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 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 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.
Claim 5 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.
The term “about 120 mesh” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. As such, it is not clear what constitutes “about 120 mesh”.
The term “ about 0.008 inches to about 0.017 inches” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. As such, it is not clear what constitutes “about 0.008 inches to about 0.017 inches”.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattlin et al (U.S. 2010/0282873).
Regarding claim 1, Mattlin teaches a drip emitter (10) comprising:
a body (12) mountable to an inner surface (110) of supply tube (100), the body comprising an inlet (16) to receive fluid from the supply tube (as seen in Fig 11 and disclosed in Par 0025), an outlet (22), and a flow path (seen in Fig 11) from the inlet to the outlet (flowpath disclosed at least in Par 0048),
the inlet including a plate (defined by 36) having a first side (upper side of 36 with respect to Figs 3, 5 and 11 which includes portion 52) exposed to fluid in the supply tube (the upper side of 52 is exposed to fluid coming in from the inlet 16, i.e. coming in from the supply tube 100, as seen in Fig 4 and 11), a second side (lower side of 36 with respect to Figs 3, 5 and 11) facing an interior of the body (as seen in Fig 11, the lower side of 36 faces the interior of body 12), and at least one inlet opening (46), the plate having a first state (state when the plate 36 moves downwards and the portion 52 does not contact the upper housing 30) and a second state (state seen in Fig 5 and 11),
wherein in an operational state of the emitter the plate moves from the first state to the second state as a result of debris interfering with flow through the inlet opening (as disclosed in Par 0061, when there is debris present, the plate 36 moves upwards, i.e. from first state to second state),
wherein in the second state at least some of the debris is cleared from the inlet opening (as disclosed in Par 0061, when there is debris present, the plate 36 moves upwards into the second state, in order to dislodge the debris).
Regarding claim 2, Mattlin teaches the drip emitter of claim 1, wherein the plate moves towards the first state after at least some of the debris is cleared from the inlet opening (after debris is cleared , water is allowed to flow through the flowpath as intended; thereby moving the plate to its first state, i.e. downwards, which allows water to enter the emitter, as disclosed in Par 0056).
Regarding claim 3, Mattlin teaches the drip emitter of claim 1, wherein the plate moves from the first state to the second state due to a pressure drop across the plate caused by debris at least partially blocking the at least one inlet opening (disclosed in Par 0061, which describes the plate moving to its second state, i.e. upwards, due to a pressure drop caused by debris, which blocks the pathway including the inlet opening).
Regarding claim 8, Mattlin teaches the drip emitter of claim 1, further including a diaphragm (defined by portion 56) that couples the plate to the body and permits the plate to move between the first state and the second state (56 couples the plate 36 to body 12, as seen in Fig 5; and allows flexibility for the plate to move between positions, see “flexible” description in Par 0045).
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.
Claims 4-6, 10-15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattlin et al (U.S. 2010/0282873) in view of Wichman et al (U.S. 3,954,223).
Regarding claim 4, Mattlin teaches the drip emitter of claim 1. However, Mattlin does not teach the emitter wherein the body comprises a first rod projecting from an interior of the body into a first inlet opening of the at least one inlet opening and defining a first annular inlet passage between the first rod and the first inlet opening.
Wichman teaches a drip emitter (10) attached to a supply tube (12) where the body of the emitter (10) comprises a first rod (pin 54) projecting from an interior of the body into a first inlet opening (passage 34) of the at least one inlet opening (as seen in Fig 2 and 6) and defining a first annular inlet passage between the first rod and the first inlet opening (the rod 54 is placed inside the opening 34 and defines an annular passage therebetween, as seen in Fig 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mattlin to incorporate the teachings of Wichman to provide a rod in the inlet opening of the plate in order to aid in flushing debris therein (as disclosed in col 3, lines 62-65 of Wichman).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Mattlin and Wichman teach the drip emitter of claim 4. However, they do not teach the emitter wherein the annular inlet passage is sized to prevent debris larger than about 120 mesh from passing through the annular inlet passage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable relative dimensions of the space between the rod and the inlet opening, i.e. the size of the annular inlet passage, including as size that prevents debris larger than about 120 mesh from passing therethrough, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As it was determined in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc.(see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). In the present case, the emitter as taught by Mattlin and Wichman discloses a device that performs equally well at preventing debris. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal relative dimensions for the annular inlet passage depending on the environment in which the emitter is used, i.e. depending on the size of debris expected in the water supply. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the annular inlet passage be sized as claimed. Finally, changes in annular inlet passage affect the characteristics of the emitter and what it can or cannot filter therethrough, i.e. this size is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different sizes to meet any desired debris filtering characteristic, based on environment.
Regarding claim 6, Mattlin and Wichman teach drip emitter of claim 4, wherein in the first state of the plate an end of the first rod is substantially coplanar with the first side of the plate and in the second state of the plate the end of the first rod projects from the first inlet opening past the plate (as seen in Fig 6 of Wichman, the end of rod 54 is coplanar with the plate surrounding it; in combination when the plate of Mattlin moves down the rod would project from the opening, thus reading on claim language).
Regarding claim 10, Mattlin teaches a drip emitter (10) comprising:
a main body (12) mountable to a supply tube (100), the main body comprising an inlet portion (defined around inlet 16) positioned to receive fluid from the supply tube (as seen in Fig 11 and disclosed in Par 0025), an outlet (22), and a flow path (seen in Fig 11) from the inlet portion to the outlet (flowpath disclosed at least in Par 0048),
the inlet portion including:
a moveable inlet body (defined by diaphragm 36 and 40) defined by having an outer surface (defined by 52) exposed to fluid in the supply tube (the upper side of 52 is exposed to fluid coming in from the inlet 16, i.e. coming in from the supply tube 100, as seen in Fig 4 and 11) and an inner surface (lower surface of 40) facing an interior of the main body (as seen in Fig 11, lower surface of 40 faces the interior of body 12), and defining at least one inlet opening (46), and
wherein in an operational state of the emitter, movement of the moveable inlet body at least partially clears debris from the at least one inlet opening (as disclosed in Par 0061, when there is debris present, the diaphragm 36 moves upwards in order to dislodge the debris therein).
However, Mattlin does not teach at least one rod extending from an interior of the emitter into the at least one inlet opening.
Wichman teaches a drip emitter (10) attached to a supply tube (12) where the body of the emitter (10) comprises a first rod (pin 54) projecting from an interior of the body into an inlet opening (passage 34, as seen in Fig 2 and 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mattlin to incorporate the teachings of Wichman to provide a rod in the inlet opening of the plate in order to aid in flushing debris therein (as disclosed in col 3, lines 62-65 of Wichman). In combination, movement of the moveable inlet body of Mattlin would be relative to the at least one rod in order to clear debris.
Regarding claim 11, Mattlin and Wichman teach the drip emitter of claim 10, wherein movement of the moveable inlet body relative to the at least one rod is responsive to a pressure drop across the moveable inlet body due to debris at least partially blocking the at least one inlet opening (disclosed in Par 0061 of Mattlin, which describes the moveable inlet body moving upwards, due to a pressure drop caused by debris, which blocks the pathway including the inlet opening).
Regarding claim 12, Mattlin and Wichman teach the drip emitter of claim 10, wherein the moveable inlet body includes a plate (52 is formed as a plate, see Fig 3 of Mattlin) and a diaphragm (36 of Mattlin is disclosed as a diaphragm), the diaphragm coupling the plate to the main body and permitting movement of the plate (36 couples the plate 52 to body 12, as seen in Fig 5; and allows flexibility for the plate to move between positions, see “flexible” description in Par 0045 of Mattlin).
Regarding claim 13, Mattlin and Wichman teach the drip emitter of claim 10. However, they do not teach the emitter wherein the moveable inlet body defines at least two inlet openings and wherein at least two rods extending respectively through the at least two inlet openings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add more inlet openings to the moveable body and more corresponding rods, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art; as it was determined in In re Harza, where the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). In this case adding multiple openings and rods would yield predictable results, such as more flow of water through the flowpath.
Regarding claim 14, Mattlin and Wichman teach the drip emitter of claim 10, wherein an annular inlet passage is defined between the at least one rod and the at least one inlet opening (the rod 54 is placed inside the opening 34 and defines an annular passage therebetween, as seen in Fig 6 of Wichman; therefore, in combination an annular inlet passage would be formed around inlet 46 of Mattlin).
Regarding claim 15, Mattlin and Wichman teach the drip emitter of claim 10, wherein movement of the moveable inlet body relative to the at least one rod increases exposure of an end of the at least one rod to fluid in the supply tube (in combination, the rod of Wichman would be exposed when the movable inlet body 40 moves downwards, as seen in Fig 5 and 11 of Mattlin).
Regarding claim 17, Mattlin teaches an irrigation drip emitter inlet (10) comprising:
an emitter inlet body (12) attachable to a tube (100) and having:
a top wall (shown below), a bottom wall (shown below), and at least one side wall (shown below) defining an interior (shown below) of the emitter inlet body;
a moveable inlet element (defined by 40 and diaphragm 36) disposed in the top wall (as shown below, 40 comes in contact with the top wall), having an outer surface (52) exposed to fluid in the tube (52 is exposed to fluid coming in from the inlet 16, i.e. coming in from the supply tube 100, as seen in Fig 4 and 11), and an inner surface (defined by lower side of 40) facing the interior (lower side of 40 faces the interior, as shown below), and at least one inlet opening (46) therein, and
wherein movement of the moveable inlet element reduces debris build-up at the at least one inlet opening (as disclosed in Par 0061, when there is debris present, the diaphragm 36 moves upwards in order to dislodge the debris therein; thus movement of the moveable inlet element reduces debris build-up at the interior which is part of at least one inlet opening 46).
