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 1-19 are pending and claims 1-2 and 17-18 are amended.
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. 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 claims 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 (being 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.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (04/06/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-19 are pending and claims 1-2 and 17-18 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (01/12/2026). Applicants’ arguments/amendments with respect to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejection have overcome those rejections. The examiner notes that the “incremental exponent” is being understood as “exponent values at different positions within the pressure reducing section that provide more consistent exponent values along the length of the lateral.”
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the prior art. Applicant argues that Cohen (U.S. 7,735,758) does not disclose a first and second regions of the pressure reducing section as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the labyrinth 10 of Cohen in its entirety is a pressure reducing section with two sections. It is noted that 10a mostly services to reduce pressure which 10b serves mostly to produce pressure-compensation, but the overall section of 10 is reducing the pressure from the inlet adjacent 11 to the outlet adjacent 12. The noted section 10a reduces pressure more then that of 10b does. Column 7 rows 30-35 further discloses that section 10b can also further increase pressure drop through the passageway to compensate for higher pressure at that location of the tube, where the pressure compensation of the drip emitter can be changed by the pressure within the tube itself to further allow for the desired pressure drop within 10. Applicant further argues that Cabahug neither teaches nor suggests an “incremental” exponent. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as disclosed in the combination there is an exponent for the pressure drop I each of the two sections, and since such sections change their pressure drop from having different geometry as well as having the pressure outside the tube further effect the pressure drop that exponent effecting the pressure drop is thus understood being an “incremental exponent” as applicant has clarified it being in their response to arguments page 6 of their response. Cabahug, discloses that the flow regulating channels raised to the exponent x, and as there are different flow regulating channels they then have different exponents, and further the geometry changes as pressure changes further making the exponents incremental based off the pressure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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