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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 29 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 May 2026.
As it was noted in the previous Office Action filed on 16 March 2026, claims 14-15 are dependent on claim 1, however, they are method claims (“The method of use…”) as opposed to claim 1 which is an apparatus claim. Since dependency to claim 1 instead of claim 13 (which is a method claim) would trigger multiple claim objections, clarity issues and substantial copies of claims 4 and 2, respectively, the Office will assume that a claim drafting error occurred and claims 14-15 should be dependent on claim 13 instead of claim 1. Based on applicant’s response and withdrawal of claims 14-15 as being part of the invention of claim 13, the Office will assume that the applicant confirms this assumption but failed to explicitly address it since claims 13-15 are now withdrawn. In order to clarify the record, the Office suggests that, by the next response, the applicant either:
While claims 14-15 remain withdrawn, claims 14-15 are amended to properly depend on claim 13 (the applicant may use the claim identifier “Withdrawn – Currently Amended” to indicate this); or
Cancel claims 13-15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response filed on 29 May 2026 overcomes the previously raised Missing Documents, Drawing Objections, Objections to the Specification, Claim Objections and Clarity Issues.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 29 May 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
---In Claim 11 L21, notice that there is a period ( . ) at the end of the sentence and in claim 11 L22 the claim continues. The Office will assume that a claim drafting error occurred and the period in claim 11 L21 should be amended to a semicolon ( ; ).
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of Carter US-12178167 in view of Appelboom US-9537183.
Notice that the only difference between claims 1-12 of the patent and claims 1-12 of the application is that Carter claims a “valve location unit” and a “valve assembly” whereas the current application claims a “headgate location unit” and a “headgate assembly with a frame and a slidable barrier within the frame” and the rest of the limitations are mirrored across claims 1-12. While Carter fails to explicitly disclose the type of valve used and its inherent structure, headgates or gate valves are well-known in the art. Appelboom US-9537183 teaches in Figs. 1-7 (see at least Figs. 1 and 5-6) of gate valve assembly 10 used for controlling irrigation of crops comprising a slidable barrier/gate 14 that slides within a frame (frame 15 which includes at least rails 16, bottom plate 18 and weir plate 11) wherein the gate is connected to a linear actuator 32 via a connecting linkage/shaft 30 and actuation of the gate is performed via a controller 34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was effectively filed to modify the non-specific valve of the device of Carter to be any type of suitable valve such as the gate valve assembly of Appelboom since it is a known suitable alternative as a valve for irrigation purposes with the added advantage that gate valves have a simple and reliable design with minimal maintenance requirements as compared to other suitable valves designs. As such, the device of the combination of Carter US-12178167 in view of Appelboom US-9537183 meets all the limitations of the claims with claims 1-12 of Carter mirroring claims 1-12 of the application and the instances of “valve location unit” and “valve assembly” in Carter are replaced by the “headgate location unit” (the valve of Carter as modified by Appelboom to be a gate valve assembly 10) and “headgate assembly with a frame and a slidable barrier within the frame” (see the frame 15 and slidable barrier 14 as taught by Appelboom).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
---References A (Relevant but not “prior” art):
Carter US-12723361, Carter US-12178167 and Carter US-12369540.
---References B (Slide/Gate Valves):
Aughton US-12084826, Magladry US-11306826, Oldon US-10865536, Goldwasser US-10039242, Appelboom US-9537183, Mikesell US-9500476, Aughton US-8292542, Labelle US-4726709, Shettel US-3952522, Armond US-3354655, Verissimo US-20230042418, So Hong KR-20260015038, Wang CN-116530398, Zhang CN-114182697 and Li CN-112176958.
---References C (Irrigation Systems):
Bond US-12137640, Ishida US-11828633, Wlassich US-11503782,
Motycka US-11464178, Huang US-11457576, Schafer US-10968589, Weiler US-10757873, Melrose US-10743483, Eyring US-10624280, Wardle US-10602682, Lu US-10548268, Dolezilek US-10534377, Weiler US-10444769, Sabadin US-10368504, Bauman US-10194598, Christiansen US-10113287, Chitnis US-10076089, Bermudez Rodriguez US-9886016, Neesen US-9408353, Woytowitz US-9301461, Tennyson US-9244449, Halahan US-8948921, Dresselhaus US-8671969, Savelle US-7930069, Fekete US-7883027, Pinchott US-5813655, Barash US-4209131,
Jackson US-20220408665, Ishida US-20210045300, Montgomery US-20200359580, Nemecek US-20200232939, Nickerson US-20190297797, Bye US-20180325050, Wlassich US-20180279566, Mohindra US-20170367277, Workman US-20140365021, Nibler US-20120283853, Evers US-20120175425, Savelle US-20110190947, Thornton US-20050192710,
Olive-Chahinian ES-2734348 and Parsons WO-2005002321.
---References D (Surge/flood irrigation):
Henry US-10918029, Bishop US-10588273, Aughton US-8915131, Cox US-8457799, Holloway US-6109827, Zur US-5667336, Wiseman US-4711272, Wiseman US-4676264, Keller US-4673128, Keller US-4577802, Chance US-4464079, Hornabrook US-4431338, Winters US-3114243, Watson US-3129413,
Seyfarth DE-102016109747 and Li CN-106069630.
---References E (Controller/Motor):
Hunag US-11058074, Bangerter US-10973182, Heaney US-10837575, Kaminski US-9971328, Stringam US-6427718, Petersen US-4220313,
Han CN-210470577, Han CN-110393140 and Zhang CN-107873486.
---References F (Alfalfa/Surge Valve):
Goldwasser US-10966380, Aughton US-10337642, Hill US-10254728, Nislar US-4726529, Gibson US-4699354, Spain US-4535813, Ginocchio US-2759369, Bonander US-2646076, Harris US-2539076 and Pedersen US-2248381.
---References G (Manual override):
Davis US-11407499, Oh US-7066301, Popov US-5024124, Laven US-3845788 and
Yang US-20220357754.
---References H (Modules):
Thatcher US-11825779, Workman US-10028452, Olive-Chahinian US-10327397, Jordan US-10194639, Eyring US-9684312, Blanchard US-8225810,
Moeller US-20220400632,
Campbell WO-2020101746 and Moeller CA-3108011.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number is 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM EST).
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights