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 .
Status of claims
Currently claims 1-21 are pending, claims 1, 17, and 19 are amended, and claims 20 and 21 are new.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation “within one of the at least one pressure reducing section regardless of whether a pressure responsive section is also defined by the floor, the first rail, and the second rail between the inlet section and the outlet section.” The specific regardless clause of the claim was not found in the written discretion as originally filed and is understood as being new matter. Furthermore, claims 20 and 21 recite the limitation “semi-rigid” which does not appear in applicant specification to define the geometries of the opposing features.
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 20 and 21 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.
The term “significantly” in claims 20 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significantly” 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. The limitation “the second opposing features are at least semi-rigid geometries that do not significantly change shape in response to pressure” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “significantly” as the geometries are semi-rigid there is some change due to pressure, and it is unclear what amount of change is considered “significant.”
The term “semi-rigid” in claims 20 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “semi-rigid” 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. The limitation “the second opposing features are at least semi-rigid geometries that do not significantly change shape in response to pressure” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “semi-rigid” as it is unclear how much something can or can not move or change and be determined to be semi-rigid.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (U.S. 7,735,758) in view of Cabanhug (U.S. 6,116,523).
With respect to claims 1 and 17, Cohen discloses an irrigation lateral, comprising: a lateral having a wall with an inner wall (outer wall 6, inner wall having 14), at least a portion of the inner wall defining a lateral flow path (flow path formed by 14/16/17, see figure 5);
an emitter (figure 1-10), comprising/having:
a floor (bottom wall #13), a first rail (figures 1-10, specifically 7b, #14), and a second rail (#15, figure 7b, the first rail and second rail being the included teeth elements formed from the walls themselves) defining at least one pressure reducing section (the second formed between 14 and 15, having 10a and 10b) interconnecting an inlet section (inlet at 11) and an outlet section (section at 12), the at least one pressure reducing section including first opposing features (the teeth 15) in a first region (10a) configured and arranged to provide a first flow relationship (the flow relationship within 10a) and second opposing features (features of 14/15 with expanded root 16/17, of 10b) in a second region (10b) configured and arranged to provide a second flow relationship (as the expanded roots would provide a more laminar flow adjacent to the bottom row, column 6 rows 15-21), the first versus flow relationship being different than the second flow relationship (as disclosed in column 6 rows 15-21, the second flow rate being more laminar), the first and second incremental exponent versus flow relationships providing a more consistent overall incremental exponent versus flow relationship over a pressure range within one of the at least one pressure reducing section regardless of whether a pressure responsive section is also defined by the floor, the first rail, and the second rail between the inlet section and the outlet section (as each of the pressure reducing sections are used to provide the desired pressure range regardless of whether a pressure responsive section is also defined by the floor, first, or second rail between the inlet. Just because the pressure would change within the baffles themselves to an extent with the overall flow). Cohen fails to disclose the first flow relationship is a first incremental exponent versus flow relationship or the second flow rate is a second incremental exponent versus flow relationship, although it is understood this is inherently shown in the fluid flow structure as the incremental exponent would exist as a unitless measurement of the flow rate in conjunction with the pressure change in the teeth of 14/15 in the flow labyrinth 10 it is not specifically disclosed.
Cabanhug, column 5 rows 35-45, “Specifically, the drip flow rate of a hose is proportional to the water pressure at the inlets of the flow regulating channels raised to the exponent x the absence of pressure compensation, the x-factor is one, i.e., the flow rate is a linear function of the pressure. In the ideal case of perfect pressure compensation, the x-factor is zero, i.e., the flow rate is independent of pressure. Thus, a lower x-factor indicates increased pressure compensation. The x-factor values achieved in hoses using the inventive flow regulating channel designs preferably are less than about 0.48, more preferably are from about 0.38 to about 0.46, and still more preferably are from about 0.40 to about 0.44.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill I the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the exponent x of Cabanhug is utilized in the emitter of Cohen, as such two different incremental exponents versus flow rates would be utilized in the two different sections (as they both have different flows and different pressure compensations based on the differing teeth structure) resulting in an exponent x of .048 or 0.46 to achieve the desired flow regulation in the flow regulating channel. Because there still is fluid pressure, it is above zero, and due to there being a pressure regulating channel it is below 1, by utilizing a desired exponent x of 0.46 across the two sections a desired pressure reduction and resulting flow is achieved.
With respect to claims 2 and 18, Cohen as modified discloses the first and second regions provide an overall incremental exponent versus flow rate of 0.45 to 0.55 (as Cabanhug discloses 0.46-0.48).
With respect to claims 3 and 19, Cohen as modified discloses the floor, the first rail, and the second rail define at least one pressure responsive section (where a tooth of the pressure reducing section acts a pressure responsive section, as best understood from figure 52 of the figure, the baffle/tooth of the emitter 2213 is indicated as a responsive section, as the responsive section and the pressure reducing section are the same indicated section) interconnecting a first pressure reducing section of the at least one pressure reducing section and one of the inlet section or the outlet section (being the tooth between the inlet and the first section, or the last tooth between the second section and the outlet).
With respect to claim 4, Cohen as modified discloses a second pressure reducing section interconnecting the at least one pressure responsive section (where claim 3 is taken as the first section at the inlet, the second section is then taken adjacent the outlet, where the pressure responsive section is the last tooth of the pressure reducing section) and the one of the inlet section or the outlet section.
With respect to claim 5, Cohen as modified discloses the first and second rails are operatively connected to a lateral having a lateral wall (as shown in figures 1-10).
With respect to claim 6, Cohen as modified discloses the emitter is operatively connected to the lateral wall encircled to form a drip irrigation lateral selected from the group consisting of an overlapping wall lateral, a seamless wall lateral, and a seamed wall lateral (shown as a seamless wall lateral I figures 3-5 and in figure 7b, which shows the device as seamless being one piece).
With respect to claim 7, Cohen as modified discloses the lateral wall is made of at least one layer including at least one material (shown in figure 7b), the at least one material selected from the group consisting of an elastomeric material (column 2 rows 3-8), a non-elastomeric material (column 9 rows 55-67), and a combination thereof.
With respect to claim 8, Cohen as modified discloses the emitter is made of at least one layer including at least one material, the at least one material selected from the group consisting of an elastomeric material (column 2 rows 3-8, and column 9 rows 55-67), a non-elastomeric material, and a combination thereof.
With respect to claim 9, Cohen as modified discloses the first rail, the second rail, the first opposing features, and the second opposing features are rigid (column 9 rows 55-67, discloses non-elastomeric material for the sections defining the labyrinth, see claim 14 of Cohen).
With respect to claim 10, Cohen discloses at least one of the first and second opposing features include varying geometries selected from the group consisting of tip position relative to a center line (as shown in figured 3-10, being the teeth with a tip position relative a center line of the flow path), feature angle upstream surface (angled upstream side of the teeth), feature included angle (as the teeth are angled), feature angle downstream surface (the angle of the tooth on the downstream side of the flow through the pressure reducing channel), alternating angles (as the angles alternate from tooth to tooth), Amin dimension, Amax dimension, alternating Amax, alternating Amin, floor thickness, rail height (height of the teeth and the rail the teeth are on), rail width, tip configuration, tip end angle, tip sharpness, tip extension, floor feature, wall deflection (as the walls are made of elastomeric material), internal radius, feature draft, feature surface linearity, feature direction, flow field feature, feature interval, inner rail separation, and rail surface.
With respect to claim 11, Cohen as modified discloses the varying geometries include asymmetrical opposing sides (see figure 5, as the teeth alternate and are thus asymmetrical opposing sides).
With respect to claim 12, Cohen as modified discloses the varying geometries vary in a manner from the group consisting of a series of successive increments (the shown successive increments from 10a to 10b), a progression of changes, alternating changes, and interspersed changes along at least one pressure reducing section.
With respect to claim 13, Cohen as modified discloses at least one of the first and second opposing features vary in position relative to a centerline of the at least one pressure reducing section (as shown in figure 5, where the teeth of 10a and 10b vary back and forth in the zig zag pattern relative to the center of the flow path).
With respect to claim 14, Cohen as modified discloses at least one feature of at least one of the first and second opposing features includes a flow field feature (the flow field feature, being the zig zag path formed by the teeth of the field of flow through the pressure reducing section).
With respect to claim 15, Cohen as modified discloses the floor includes at least one of a downward feature and/or an upward feature (the features of 18a/18b 19a,19b, see figures 7-7b).
With respect to claim 16, Cohen as modified discloses at least a portion of at least one of the features is defined by a geometry of at least one of the first and second rails.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (U.S. 7,735,758) in view of Cabanhug (U.S. 6,116,523). as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Socolsky (U.S. 2009/0165879).
With respect to claim 20 and 21, Cohen as modified discloses the first and second opposing features, the first opposing features and the second opposing features are at least semi-rigid geometries that do not significantly change shape in response to pressure (showing the opposing features of the baffle and understood that the shape does not change “significantly” such that it still allows for the baffles and teeth to be shaped such that they can function at reducing pressure as intended), but fails to specifically disclose the first opposing features and the second opposing features being different geometries.
Socolsky, figure 1d, discloses a first and second opposing features (teeth 47 and 48) that are shown opposite one another with different geometries (facing the different direction and having different widths of B1 and B2), resulting in improved resistance to fluid flow per unit length, a labyrinth configuration in accordance with an embodiment of the invention provides greater design latitude in tailoring a labyrinth to a given desired range in pressure drop between an inlet and an outlet of the labyrinth and/or flow rates through the labyrinth than conventional labyrinth configurations (paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the first and second opposing features being different geometries as disclosed by Socolsky into the emitter of Cohen to improve the resistance to fluid flow per unit length resulting in improved pressure drop between the inlet and outlet of the labyrinth.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (08/28/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-21 are pending, claims 1, 17, and 19 are amended, and claims 20 and 21 are new. Applicants’ amendments to the claims failed to overcome each rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (06/22/2026).
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Cohen does not disclose 10a and 10b are not part of at least one pressure reducing section as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees, both sections are part of the pressure reducing section 10. The labyrinth 10s function is to reduce the pressure, column rows 9-15. 10a is designed to mostly reduce the pressure and 10b is mostly for pressure compensation, but together they form a pressure reducing labyrinth that by the end of 10 has reduced the incoming pressure to a desired pressure such that the drip emitter is a “drip” emitter. Furthermore applicant argues that Cohen fails to disclose “the first and second incremental exponent versus flow relationships providing a more consistent overall incremental exponent versus flow relationship over a pressure range within one of the at least one pressure reducing section regardless of whether a pressure responsive section is also defined by the floor, the first rail, and the second rail between the inlet section and the outlet section.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The incremental exponent versus flow relationship over the pressure range is occurring at 10 regardless of the pressure responsive section being defined by the floor or either rail. As 10 is utilizing the geometry of 10a and 10b to create the determined pressure drop. The incremental flow relationship over a pressure range is still happening in the first and second sections, regardless of the other elements in the system also being there. Though pressure is interacting throughout the system it does not negate that the sections 10a and 10b include the first and second incremental exponent versus flow relationships being proviprovided withre consistent overall incremental exponent versus flow relationship over a pressure range. This amendment also appears to be new matter, as it was not disclosed in the originally filed specification or described in applicants’ disclosure. With respect to new claims 20 and 21, see above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the newly applied prior art above. Although the roots change shape, examiner argues such change would not be “significant” as the roots and teeth would still be formed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights