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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: sensing means in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (KR 20100037393) in view of Samil (KR 101113070).
As to claim 1, Shin discloses a diversion point water delivery control system comprising:
a headgate assembly with a first gate 120 configured to interface a first generally open
channeled waterway;
a headgate box 132 with a second gate 142 configured to interface a second generally open channeled waterway.
Shin does not disclose a powered actuator connected to and configured to move the first gate; sensing means adjacent to the headgate box for measuring water levels adjacent to the headgate box; and a powered control unit connected to the powered actuator and sensing means, the powered control unit having a computer with memory with one or more modules to operate the system.
Samil discloses a water gate type assembly comprising a power actuator (implicit, since the system of Samil automatically and remotely is configured to control opening and closing of a gate), sensing means 110 and a control unit 200. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a power actuator, sensing means, and a control unit as disclosed by Samil, since doing so provides the expected benefit of automating a water gate.
As to claim 2, Samil further discloses the one or more modules
including a module 210 with instructions to automatically adjust the position of the first gate to maintain a predetermined water flow to the first generally open channeled waterway from the second generally open channeled waterway despite water level fluctuation in the second generally open channeled waterway. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide modules as disclosed by Samil, since doing so provides the expected benefit of automating a water gate.
As to claim 3, Samil further discloses the powered control unit further having a transceiver 240 for receiving and sending one or more of user instructions, water level data, water flow data, and system status to an off-site location that is in communication with the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a transceiver as disclosed by Samil, since doing so provides the expected benefit of communicating with an automated a water gate system.
As to claim 4, Samil further discloses wherein the off-site location is one or more of: a base station for amplifying transmissions to and from the system, network, cloud, mobile phone, laptop, and desktop computer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a off-site location as disclosed by Samil, since doing so provides the expected benefit of remotely communicating with an automated a water gate system.
As to claim 8, Shin discloses wherein the headgate box 132 and headgate assembly are preconfigured to be installed as a single unit at a water diversion point.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-19 are allowed.
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the sensing means is comprised of: a first sensor attached to a first side of the headgate box and configured to measure a first water level outside the headgate box; and a second sensor attached to a second side of the headgate box opposite the first sensor and configured to measure a second water level inside the headgate box.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest a diversion point water delivery control system wherein
a headgate box configured to generally surround the first gate and first aperture and form a volume adjacent thereto, the headgate box having a second gate configured to open and close a second aperture located on the headgate box that connects to a second generally open channeled waterway;
a first sensor attached to a first side of the headgate box and configured to measure a first water level outside the headgate box;
a second sensor attached to a second side of the headgate box opposite the first sensor and configured to measure a second water level inside the headgate box.
As to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest a diversion point water delivery control system wherein
a headgate box configured to generally surround the first gate and first aperture and form a volume adjacent thereto, the headgate box having a second gate configured to open and close a second aperture located on the headgate box that connects to a second generally open channeled waterway;
a first sensor attached to a side of the headgate box and configured to measure a first
water level outside the headgate box;
a second sensor attached to a side of the headgate box opposite the first sensor and
configured to measure a second water level inside the headgate box.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678