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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) and Species A (Fig. 2) in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims of Group II and unelected species could be examined along with the invention/species elected without posing a serious burden.
This is not found persuasive because this application is a national stage application submitted under 35 USC 371, and thereby subject to restriction determination on the basis of Unity of Invention. The determination of whether Unity of Invention exists, is not whether or not the groups/species share features/the extent of search burden, but whether the shared features are special technical features (PCT rule 13.1-13.2). Given that the technical feature(s) which the groups/species share are anticipated by Song (CN 213961340 U, as cited on previous 892), as discussed in the requirement for restriction/election dated 09/16/2025, the technical feature is not special. Regardless, the listed inventions/species would require a search burden, as they each have unique features/limitations which would require unique text searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/12/2025.
Further, despite the applicant attributing claims 1-9 to the elected Species A, claims 2-8 have been identified by the examiner as not being generic to the elected species, and thereby, Claims 2-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 2-4 claim, respectively, fire, heat, and dust sensors, with corresponding controllers, configure to actively control the sprinklers to spray liquid in response to measurements by the sensors. These claims do not appear generic to the elected species A (Fig 2), as, in the elected sprinkler species, sprinkler actuation is not controlled by a sensor/controller mechanism, rather, per the spec, in this embodiment, the sprinkler may non-reversibly and passively actuate in response to a liquid capsule with heat sensitive liquid 230 breaking due to a temperature increase in the environment. Rather, claims 2-4 seem to be generic/directed to Species B-C, which detail sprinklers with pressure-sensitive actuation mechanisms, the required pressure increase in the piping to actuate the sprinklers controllable by a controller based on external data.
Claim 5, and its dependent claims 6-8, claim that the sprinkler includes BOTH an animal-actuated nipple drinking nozzle, and a spraying mechanism. These claims are not generic to Species A (Fig 2), as the sprinkler of Species A does not include an animal actuated nipple drinking nozzle. Claim 5 appears to be generic/directed to Species D-E, which detail dual nipple drinker/spraying sprinkler heads.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 112C.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout, the specification, when describing each embodiment, the applicant refers to the embodiments as being “integrated into a respective nipple.” In the case of Figs 9-10, the examiner thinks that this is appropriate language, given Figs 9-10 show/describe a single structure which may alternatively act as a nipple or sprinkler. However, the applicant also uses this language when discussing the embodiments of Figs 1-8. The examiner objects to the use of this language when discussing embodiments other than Figs 9-10, as, per the applicant’s own specification, in these embodiments, the sprinkler is not integrated into the nipple for a dual-purpose attachment, rather, the sprinkler may be attached, as an alternative to a nipple at an interface 111A, capable of receiving either type of nozzle, the sprinkler and nipple being distinct and separate structures (Pg 10, lines 18-21; Pg 16, lines 25-26).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 9 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.
Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification, and, per MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
Further, Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the one or more sprinklers is integrated into a respective nipple.” Under plain accepted meaning of “integrated”, this limitation would require that the nipple comprise the sprinkler, or, in other words, that the sprinkler and nipple be combined into a single structure. However, the specification uses this term and limitation to describe embodiments, including that elected, where the sprinkler and nipple are separate and distinct structures, both alternatively attachable to an interface on the pipe (see specification objection above for more information/cited sections of the specification). This inconsistency makes the claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty, particularly in regard to what the applicant considers the term “integrated” to mean. As best understood, the applicant seems to be using the term “integrated” in a way contrary to its ordinary meaning, and given the specification does not clearly redefine the term, this limitation is indefinite.
Claim 1 requires a liquid drinking system comprising a “set of piping.” And claim 9 recites “wherein the set of piping consists of a single pipe or a plurality of serially connected pipes.” Given that “a set of piping” of claim 1 requires more than one pipe (‘set’ and ‘piping’ both indicate plurality), it is unclear how, in claim 9, the set of piping may consist of a single pipe, given, consist/consisting is a closed transitional phrase, excluding any other structures not specified, and therefore, that option in claim 9 requires that the set of piping really just be a pipe (sing.)(see MPEP 2111.03). Given this inconsistency, it is unclear whether the applicant meant to use the term “comprising” instead of “consists of”, in claim 9, or if the applicant meant to call the set of piping --at least one pipe--, or something else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (CN 213961340 U, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Song, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
A liquid supply system (elements 3-8 in fig 1) for a livestock stable (three-dimensional chicken cage 2, Fig 1), the liquid supply system comprising:
a liquid drinking system (abstract – invention provides drinking water) comprising:
a set of piping (consists of drinking water conveying pipeline 4 and the top chicken cage drinking water pipeline 6, Fig 1) configured to carry liquid suitable for consumption by livestock (“drinking water conveying”); and
one or more nipples (drinking nipples 8, Fig 1) connected to the set of piping (see Fig 1) and configured to release liquid, carried by the set of piping, for consumption by the livestock responsive to an interaction with the livestock (a drinking ‘nipple’ is a known structure in the art, they function as such).
a liquid spraying system (abstract – invention sprays water) comprising one or more sprinklers (spraying heads 7, Fig 1) connected to the set of piping of the liquid drinking system (see Fig 1) and configured to controllably spray the liquid carried by the set of piping within the livestock stable (abstract); and
wherein each of the one or more sprinklers is integrated into a respective nipple (as best understood this limitation is taught by Song, the sprinklers being integrated into a respective nipple, given they are joined with the nipples by piping, per Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9:
Song discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the set of piping
consists of a single pipe or a plurality of serially connected pipes (the set of piping consists of a plurality of serially connected pipes, as the set of piping is defined above as consisting of the pipeline 4, and the top-most pipeline 6, and water flows, in sequence from the pipe 4 to the topmost pipeline 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Dalton (US 1841880), Pollock (US 20050160994), Johnson (US 5967167), Zhuang (CN 208047701 U), and Zhang (CN 109588323 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642