However, Mattlin does not teach at least one rod projecting from the bottom wall and into the at least one inlet opening.
Wichman teaches a drip emitter (10) attached to a supply tube (12) where the body of the emitter (10) comprises a rod (pin 54) projecting into an inlet opening (passage 34, as seen in Fig 2 and 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mattlin to incorporate the teachings of Wichman to provide a rod in the inlet opening of the plate in order to aid in flushing debris therein (as disclosed in col 3, lines 62-65 of Wichman). In combination, movement of the moveable inlet body of Mattlin would be relative to the at least one rod in order to clear debris; and the rod of Wichman would project from an interior wall (labeled 44 on Fig 3 of Mattlin), so that the rod aligns with the inlet opening (46 of Mattlin), just like Wichman shows in Fig 2 and 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Mattlin and Wichman teach the irrigation drip emitter inlet of claim 17, wherein movement of the moveable inlet element relative to the at least one rod projects the at least one rod from the at least one inlet opening beyond the outer surface (in combination, the rod of Wichman would project from the inlet opening 46 beyond the outer surface 52 when the movable inlet body 40 moves downwards, as seen in Fig 5 and 11 of Mattlin).
Regarding claim 19, Mattlin and Wichman teach the irrigation drip emitter inlet of claim 17, wherein the moveable inlet body includes a plate (defined by portion 48 of movable body 40, as seen in Fig 5 of Mattlin) defining the at least one inlet opening (48 defines the inlet 46) and comprising an annular elastomeric element (49) engaging the plate (49 is part of diaphragm 36, which is disclosed as flexible – Par 0045; as such 49 is considered an elastomeric element ).
Regarding claim 20, Mattlin and Wichman teach the irrigation drip emitter inlet of claim 17, wherein an annular inlet passage is defined between the at least one rod and the at least one inlet opening (the rod 54 is placed inside the opening 34 and defines an annular passage therebetween, as seen in Fig 6 of Wichman; therefore, in combination an annular inlet passage would be formed around inlet 46 of Mattlin).
Regarding claim 21, Mattlin and Wichman teach an irrigation drip emitter (10, as a whole) comprising: the irrigation drip emitter inlet of claim 17, an emitter outlet (22 of Mattlin), and a pressure-reducing portion (defined by channel 38, which is a pressure reducing channel, see Par 0056 of Mattlin) between the irrigation drip emitter inlet and the emitter outlet (38 is between inlet 16 and outlet 22), the irrigation drip emitter inlet, the emitter outlet, and the pressure-reducing portion being in fluid communication with one another (16, 38 and 22 are in fluid communication, as seen in Fig 5 of Mattlin).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattlin et al (U.S. 2010/0282873).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Mattlin teaches the drip emitter of claim 8. However, Mattlin does not teach the emitter wherein the diaphragm has a thickness of about 0.008 inches to about 0.017 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable thickness for the diaphragm, including about 0.008 inches to about 0.017 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Mattlin discloses all the general structure of the claim. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable diaphragm thickness. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the thickness be 0.008 inches to 0.017 inches. Finally, changes in diaphragm thickness affect the characteristics of the movement of the plate between positions, i.e. diaphragm thickness is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different thicknesses to meet any desired plate activation characteristics, based on intended use and the environment the emitter is placed in.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattlin et al (U.S. 2010/0282873) in view of Wichman et al (U.S. 3,954,223); further in view of Saisho (U.S. 3,797,755).
Regarding claim 7, Mattlin and Wichman teach the drip emitter of claim 4. However, they do not teach the emitter wherein the first rod includes a plurality of ribs.
Saisho teaches an emitter wherein a rod (pin stem 7, seen in Fig 17) includes a plurality of ribs (projections 15, as seen in Fig 17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mattlin and Wichman to incorporate the teachings of Saisho to provide ribs to the rod in order to maintain the gap between the rod and the inlet opening constant (as disclosed in col 5, lines 34-40 of Saisho), this would ensure the rod stays centered and does not bulge to any side in the presence of debris; thus improving filtering.
Regarding claim 16, Mattlin and Wichman teach the drip emitter of claim 10. However, they do not teach the emitter wherein a first rod of the at least one rod includes a plurality of ribs.
Saisho teaches an emitter wherein a rod (pin stem 7, seen in Fig 17) includes a plurality of ribs (projections 15, as seen in Fig 17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mattlin and Wichman to incorporate the teachings of Saisho to provide ribs to the rod in order to maintain the gap between the rod and the inlet opening constant (as disclosed in col 5, lines 34-40 of Saisho), this would ensure the rod stays centered and does not bulge to any side in the presence of debris; thus improving filtering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-18141814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights