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 § 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 2-7 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.
As to claims 2-7, the preamble in each claim, recites a “mobile irrigation system” which lacks antecedent basis and is different from the preamble of claim 1, “A cleanable mobile drip irrigation unit” which makes the claim indefinite. Each of the preambles in claims 2-7 should be changed to --The cleanable mobile drip irrigation unit--.
In claim 3, line 2, the phrase “said mobile irrigation system” is indefinite since a mobile irrigation system is not being claimed, only a cleanable mobile drip irrigation unit. The phrase “said mobile irrigation unit” should be changed to --said cleanable mobile drip irrigation unit-- or the entire claim rephrased.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0080538 A1(Reid et al).
As to claim 1, Reid et al ‘538 discloses a cleanable mobile drip irrigation unit 10 comprising a semi-circular open top ring 12 having an uninterrupted ring opening 15; a plurality of small spaced-apart openings 26 in a surface 24 of the semi-circular open top hollow ring and an inlet port 20 for pressurized water.
As to claim 3, see three support legs 14.
As to claim 4, see the spiked support legs 14, Fig. 4 and paragraph [0023], disclosing legs are pointed to be easily pushed into the ground.
As to claim 5, see paragraph [0024], where it’s disclosed the ring diameter can be 6 inches and other sizes.
As to claim 6, see bottom surface 24 and paragraph [0019], plurality of holes 26 spaced along the lower surface 24.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0080538 A1(Reid et al).
Reid et al ‘538 discloses small spaced-apart openings 26 in the surface 24, except for the specific diameter of 1mm to 6mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the small spaced-apart openings with a diameter of 1mm to 6mm in the apparatus of Reid et al ‘538, since it has been held that wherein 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). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. In addition, providing small diameter openings would allow water to be slowly released over time to prevent underwatering and/or overwatering of irrigated plants.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0080538 A1(Reid et al) in view of US 6,453,607 B1(Dewey).
Reid et al ‘538 discloses all the featured elements of the instant invention, except for small spaced-apart openings are in a side wall of the semi-circular open top hollow ring. Dewey ‘607 is in the field of irrigation units and teaches wherein said small spaced-apart openings (upper row of holes 15) are in a side wall (side of perforated straight tubing 18A-18C facing toward center opening 12; fig. 6) of said semi-circular hollow ring (plant watering and feeding device 10A; fig. 6-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided mall spaced-apart openings in a side wall of the semi-circular open top hollow ring of Reid et al ‘538, taught by Dewey ‘607, since such a modification would provide a reasonable expectation of success to direct water toward an upper portion of the root system of the irrigated plant, see Dewey ’607, col 6, lines 51-58.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kaminski et al ‘433, Masarwa et al ‘816 and McSheehy ‘968 disclose various drip irrigation units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J GANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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.
STEVEN J. GANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN J GANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752