses in claim 26: The irrigation system of claim 22 wherein the pressure sensors of the plurality of irrigation devices each include a/n RFID component (102); Bauman does not disclose: a passive RFID pressure sensor component, but Fogelstom teaches: a passive RFID pressure sensor component (Col 1 ln 50-58, all provided for the purpose of reducing energy use and reading back location specific pressure readings);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for Bauman as taught in Fogelstrom, an arrangement for receiving the signal from the remote device includes using energy such as the radio wave energy of the signal as taught in Fogelstrom so as to electrically power the pressure sensor of Bauman as taught in Fogelstrom, while being coupled to an RFID, for the steps of measuring and sending as taught in Fogelstrom, and all provided for the purpose of reducing energy use and reading back location specific pressure readings.
Bauman discloses in claim 27: The irrigation system of claim 22 wherein the plurality of irrigation devices include one or more of (the following alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) a sprinkler (204 is a sprinkler), an irrigation line end plug, a valve, a drip line, an irrigation line, and a tube connector.
Bauman discloses in claim 28: An apparatus (130) for detecting pressure of an irrigation system (900) operable to move fluid from a water source (via 901) toward one or more water emitting devices (912 or 204 as provided thereon) to provide irrigation, the apparatus comprising: communication circuitry (wireless transceiver ph 0046) configured to wirelessly communicate with an irrigation device (204 via 100) having a pressure sensor (122) to measure the pressure of the irrigation system at the irrigation device; and a processor (130 as a mobile computer or smartphone will have a processor) operably coupled to the communication circuitry, the processor configured to: wirelessly send a first signal to the irrigation device via the communication circuitry (via the wireless transceiver, via BLE will act as the central initiating device) to cause the pressure sensor (122, the peripheral to send the data measurements…) to measure the pressure of the irrigation system at the irrigation device; and wirelessly receive a second signal (via the established BLE communication link for data exchange) from the irrigation device via the communication circuitry including pressure data of the irrigation system at the irrigation device, the pressure data indicating whether the irrigation system has a normal irrigation pressure condition or an abnormal irrigation pressure condition at the irrigation device (the pressure data is collected and sent to 130, which includes the max/min pressure readings that indicated the health threshold pressure operational levels of the irrigation line.)
Bauman discloses in claim 31: The apparatus of claim 28 wherein the apparatus includes an RFID reader (130 will read the RFID 102 of 100) and the pressure sensor is an RFID pressure sensor (122 as correlated with 102) of the irrigation device, wherein the first signal is an interrogation signal (as necessarily via BLE) to cause the RFID pressure sensor to measure the pressure and send the pressure data (if it has not already.)
Bauman discloses in claim 32: The apparatus of claim 31 wherein the interrogation signal [requests] the RFID pressure sensor of the irrigation device to cause measuring the pressure and send the pressure data indicative of the normal irrigation pressure condition or the abnormal irrigation pressure condition at the irrigation device (as discussed above); but Bauman does not disclose, although Fogelstrom teaches: the interrogation signal provides electrical power to the RFID pressure sensor (via radio wave energy) of the signal to electrically power the pressure sensor (coupled to an RFID) for the steps of measuring and sending (Col 1 ln 50-58, all provided for the purpose of reducing energy use and reading back location specific pressure readings.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide for Bauman as taught in Fogelstrom, an arrangement for receiving the signal from the remote device includes using energy such as the radio wave energy of the signal as taught in Fogelstrom so as to electrically power the pressure sensor of Bauman as taught in Fogelstrom, while being coupled to an RFID, for the steps of measuring and sending as taught in Fogelstrom, and all provided for the purpose of reducing energy use and reading back location specific pressure readings.
Bauman discloses in claim 33: The apparatus of claim 28 further comprising a user interface (via 134), wherein the processor is further configured to present the pressure data to the user via the user interface (ph 0048.)
Bauman discloses in claim 34: The apparatus of claim 28 further comprising a user interface (via 134), wherein the processor is further configured to receive input from a user via the user interface to retrieve pressure data from the irrigation device (ph 0048.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights