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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Santelan (US 2024/0074366).
Regarding claim 1, Santelan discloses an irrigation system having a variable overall length, the irrigation system comprising:
a plurality of fluid delivery conduits (19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29) having a plurality of receptacles (31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41) spaced along the plurality of fluid delivery conduits (Figure 2), wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits define a span (Figure 2) having a first peripheral end (Figure 2, Examiner interprets the end connecting to the tower 24 as the first peripheral end) and a second peripheral end (Figure 2, Examiner interprets the end connecting to the mobile tower as the second peripheral end); a first end segment (18) coupled to the first peripheral end and a second end segment (20) coupled to the second peripheral end (Figure 1) (Paragraph 30 discloses that the embodiment of Figure 2 has aligning components to that of the embodiment of Figure 1; The embodiment of Figure 1 is referenced for aligning components not specifically referenced in the second embodiment), each of the first end segment and the second end segment having a length that is shorter than a distance between two of the plurality of receptacles (Figures 1 and 2); and wherein the length of the first end segment and the length of the second end segment is less than half of the uniform distance by which each of the plurality of receptacles is spaced apart (Figures 1 and 2), but fails to disclose a trussing system coupled to the first peripheral end and the second peripheral end of the span, wherein the trussing system comprises a plurality of support structures coupled to the plurality of fluid delivery conduits; or wherein each of the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance.
Figure 3 discloses an alternative embodiment that includes a trussing system supporting the support system of Figure 2, coupled to the first peripheral end and the second peripheral end of the span (Figure 3), wherein the trussing system comprises a plurality of support structures (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santelan with the disclosures of Figure 3, providing the Santelan to further include a trussing system supporting the support system of Figure 2, coupled to the first peripheral end and the second peripheral end of the span (Figure 3), wherein the trussing system comprises a plurality of support structures (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), coupled to the plurality of fluid delivery conduits (Figure 2, as modified by Figure 3 includes the conduits being coupled to and supported by the truss system through assembly 12), as the configurations were known alternatives in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including effective support of the conduits, in a system where the support structure is not a critical element.
While it appears suggested, Santelan does not specifically disclose that the receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance.
Santelan discloses that the spacing of the receptacles may vary depending on the needs of a given crop and the spacing required in a given field based on the selection of nozzles/sprinklers and other factors (Paragraph 30, lines 11-16). The spacing of the receptacles is disclosed as a result effective variable, as changing the spacing of the receptacles determines the effectiveness of the spray system for crops, and its suitability for a watering area. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Santelan device to have receptacles with uniform spacing, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan by making the receptacles uniformly spaced as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Modified Santelan discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits comprises between two and ten individual fluid conduits coupled together (Figure 2, 7 conduits).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Santelan discloses the irrigation system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits comprises at least one individual fluid conduit (21) having a first length (Figure 2), and wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits comprises at least one individual fluid conduit (19) having a second length that is smaller than the first length (Figure 2, conduit 19 is shorter than conduit 21).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Santelan discloses the irrigation system of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the first length of the at least one individual fluid conduit is between 38 feet and 45 feet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan to have the conduit having a length between 38 and 45 feet, 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Santelan would not operate differently with the claimed length and would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that the lengths are merely exemplary (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Santelan discloses the irrigation system of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits comprises at least one individual fluid conduit having a third length that is less than the first length and the second length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan to have the conduit having a length less than the first and second conduit, 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Santelan would not operate differently with the claimed length and would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that the lengths are merely exemplary (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Santelan discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, wherein the uniform distance by which each of the plurality of receptacles is spaced apart is between 20” and 60” in length (Paragraph 30, lines 11-16, The spacing may be between 30 and 120”, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Santelan discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first end segment and the second end segment are between 2 and 3 feet in length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan to have first end segment and the second end segment are between 2 and 3 feet in length, 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Santelan would not operate differently with the claimed length and would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that the lengths are merely exemplary (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Santelan discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, further comprising a movable tower (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) having a set of wheels coupled to the tower at either of the first peripheral end or the second peripheral end of the plurality of fluid delivery conduits (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Santelan discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, wherein the overall length of the span is evenly divisible by the uniform distance the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart (The modified device puts forth uniformly spaced receptacles, which provides for uniform length of each length that is provided between the receptacles) , wherein each of the lengths of the span has between two and ten fluid delivery conduits (Figure 2, 7 delivery conduits), and wherein each of the fluid delivery conduits is one of only five different lengths (The uniform spacing provides for each of the conduits being the same length), but fails to disclose the span being between 80 and 240 feet in lengths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan to have the span being between 80 and 240 feet in lengths, 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Santelan would not operate differently with the claimed lengths and would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that the lengths are merely exemplary (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 10, Santelan discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, wherein the length of the first end segment and the second end segment are sized to maintain the uniform distance by which the plurality of receptacles is spaced apart (The segments provide for the claimed structure, as each of the receptacles are uniformly spaced, as modified).
Regarding claim 11, Santelan discloses an array of spans coupled together to form an irrigation system, comprising:
at least a first span and a second span (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), each of the first span and the second span comprising (Figure 3 depicts an embodiment featuring two of the spans of figure 2 joined into a single device; The embodiment of figure 2, and where appropriate figure 1 will be referenced for aligning parts):
a plurality of fluid delivery conduits (19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29) connected end to end (Figure 2), each having a plurality of receptacles (31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41) spaced there along (Figure 2), wherein the connected plurality of fluid delivery conduits define a first peripheral end (Figure 2, Examiner interprets the end connecting to the tower 24 as the first peripheral end) and a second peripheral end (Figure 2, Examiner interprets the end connecting to the mobile tower as the second peripheral end);
a first end segment (18) coupled to the first peripheral end and a second end segment (50) coupled to the second peripheral end (Figures 1-3; The first span is connected to the second span by element 20, which includes a second end segment of the first span (50), and a first end segment of the second span (52)) (Paragraph 30 discloses that the embodiment of Figure 2 has aligning components to that of the embodiment of Figure 1; The embodiment of Figure 1 is referenced for aligning components not specifically referenced in the second embodiment), each of the first end segment and the second end segment having a length that is shorter than half of the distance between the spaced receptacles (Figures 1 and 2); and
a trussing system (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) coupled to the first peripheral end and the second peripheral end of the connected plurality of fluid delivery conduits (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), wherein the trussing system comprises a plurality of support structures coupled to the plurality of fluid delivery conduits (Figure 3, the conduits are coupled to and supported by the truss system through assembly 12), wherein the second end segment (50) of the first span and the first end segment of the second span (52) are coupled together (Figure 5 depicts the segment being integrally coupled into the connection 20), wherein the distance between the plurality of receptacles is maintained across the coupling of the second end segment of the first span to the first end segment of the second span (The integral structure of the segments and the receptacle provides for the spacing to be maintained), but fails to disclose wherein the receptacles are uniformly spaced.
While it appears suggested, Santelan does not specifically disclose that the receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance.
Santelan discloses that the spacing of the receptacles may vary depending on the needs of a given crop and the spacing required in a given field based on the selection of nozzles/sprinklers and other factors (Paragraph 30, lines 11-16). The spacing of the receptacles is disclosed as a result effective variable, as changing the spacing of the receptacles determines the effectiveness of the spray system for crops, and its suitability for a watering area. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Santelan device to have receptacles with uniform spacing, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan by making the receptacles uniformly spaced as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Santelan discloses the array of spans of claim 11, wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits of each of the first and second spans comprises between two and seven individual fluid conduits coupled together (Figure 2, each span has 7 spans).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Santelan discloses the array of spans of claim 12, wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits of each of the first and second spans comprises at least one individual fluid conduit (21) having a first length and another individual fluid conduit (19) having a second length that is smaller than the first length (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Santelan discloses the array of spans of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the first length of the at least one individual fluid conduit is 38 feet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan to have the conduit having a length of 38 feet, 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Santelan would not operate differently with the claimed length and would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the value claimed, indicating that the lengths are merely exemplary (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Santelan discloses the array of spans of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the second length of the another individual fluid conduit is selected from a group comprising 4 feet, 20 feet, 22 feet and 24 feet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan to have a conduit having a length selected from a group comprising 4 feet, 20 feet, 22 feet, and 24 feet, 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Santelan would not operate differently with the claimed length and would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the values claimed, indicating that the lengths are merely exemplary (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Santelan discloses the array of spans of claim 11, wherein the uniform distance by which each of the plurality of receptacles is spaced apart is between 20” and 60” in length (Paragraph 30, lines 11-16, The spacing may be between 30 and 120”, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 17,Modified Santelan discloses the array of spans of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the first end segment and the second end segment are between 2 and 3 feet in length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan to have first end segment and the second end segment are between 2 and 3 feet in length, 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Santelan would not operate differently with the claimed length and would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that the lengths are merely exemplary (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 18, Santelan discloses the array of spans of claim 11, further comprising a mobile tower having a set of wheels (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), wherein the mobile tower is coupled to either of the first peripheral end or the second peripheral end of the connected plurality of fluid delivery conduits of the first span and the second span (The mobile tower is connected to the second peripheral end of the second span).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Santelan discloses the array of spans of claim 11, wherein the overall length of each of the first span and the second span is evenly divisible by the uniform distance the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart (The modified device puts forth uniformly spaced receptacles, which provides for uniform length of each length that is provided between the receptacles) , wherein each of the lengths of the span has between two and seven fluid delivery conduits (Figures 2 and 3, Each span has 7 delivery conduits), and wherein each of the fluid delivery conduits is one of only five different lengths (The uniform spacing provides for each of the conduits being the same length), but fails to disclose the spans each being between 80 and 240 feet in lengths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Santelan to have the spans being between 80 and 240 feet in lengths, 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Santelan would not operate differently with the claimed lengths and would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that the lengths are merely exemplary (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 20, Santelan discloses the array of spans of claim 11, wherein the length of the first end segment and the second end segment are sized to maintain the uniform distance by which the plurality of receptacles is spaced apart (The segments provide for the claimed structure, as each of the receptacles remain uniformly spaced, as modified).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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 O. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752