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 .
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.
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: “a gripping assembly”, “a conduit tension sensing assembly”, and “a conduit angle sensing assembly” in claims 1 and 11, “gripping members” in claim 9, and “gripping devices” in claim 19.
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.
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 1-20 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.
It is unclear what the scope of “a conduit tension sensing assembly” in claims 1 and 11 encompasses. Paragraph [0022] describes structure including an elongate member, a support member, and a sensor that measures an angle. It is unclear how measuring an angle is used to calculate a tension.
PNG
media_image1.png
146
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Then paragraph [0023] describes how the gripping devices bias slack in the conduit to assist in obtaining a tension measurement. It is unclear if the function of sensing conduit tension is a calculation based off a measured angle sensor as implied in paragraph [0022] or is measured by sensor 206 as described in paragraph [0023] and is calculated with respect to a target set point with the reel speed adjusted if the sensor is outside a range. It is further unclear if the gripping devices should be part of the structure performing the function of sensing conduit tension.
PNG
media_image2.png
176
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
54
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted that claims 2 and 3 (as well as claims 12 and 13) contain the same language except claim 2 (and 12) recite “the conduit tension assembly” whereas claim 3 (and 13) recite “the conduit angle sensing assembly. It is unclear how the exact same recited structure in claims 2 and 3 perform the different functions sensing the conduit angle and sensing the conduit tension. It is also noted that claims 2 and 10 (and 12 and 20) recite “the conduit tension assembly” which lacks proper antecedent basis as claims 1 and 11 recite “a conduit tension sensing assembly”.
PNG
media_image4.png
242
648
media_image4.png
Greyscale
So, it is unclear what the corresponding structure is for “a conduit tension sensing assembly” and what would constitute equivalents thereof.
Claim 12 recites “the frame” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to the vehicle frame or the support frame previously recited in claim 11.
Claim 18 recites “the traverser” in line 1. This term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear what previously recited structure is being referred to. Noted, claim 18 is dependent on claim 16.
Claim 20 recites “the frame” twice in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to the vehicle frame or the support frame previously recited in claim 11.
In light of the above, prior art will be applied to the claims as the claims can be reasonably construed.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (US Patent Number 3,753,409) in view of KR20190106898A, hereinafter “LG”.
Re claim 1, Frazier discloses a conduit control assembly in an irrigation vehicle (see the title and Fig. 1) having a reel (207, 208, 209, see especially Fig. 9) supporting a flexible conduit (210) such that the conduit can be extended from or retracted onto said reel, the conduit control assembly, comprising: a frame (including 203, 225, 226) supporting a gripping assembly (including rollers 230; note the applicant describes rollers as an example of a gripping device in paragraph [0020] of the specification). While the reeling and unreeling of the conduit results in tension in the conduit, it is unclear if this would constitute a conduit tension sensing assembly coupled with the frame; and there does not appear to be a conduit angle sensing assembly coupled with the frame.
LG discloses a similar hose reel (130) vehicle (110, 111, see Fig. 1) with conduit (140). LG also discloses a conduit tension sensing assembly (see line 3 of the claims and the portions of the translated description below); and a conduit angle sensing assembly (including first and second angle sensors, see lines 13-17 of the claims and the portions of the translated description below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have added the conduit tension sensing assembly and conduit angle sensing assembly of LG and coupled them with the frame of Frazier in order to sense the tension in the conduit and sense the angle of the conduit as taught by LG.
PNG
media_image5.png
338
748
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
86
666
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
142
692
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
90
666
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, the modified Frazier discloses the conduit control assembly of claim 1, wherein the conduit tension assembly includes an elongate member (part of boom support 250 in Frazier) extending from the frame, a support member (including rollers 251, 252 in Frazier) connected with the elongate member and a sensor (the tension sensor and/or one or both the angle sensors in LG), the sensor configured to calculate an angle of the elongate member about an axis with respect to the frame.
Re claim 3, the modified Frazier discloses the conduit control assembly of claim 1, wherein the conduit angle sensing assembly includes an elongate member (part of boom support 250 in Frazier) extending from the frame, a support member (including rollers 251, 252 in Frazier) connected with the elongate member and a sensor (the tension sensor and/or one or both the angle sensors in LG), the sensor configured to calculate an angle of the elongate member about an axis with respect to the frame.
Re claims 4 and 5, the modified Frazier discloses the conduit control assembly of claim 3, wherein the axis is horizontal or vertical depending on the desired angle(s) to be measured.
Re claim 6, the modified Frazier discloses the conduit control assembly of claim 1, wherein the conduit angle sensing assembly includes an elongate member extending from the frame (part of boom support 250 in Frazier), a support member (including rollers 251, 252 in Frazier) connected with the elongate member, a first sensor and a second sensor (the angle sensors in LG), the first sensor configured to calculate a first angle of the elongate member about a first axis with respect to the frame and the second sensor configured to calculate a second angle of the elongate member about a second axis with respect to the frame, the second axis orthogonal to the first axis. The measured angles with respect to various axis are considered obvious variations depending on the desired angle(s) to be measured.
Re claim 7, the modified Frazier discloses the conduit control assembly of claim 1, further comprising a traverser (including 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 in Frazier), the traverser including an actuator (sprockets 236, 237 and chain 235) configured to position the frame (225, 226) laterally with respect to the vehicle.
Re claim 8, the modified Frazier discloses the conduit control assembly of claim 7, wherein the traverser includes linkage arms (read as 238, 239) rotatably pivotable with respect to a bracket.
Re claim 9, the modified Frazier discloses the conduit control assembly of claim 1, wherein the gripping assembly includes first and second gripping members (including rollers 230; note the applicant describes rollers as an example of a gripping device in paragraph [0020] of the specification) supported by the frame.
Re claim 10, the modified Frazier discloses the conduit control assembly of claim 1, wherein the conduit tension assembly is positioned on a first side of the frame and the conduit angle sensing assembly is positioned on a second side of the frame, opposite the first side. It is unclear what the scope of the assemblies encompass. However, it would have been obvious to placed them on opposite sides of the frame for balance.
Re claim 11, Frazier discloses a crop input application vehicle (see the title and Fig. 1), comprising: a vehicle frame (including 201) having a reel (207, 208, 209, see especially Fig. 9) supporting a flexible conduit (210) such that the conduit can be extended from or retracted onto said reel; a conduit control assembly, comprising a support frame (including 203, 225, 226) supporting a gripping assembly (including rollers 230; note the applicant describes rollers as an example of a gripping device in paragraph [0020] of the specification).
While the reeling and unreeling of the conduit results in tension in the conduit, it is unclear if this would constitute a conduit tension sensing assembly coupled with the support frame; and there does not appear to be a conduit angle sensing assembly coupled with the support frame.
LG discloses a similar hose reel (130) vehicle (110, 111, see Fig. 1) with conduit (140). LG also discloses a conduit tension sensing assembly (see line 3 of the claims and the portions of the translated description below); and a conduit angle sensing assembly (including first and second angle sensors, see lines 13-17 of the claims and the portions of the translated description below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have added the conduit tension sensing assembly and conduit angle sensing assembly of LG and coupled them with the support frame of Frazier in order to sense the tension in the conduit and sense the angle of the conduit as taught by LG.
PNG
media_image5.png
338
748
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
86
666
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
142
692
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
90
666
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Re claim 12, the modified Frazier discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the conduit tension assembly includes an elongate member (part of boom support 250 in Frazier) extending from the frame, a support member (including rollers 251, 252 in Frazier) connected with the elongate member and a sensor (the tension sensor and/or one or both the angle sensors in LG), the sensor configured to calculate an angle of the elongate member about an axis with respect to the support frame.
Re claim 13, the modified Frazier discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the conduit angle sensing assembly includes an elongate member (part of boom support 250 in Frazier) extending from the frame, a support member (including rollers 251, 252 in Frazier) connected with the elongate member and a sensor (the tension sensor and/or one or both the angle sensors in LG), the sensor configured to calculate an angle of the elongate member about an axis with respect to the frame.
Re claims 14 and 15, the modified Frazier discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the axis is horizontal or vertical depending on the desired angle(s) to be measured.
Re claim 16, the modified Frazier discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the conduit angle sensing assembly includes an elongate member extending from the support frame (part of boom support 250 in Frazier), a support member (including rollers 251, 252 in Frazier) connected with the elongate member, a first sensor and a second sensor (the angle sensors in LG), the first sensor configured to calculate a first angle of the elongate member about a first axis with respect to the support frame and the second sensor configured to calculate a second angle of the elongate member about a second axis with respect to the support frame, the second axis orthogonal to the first axis. The measured angles with respect to various axis are considered obvious variations depending on the desired angle(s) to be measured.
Re claim 17, the modified Frazier discloses the vehicle of claim 11, further comprising a traverser (including 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 in Frazier), the traverser including an actuator (sprockets 236, 237 and chain 235) configured to position the support frame (225, 226) laterally with respect to the vehicle frame.
Re claim 18, the modified Frazier discloses the vehicle of claim 16, wherein the traverser includes linkage arms (read as 238, 239) rotatably pivotable with respect to a bracket.
Re claim 19, the modified Frazier discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the gripping assembly includes first and second gripping devices (including rollers 230; note the applicant describes rollers as an example of a gripping device in paragraph [0020] of the specification) having the conduit positioned therebetween.
Re claim 20, the modified Frazier discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the conduit tension assembly is positioned on a first side of the frame and the conduit angle sensing assembly is positioned on a second side of the frame, opposite the first side. It is unclear what the scope of the assemblies encompass. However, it would have been obvious to placed them on opposite sides of the frame for balance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Keasel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4929. The examiner works a part-time schedule and can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart and Craig Schneider can be reached on 571-272-4881 and 571-272-3607, respectively. 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.
/ERIC KEASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights