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 Santelman (US 20240074366).
Regarding claim 1, Santelman Figure 4 discloses an end boom for an irrigation system, the end boom comprising:
at least one fluid delivery conduit (Paragraph 32, the embodiment of Figure 4 includes the irrigation system of Figure 1; Paragraph 30, the hose of Figure 1 may include multiple sections of hose; conduits 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29) having a plurality of receptacles (54) spaced along the at least one fluid delivery conduit (Figures 4 and 2), the at least one fluid delivery conduit having a proximal end for coupling to a distal end of the irrigation system (Figures 2 and 3, the proximal end of conduit 19 is coupled to the distal end of pivot 24), and a free end located opposite the proximal end (Figure 3, a distal free end is at the opposite end of the combination of conduit);
a trussing system (13 (labeled as 15)) coupled to the at least one fluid delivery conduit adjacent the free end and for coupling to the irrigation system adjacent its distal end (Figure 3), wherein the trussing system includes one or more support structures coupled to the at least one fluid delivery conduit (Figure 3, the truss system includes a plurality of ropes and support bars forming the truss system), but fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance; and wherein a first of the plurality of receptacles is closest to the proximal end of the fluid delivery conduit and wherein the first of the plurality of receptacles is the same distance from its next closest receptacle along the fluid delivery conduit as it is from a receptacle on the irrigation system closest to its distal end when the fluid delivery conduit is coupled to the irrigation system.
Santelman discloses that the spacing of the receptacles need to be optimized in order to effectively accommodate the needs of a given crop (Paragraph 30). The spacing is put forth as a result effective variable, as changing the spacing of the receptacles adjusts the suitability of the system for a given crop. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation to modify Santelman to include wherein each of the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance and a first of the plurality of receptacles closest to the proximal end of the fluid delivery conduit, wherein the first of the plurality of receptacles is the same distance from its next closest receptacle along the fluid delivery conduit as it is from a receptacle on the irrigation system closest to its distal end when the fluid delivery conduit is coupled to the irrigation system, as it involves adjusting a dimension 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 Santelman to include wherein each of the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance; and wherein a first of the plurality of receptacles is closest to the proximal end of the fluid delivery conduit and wherein the first of the plurality of receptacles is the same distance from its next closest receptacle along the fluid delivery conduit as it is from a receptacle on the irrigation system closest to its distal end when the fluid delivery conduit is coupled to the irrigation system, 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). Hereinafter, Santelman, as modified will be referred to as modified Santelman.
Regarding claim 2, modified Santelman discloses the end boom of claim 1, wherein the at least one fluid delivery conduit (19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29) comprises multiple fluid delivery conduits and wherein each of the multiple fluid delivery conduits have a length dimension (Figure 2).
Regarding claims 3-8, modified Santelman discloses the end boom of claim 2, and to claim 4, wherein the end boom is comprised of multiple fluid delivery conduits connected together end to end (Figure 2), but fails to disclose
As to claim 3, wherein the length dimensions of the multiple fluid delivery conduits are selected from a group comprising 7 feet, 17 feet, and 20 feet;
As to claim 4, wherein the length of at least one of the multiple fluid delivery conduits is different than the length of the other of the multiple fluid delivery conduits,
As to claim 5, wherein the end boom is comprised of one of the 7 feet or 17 feet fluid delivery conduits and zero to five of the 20 feet fluid delivery conduits.
As to claim 6, wherein an overall length of the end boom is between 10 and 120 feet in an increment of 10 feet
As to claim 7, wherein an overall length of the end boom is between 10 and 120 feet,
Or as to claim 8, wherein the uniform distance by which each of the plurality of receptacles is spaced apart is between 20” and 60” 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 modified Santelman to include conduit lengths as claimed 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 Santelman would not operate differently with the lengths and since each of the conduits are intended to have optimized lengths, the device would function appropriately having the claimed lengths. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the values claimed, indicating simply that the length may have the claimed values, and may be optimized (specification, paragraphs 45, 52 and 60).
Regarding claim 9, Santelman Figure 4 discloses an irrigation system, comprising:
at least a first span having a plurality of fluid delivery conduits (19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29) connected end to end (Figure 2), each having a plurality of receptacles (54) spaced there along (Figure 2), wherein the connected plurality of fluid delivery conduits define a first proximal end (the end of pipe 19) closest to a water source (26) (Figure 2) and a second distal end opposite the first proximal end and further from the water source (Figure 2, the span has an opposite open end);
a movable tower coupled to the second distal end of the first span (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1); and
at least one end boom coupled to the movable tower opposite the first span (The disclosures of Figures 1 and 2 suggest that a second boom may be connected at the distal end of the first span, spanning from the movable tower to the second movable tower), the end boom having at least one fluid delivery conduit having a plurality of receptacles spaced there along (As suggested by the disclosure, the end boom has a structure identical to that of the first span), the at least one fluid delivery conduit having a proximal end coupled to the movable tower and a free end located distal from the movable tower (Figure 1);
wherein the distance between the plurality of receptacles on the plurality of fluid delivery conduits of the first span is the same distance as the distance between the plurality of receptacles on the at least one fluid delivery conduit of the end boom (As suggested by Figure 1), but fails to disclose wherein the receptacles on each of the conduits are spaced by a uniform distance, wherein a distance between a closest receptacle on the first span to the movable tower and a closest receptacle on the end boom to the movable tower is the same distance as the uniform distance between the plurality of receptacles on the end boom and the plurality of receptacles on the span.
Santelman discloses that the spacing of the receptacles need to be optimized in order to effectively accommodate the needs of a given crop (Paragraph 30). The spacing is put forth as a result effective variable, as changing the spacing of the receptacles adjusts the suitability of the system for a given crop. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation to modify Santelman the receptacles on the span and end boom spaced apart by a uniform distance, wherein a distance between a closest receptacle on the first span to the movable tower and a closest receptacle on the end boom to the movable tower is the same distance as the uniform distance between the plurality of receptacles on the end boom and the plurality of receptacles on the span, as it involves adjusting a dimension 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 Santelman to include the receptacles on the span and end boom spaced apart by a uniform distance, wherein a distance between a closest receptacle on the first span to the movable tower and a closest receptacle on the end boom to the movable tower is the same distance as the uniform distance between the plurality of receptacles on the end boom and the plurality of receptacles on the span, 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). Hereinafter, Santelman, as modified will be referred to as modified Santelman.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 10, modified Santelman discloses the irrigation system of claim 9, wherein the at least one fluid delivery conduit on the end boom comprises multiple fluid delivery conduits (19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 on the end boom) and wherein each of the multiple fluid delivery conduits have a length dimension (Figure 2).
Regarding claims 11-15, modified Santelman discloses the end boom of claim 9, and to claim 12, wherein the end boom is comprised of multiple fluid delivery conduits connected together end to end (Figure 2), but fails to disclose
As to claim 11, wherein the length dimensions of the multiple fluid delivery conduits are selected from a group comprising 7 feet, 17 feet, and 20 feet;
As to claim 12, wherein the length of at least one of the multiple fluid delivery conduits is different than the length of the other of the multiple fluid delivery conduits,
As to claim 13, wherein the end boom is comprised of one of the 7 feet or 17 feet fluid delivery conduits and zero to five of the 20 feet fluid delivery conduits.
As to claim 14, wherein an overall length of the end boom is between 10 and 120 feet in an increment of 10 feet
As to claim 15 wherein an overall length of the end boom is between 10 and 120 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 modified Santelman to include conduit lengths as claimed 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 Santelman would not operate differently with the lengths and since each of the conduits are intended to have optimized lengths, the device would function appropriately having the claimed lengths. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the values claimed, indicating simply that the length may have the claimed values, and may be optimized (specification, paragraphs 45, 52 and 60).
Regarding claim 16, Santelman discloses a method of attaching an end boom to an existing irrigation system having a span with a movable tower, the method comprising:
providing an end boom for an irrigation system (Paragraphs 28, 31, The end boom is attached to irrigation system 24), the end boom comprising:
at least one fluid delivery conduit having a plurality of receptacles spaced along the at least one fluid delivery conduit (Paragraph 30), the at least one fluid delivery conduit having a proximal for coupling to the irrigation system and a free end located opposite the proximal end (Paragraph 28 and Figure 2, the conduit is attached at a first proximal end);
a trussing system coupled to the at least one fluid delivery conduit adjacent the free end (Paragraph 31), wherein the trussing system comprises a plurality of support structures coupled to the at least one fluid delivery conduit (Paragraph 8 and Figure 2); and attaching the end boom to the existing irrigation system (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 25, 28 and 31), but fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance.
Santelman discloses that the spacing of the receptacles need to be optimized in order to effectively accommodate the needs of a given crop (Paragraph 30). The spacing is put forth as a result effective variable, as changing the spacing of the receptacles adjusts the suitability of the system for a given crop. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation to modify Santelman to include wherein each of the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance, as it involves adjusting a dimension 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 Santelman to include wherein each of the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance, 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). Hereinafter, Santelman, as modified will be referred to as modified Santelman.
Regarding claim 17, modified Santelman discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one fluid delivery conduit comprises multiple fluid delivery conduits (19, 21, 23, 25, 27 and 29) (Paragraph 30), wherein each of the fluid delivery conduits (54) have a plurality of receptacles spaced uniformly there along (as modified), wherein the receptacles are positioned on the fluid delivery conduits in locations such that the uniform spacing between the receptacles is maintained across the connection of multiple fluid delivery conduits (Figure 2, as modified), and wherein each of the multiple fluid delivery conduits have a length dimension (Figure 2).
Regarding claims 18-19, modified Santelman discloses the method of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the length dimensions of the multiple fluid delivery conduits are selected from a group comprising 7 feet, 17 feet, and 20 feet, or wherein the end boom is comprised of one of the 7 feet or 17 feet fluid delivery conduits and zero to five of the 20 feet fluid delivery conduits.
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 modified Santelman to include conduit lengths as claimed 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 Santelman would not operate differently with the lengths and since each of the conduits are intended to have optimized lengths, the device would function appropriately having the claimed lengths. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the values claimed, indicating simply that the length may have the claimed values, and may be optimized (specification, paragraphs 45, 52 and 60).
Regarding claim 20, modified Santelman discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the trussing system is coupled to the movable tower (Figure 2) and the span of the irrigation system, wherein the span includes a plurality of evenly space receptacles (as modified), wherein the evenly spaced receptacles of the span are the same distance away from each other as the uniformly spaced receptacles of the fluid delivery conduit, and wherein a receptacle on the end boom closest to the movable tower is the same distance away from a receptacle on the span closest to the movable tower as it is from the next closest receptacle on the end boom (As modified).
Should it be found that modified Santelman fails to disclose the claimed spacing, 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 modified Santelman to include conduit lengths and therefore, conduit spacing as claimed 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 Santelman would not operate differently with the lengths and spacings, and since each of the conduits are intended to have optimized lengths and therefore, conduit spacings, the device would function appropriately having the claimed lengths. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the values claimed, indicating simply that the length may have the claimed values, and may be optimized (specification, paragraphs 45, 52 and 60).
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 9 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 11 of Application No. 18/771847. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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
Prosecution Insights