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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Prandi (WO 2017182933 A1).
For claim 1, Prandi disclose an irrigation system comprising:
a fluid distribution block (67,70) configured for attachment to an irrigation drip line of a moving plant system (functional recitation to which the block of Prandi can perform the intended function);
a clamping mechanism (57,58,34; also, there is a clamp that is not numbered that clamps valve 70 to ref. 69, which can be seen in the examiner’s illustration below near the arrow of the label “clamping mechanism inlet”) that is releasably attachment to the fluid distribution block (all parts of the invention in Prandi can be remove or release from each other during assembly and disassembly; also, the clamping mechanism can or is releasably attached and detached from the fluid distribution block as shown from figs. 10-11 that the two elements can be separated from each other); and
a linear actuator (28,29,47,69,71 and the pulley system as shown in fig. 4, for example, refs. 48,49,15) that moves the clamping mechanism so that the clamping mechanism and the fluid distribution block travel together when the clamping mechanism is releasably attached to the fluid distribution block.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2,3,8,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Prandi (as above) in view of Millar (WO 2018231440 A1).
For claim 2, Prandi discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, wherein the fluid distribution block comprises: a fluid distribution block inlet (implied in ref. 67); a fluid distribution block internal channel (implied in ref. 67) in fluid communication with the fluid distribution block inlet; and a fluid distribution block outlet (shown in fig. 11 to connect with ref. 68) in fluid communication with the internal channel.
However, in the event that applicant does not agree with the examiner’s interpretation of Prandi’s fluid distribution block having inlet, channel and outlet, Millar teaches an irrigation system comprising a fluid distribution block (220) having a fluid distribution block inlet (224); a fluid distribution block internal channel (225) in fluid communication with the fluid distribution block inlet; and a fluid distribution block outlet (226) in fluid communication with the internal channel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fluid distribution block of Prandi with the fluid distribution block having inlet, channel, and outlet as taught by Millar, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of fluid distribution block would allow fluid to enter and exit to irrigate the plants). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
For claim 3, Prandi, alone, or in the alternative with Millar discloses/teaches the irrigation system of claim 2, wherein the clamping mechanism comprises: a clamping mechanism inlet (see examiner’s illustration below); a clamping mechanism internal channel in fluid communication with the clamping mechanism inlet; and a clamping mechanism outlet (see examiner’s illustration below) in fluid communication with the clamping mechanism internal channel, the clamping mechanism outlet configured for alignment with the fluid distribution block inlet when the fluid distribution block is releasably attached to the clamping mechanism (the outlet as illustrated aligns with block inlet 67 or the block inlet as modified by Millar so as to provide liquid to the block).
For claim 8, Prandi, alone, or in the alternative with Millar discloses/teaches the irrigation system of claim 3, wherein the clamping mechanism inlet is configured for attachment to a flex hose (80 of Prandi) for delivery of pressurized fluid (note also that the claimed limitation is functional recitation to which the clamping mechanism of Prandi can and does perform the intended function as shown in fig. 14).
For claim 10, Prandi, alone, or in the alternative with Millar discloses/teaches the irrigation system of claim 2, but is silent about wherein the fluid distribution block further comprises a check valve configured to prevent backflow when the clamping mechanism releases the fluid distribution block.
In addition to the above, Millar teaches wherein the fluid distribution block further comprises a check valve (as stated: “In yet another embodiment, a method of providing a predetermined amount of fluid in an assembly line grow pod includes moving a cart supporting a tray having a plurality of seeds, shoots, or plants therein along a track adjacent to a fluid distribution manifold comprising a plurality of tunable check valves coupled to a plurality of fluid outlets, determining a tension ring setting for each one of the plurality of tunable check valves that will result in ejection of the predetermined amount of fluid from the fluid outlets into the tray, adjusting the plurality of tunable check valves according to the tension ring setting, and directing fluid at a predetermined flow rate and pressure into the fluid distribution manifold. The pressure of the fluid overcomes a biasing force of the tunable check valves and causes the predetermined amount of fluid to be distributed into the tray. “, “The valve 230 with the corresponding biasing assembly 234 may be a check valve in some embodiments.”, “In some embodiments, the combination of the tension ring 228 with the biasing assembly 234 and the valve 230 may be referred to as a tunable check valve.”) configured to prevent backflow when the clamping mechanism releases the fluid distribution block.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a check valve as further taught by Millar in the fluid distribution block of Prandi, alone, or in the alternative with Millar in order to allow only one-way fluid flow so as to prevent backflow to reduce contamination in the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
926
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Su et al. (CN 105900793 A).
For claim 4, Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar discloses/teaches the irrigation system of claim 3, but is silent about wherein the clamping mechanism further comprises a gasket in which the clamping mechanism outlet is disposed.
Su et al. teach an irrigation system comprising a gasket (25) at an outlet of a clamping mechanism (27,24,23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gasket as taught by Shu et al. in the clamping mechanism outlet of Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar in order to seal and prevent leaks and/or wear and tear between the members.
For claim 9, Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar discloses/teaches the irrigation system of claim 2, but is silent about wherein the fluid distribution block further comprises a mesh filter to prevent particles that are larger than a predetermined size from entering the drip line.
In addition to the above, Su et al. teach a fluid distribution block (fig. 3) further comprises a mesh filter (26) to prevent particles that are larger than a predetermined size from entering the drip line. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mesh filter as taught by Su et al. in the fluid distribution block of Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar in order to prevent debris from entering the system.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar and Su et al. as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Mahacek et al. (EP 4104673 A1).
For claim 5, Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar and Su et al. teaches the irrigation system of claim 4, but is silent about wherein the clamping mechanism further comprises a sensor configured to detect that the fluid distribution block is aligned with the gasket.
Mahacek et al. teach farming systems comprising a sensor (as stated: “In order for the frog 600 to achieve position control of ±2.5mm accuracy in some embodiments, a fine-positioning control system called the junction alignment sensor may be provided on the frog 600. The frog 600 may use a number of mechanisms for fine position control; described here are three of those many potential options described as junction alignment sensors.”) configured to align parts of the frog (600) so as to assure that they aligned properly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an alignment sensor as taught by Mahacek et al. in the system of Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar and Su et al. in order to make sure the parts are aligned properly for operation.
For claim 6, Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar, Su et al., and Mahacek et al. teaches the irrigation system of claim 5, wherein the clamping mechanism further comprises a pneumatic cylinder (48,49 of Prandi) configured to extend and retract to clamp and unclamp the fluid distribution block to the clamping mechanism based on the detection by the sensor that the fluid distribution block is aligned with the gasket (as modified with alignment sensor of Mahaceck, the system will be able to perform the functional recitation as claimed).
For claim 7, Prandi alone, or in the alternative with Millar, Su et al., and Mahacek et al. teaches the irrigation system of claim 6, wherein the clamping mechanism further comprises a proximity sensor (22 of Prandi) configured to detect extension and retraction of the pneumatic cylinder (functional recitation to which the proximity sensor of Prandi can perform the intended function).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the Office Action seems to suggest that the delivery valve 70 along with elements 57, 58, 70, 34 and 71 of Prandi are equivalent to the claimed "clamping mechanism". However, neither the valve 70 nor the other elements of Prandi referenced in the Office Action are associated with any type of clamping mechanism. For example, the valve 70 is not a clamping mechanism in that it does not releasably attach to the tool bearing head 67. Further, neither the valve 70 nor the other elements of Prandi referenced in the Office Action are associated with a linear actuator that moves those elements so that they travel together with the tool-bearing head 67 when the head is clamped.
While the examiner inadvertently indicated ref. 70 with the clamping mechanism, the examiner also indicated refs. 57,58,34, which are clearly clamping mechanism to which applicant did not address and only addressed ref. 70. The examiner has removed ref. 70 from consideration for the clamping mechanism from the rejection. However, regardless, refs. 57,58,34 were indicated originally for applicant to consider and address, thus, the scope of the rejection did not change. Although the examiner recites certain excerpts from the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “Prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims”. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
As for ref. 71, again, the examiner has removed ref. 71 from consideration for the clamping mechanism and considered ref. 71 as part of the linear actuator. Again, other refs. were listed clearly for the linear actuator so it should not hinder the ability for applicant to understand the rejection.
The examiner respectfully disagreed with applicant’s statement that the other parts beside ref. 70 do not associate with a linear actuator that moves those elements so that they travel together with the tool-bearing head 67 when the head is clamped. It is clear from Prandi’s figures 10,14 that the linear actuator moves the clamping mechanism and the fluid distribution block together by refs. 28,29,47,69,71 and the pulley system as shown in fig. 4, for example, refs. 48,49,15. In addition, all parts of the invention in Prandi can be remove or release from each other during assembly and disassembly. Thus, the clamping mechanism can or is releasably attached and detached from the fluid distribution block as shown from figs. 10-11 that the two elements can be separated from each other.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights