DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-23 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 "the [. . . .] span cable" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first wall" and “the second wall” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the central joint” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the central channel floor” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maslam (US 7,384,008) in view of Hegemann (US 4,090,528).
Regarding claims 1-3, Malsam discloses an irrigation span assembly for transferring water from a center pivot, the irrigation span assembly comprising:
a central hose (The combination of segments 30);
wherein the central hose comprises a plurality of hose segments (30);
wherein the plurality of hose segments comprise:
a first hose segment and a second hose segment (The device includes a plurality of segments 30 that makes up each segment);
a plurality of nozzle connectors (18);
wherein the plurality of nozzle connectors (18) comprise:
a first nozzle connector and a second nozzle connector (Figure 1A);
wherein the first and second nozzle connector each comprise:
a front connection insert;
a rear connection insert (Each of the connectors include structure to receive a portion of the segment 30 on its front and rear end);
a central connector body (Each of the connectors include dispersion devices extending from the body of the connectors, which Examiner interprets as the central connector body); and a central sprinkler outlet (the outlet of the connector body); wherein the central sprinkler outlet extends from the central connector body (Figure 1);
wherein the first hose segment is connected at a first end to the first nozzle connector; wherein the first hose segment is connected at a second end to the second nozzle connector (Column 2, lines 22-24, each segment is connected on each end to a nozzle connector 18); and a beam assembly (Figure 1, the assembly is received on beam assemblies at the top of tower 16), but fails to disclose the assemblies being a roll form beam assembly.
Hegemann discloses a beam assembly wherein the assembly is a roll form beam assembly (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malsam with the disclosures of Hegemann, replacing the beam assembly with a roll form beam assembly, in order to provide for a support structure that equalizes forces about the assembly, as disclosed by Hegemann (Abstract).
Malsam in view of Hegemann further discloses an assembly wherein the roll form beam assembly comprises: a right outside truss diagonal, a right inside truss diagonal, a left inside truss diagonal, and a left outside truss diagonal (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1); wherein the right inside truss diagonal and the left inside truss diagonal are linked to form a central V-shaped channel which supports the central hose and span cable (Hegemann, 47) (As modified, figure Hegemann, Figure 3); wherein the right outside truss diagonal extends from the right inside truss diagonal at a first angle and wherein the left outside truss diagonal extends from the left inside truss diagonal at a second angle (Hegemann, Figure 3), but is silent as to whether the first angle is within the range of 75°-100°; the second angle is within the range of 75°-100°;
Or as to claim 2, wherein the first angle is within the range of 85°-95°; wherein the second angle is within the range of 85°-95°;
Or as to claim 3, wherein the first angle is substantially 90°; and wherein the second angle is substantially 90°.
Hegemann depicts the general condition of the diagonals extending at an angle, in order to provide for security of the span. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle would result in a difference in function of the Hegemann device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of Hegemann to have an angle within the claimed ranges as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, Malsam in view of Hegemann discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 2, wherein the assembly further comprises:
a first tower assembly (Hegemann, 17), wherein the first tower assembly comprises a first front leg (23) having a first front wheel (33) and a first rear leg (25) having a first rear wheel (31); wherein the first front leg comprises a first angle iron; wherein the first rear leg comprises a second angle iron (Column 3, lines 54-56); and
a second tower assembly (19), wherein the second tower assembly comprises a second front leg having a second front wheel and a second rear leg having a second rear wheel (Figure 1 depicts the second tower being a duplication and including a front and rear leg and front and rear wheel); wherein the second front leg comprises a first angle iron; wherein the second rear leg comprises a second angle iron (Column 3, lines 54-56); wherein the first front leg and the first rear leg are oriented at opposing 45 degree angles (The drawings appear to suggest 45 degree angles, wherein the first wall is parallel to the first rear leg and the second wall is parallel to the first front leg (As best understood, a wall 35 runs parallel to each leg).
Should it be found that the prior art fails to suggest a 45 degree angle, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle would result in a difference in function of the Hegemann device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angle. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed angle solves any stated problem and there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of Hegemann to be 45 degrees as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, Malsam in view of Hegemann discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 1, wherein the central hose is elevated above the central joint of the roll form beam assembly (Hegemann, Figure 3, the hose is elevated above the joint 71).
Regarding claim 6, Malsam in view of Hegemann discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 1, wherein the central hose contacts the central channel floor of the roll form beam assembly (Hegemann, Figure 4, the hose contacts the floor formed by portions 89 of the assembly).
Claim(s) 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus (US 9,279,520).
Regarding claim 7, Maslam in view of Hegemann discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the central connector body of the first nozzle connector comprises a first arm and a second arm.
Korus discloses a device wherein the connector body includes a single arm (212).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maslam in view of Hegemann with the disclosures of Korus, providing a connector configuration that includes an arm in order to provide for a flexible structure that includes a water-tight seal, as disclosed by Korus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of arms, as opposed to a single annular arm, since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 7, wherein the first arm comprises a first hook portion; wherein the second arm comprises a second hook portion (Korus, Column 10, lines 9-16, Each arm may include serrations that bite into the cavity; Each serration is interpreted as a hook portion).
Regarding claim 9, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 8, wherein the first arm and the second arm of the central connector body snap onto the first roll form beam assembly (Korus, Column 10, lines 9-16).
Regarding claim 10, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 9, wherein the central connector body is hollow to allow liquids to pass through the central connector body (Korus, Column 9, lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 11, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 10, wherein the central connector body is in liquid communication with the central sprinkler outlet (Korus, Figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 11, wherein the central connector body comprises a second nozzle extension (Korus, 204).
Regarding claims 13-15, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the front connection insert comprises a hose barb.
By admission of Applicant, a hose barbs and threaded connections are alternative connections. Korus depicts the use of a hose barb as well as an internally threaded and externally threaded connection to join constituent parts of piping assembly (Figure 8). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a hose barb, internally threaded connection, or externally threaded connection, as Applicant has not disclosed that the connection structure solves a stated problem, and it appears the device would perform equally well, as connected.
Regarding claim 16, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 11, wherein the irrigation span assembly further comprises: a ball attachment assembly (Maslam, 28, 24).
Regarding claim 17, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 16, wherein the ball attachment assembly comprises a ball connected between the first angle iron arm and the second angle iron arm (Maslam, Figure 1A, the assembly joins angle iron arms of the span).
Regarding claim 18, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 17, wherein the ball attachment assembly comprises: a plurality of hook surfaces (Maslam, Figure 1B, there are hook surfaces directly adjacent each side of the ball).
Regarding claim 19, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 11, wherein the irrigation span assembly further comprises: a second roll form beam assembly (Maslam, Figure 1, depicts a plurality of towers which each include a form beam assembly, as modified).
Regarding claim 20, Maslam in view of Hegemann and Korus discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 19, wherein the irrigation span assembly comprises an under-truss supporting system (Hegemann, Figure 1).
Claim(s) 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maslam in view of Hegemann and LeBaron (US 2021/0235640).
Regarding claim 21, Maslam in view of Hegemann discloses the irrigation span assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the irrigation span assembly comprises a span line; wherein the span line comprises a power cable for providing power to span connected elements,
Or as to claims 22-23, wherein the irrigation span assembly further comprises a chemigation line; wherein the chemigation line runs parallel to the central hose; or a fertigation line; wherein the fertigation line runs parallel to the central hose.
Lebaron discloses a device that includes a span line (Figure 3) with a power cable (paragraph 30, line from motor) and a chemigation and fermigation line (Manifolds 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the known structure to Maslam in view of Hegemann in order to provide a known structure for discharge of chemicals and distribution of power in the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiners Annotated Figure 1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752