DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 4, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 4, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 8, 2025 is generally in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, one item on page 6 is lined through as there is no document number 17730005.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
In claim 7, line 2, “the plunger” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claims. It is unclear if the recitation should be to “a plunger” or if the dependency is wrong.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-8, 11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sturman et alia (US Patent Number 3,989,066), hereinafter “Sturman” in view of Sherwin (US Patent Number 3,729,710).
Re claim 1, Sturman discloses an irrigation control device comprising: a coil (160) configured to develop an electromagnetic flux sufficient to cause actuation of irrigation equipment (the sprinkler system for irrigation, see col. 1, lines 8-10); control circuitry (electronics of circuit shown in Fig. 3 on circuit board 68) coupled to the coil and configured to receive, at input connections (for wires 26, 28, 30, 32), control signals comprising a power signal from an external irrigation control unit (20) of an irrigation control system and configured to control the electromagnetic flux at the coil based on the control signals, and a housing covering at least a portion of both the coil and the control circuitry, the housing (see Fig. 2 with enclosure 34 covering the coil and circuitry) including a threaded end (see Fig. 4 showing the threads) configured to thread the irrigation control device to a valve assembly to be actuated by the electromagnetic flux of the coil; wherein the control circuitry is further configured to communicate to the external irrigation control unit via the input connections.
Although Sturman discloses a two-wire power system and control circuitry, it is silent as to the modulated power and the control circuitry configured to derive control signals from the modulated power signals. Sherwin discloses a similar control system for an irrigation system. The system uses a two-wire line to send modulated power to a plurality of irrigation valves. Each of the valves has circuitry to derive the control signal that is in the modulated power signal. Plural control signals are sent over the power signal and each valve's circuitry derives the control signals for that valve and is not responsive to the control signals sent to other valves (see col. 3, lines 23-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the two-wire system and circuitry of Sherwin with the plural valve irrigation system of Sturman in order to selectively actuate various valves in an irrigation system as taught by Sherwin.
Re claim 2, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 1 wherein the housing further comprises an aperture (where the threaded part of the housing is, the flow path through ref. no. 134, or any aperture in the device to meet the limitation in claim 2; however, various dependent claims require a more limited reading); and wherein the irrigation control device further comprises a valve member (138 or 90) within the housing and located relative to the coil and the aperture such that the valve member is configured to move relative to the aperture in response to the electromagnetic flux.
Re claim 3, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 2 wherein the valve member is configured to extend out of the aperture (ref. no. 90 extends outside the aperture at the threaded connection) to engage a valve seat (92) external to the housing.
Re claim 4, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 2 wherein the valve member (138) opens and closes an opening on a valve seat member (134) disposed within the housing.
Re claim 5, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 2 further comprising a core tube (74) within the housing, wherein the valve member (90) is a plunger configured to move relative to the aperture (the aperture at the threaded connection) and within the core tube.
Re claim 6, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 2 further comprising a spring (169) disposed within the housing to bias the valve member (138) into a closed position against a valve seat.
Re claim 7, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 2 further comprising a core tube (172, 158) and a magnet (166) to control the axial position of the plunger (132) within the core tube.
Re claim 8, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 1 wherein the coil is substantially secured in position relative to the control circuitry within the housing (see Fig. 4).
Re claim 11, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 1. Sturman discloses the housing being multiple pieces that are integrated together rather than having the housing be an integrally formed one-piece housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the housing of Sturman be an integrally formed one-piece housing so as to reduce the number of parts retained in inventory and to aid in manufacturing the system.
Re claim 14, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 1 wherein the control signals are received at input connections from the external irrigation control unit through a control wire path via a modulated power signal readable by the control circuitry (see Sherwin, col. 3, lines 23-49).
Re claim 15, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 14 wherein the control wire path is configured to connect the external irrigation control unit to a plurality of irrigation control devices (see Sturman, Fig. 1 or Sherwin, Fig. 1) each having control circuitry configured to read the control signals transmitted from the external irrigation control unit via the control wire path.
Re claim 16, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 1, wherein the threaded end is configured to thread the irrigation control device directly to a valve assembly (52, 92) to be actuated by the electromagnetic flux of the coil.
Re claim 17, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 1 wherein the control circuitry is configured to derive the data from the modulated power signal, the data comprising data bits corresponding to one or more of a plurality of instructions for the control circuitry to execute (see Sherwin, col. 3, lines 23-49).
Re claim 18, the modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 17 wherein the plurality of instructions comprise instructions to: activate the irrigation equipment, deactivate the irrigation equipment, adjust a parameter stored in the control circuitry, and implement an operation of the control circuitry (see Sherwin, col. 3, lines 23-49).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sturman in view of Sherwin as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nakanishi (US Patent Number 7,474,024).
The modified Sturman fails to disclose the potting material. Nakanishi discloses using potting material in a similar electromagnetically-actuated device with control circuitry on a circuit board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the potting material of Nakanishi with the irrigation device of the modified Sato in order to resist shock and vibration and to protect the circuit board from moisture. Nakanishi also discloses having a curved portion corresponding to the coil and an extending portion covering the circuitry. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have changed the shape of the housing of the device of the modified Sturman to have a curved portion surrounding the coil and an extended, curved section over the circuitry to conform the shapes of the components contained in the housing and reduce the amount of potting material necessary to fill the volume and reduce the time to manufacture.
Claims 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sturman in view of Sherwin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christiansen (US Patent Number 6,766,221).
The modified Sturman discloses the irrigation control device of claim 1. Although the modified Sturman discloses a two-wire power system and control circuitry, it is silent as to any communication or feedback from the control circuitry to the irrigation control unit by any means (or specifically shorting in claim 12) or deriving the data as ones or zeros. Christiansen discloses a similar control system for an irrigation system. The system uses a two-wire line to send signals to circuitry for plural valves. Christiansen also discloses communication back to the main control unit by various means including shorting (see, for example, col. 7, lines 25-40) and the binary ones and zeros. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the controller, two-wire system, and circuitry of Christiansen with the irrigation system of the modified Sturman in order to provide an answering signal to the controller as taught by Christiansen.
Alternatively, claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sturman in view of Sherwin as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Crist (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0157995).
The modified Sturman fails to disclose the circuitry configured to derive the data as logic data bits depending on whether the modulated power signal is clipped. Crist discloses circuitry configured to derive the data as logic data bits depending on whether the modulated power signal is clipped. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the circuitry configured to derive the data as logic data bits depending on whether the modulated power signal is clipped of Crist with the system of the modified Sturman in order to send control signals modulated on the power signal as taught by Crist.
Claims 1-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sherwin in view of Sturman and Christiansen.
Sherwin discloses a coil (solenoid valves V, see col. 2, line 65) configured to develop an electromagnetic flux sufficient to cause actuation of irrigation equipment (see col. 1, line 11);control circuitry (decoder 12) electrically coupled to the coil and configured to receive, at input connections, modulated power signals (see col. 2,lines 10-15) from an external irrigation control unit of an irrigation control system via a control wire path (2-wire line) coupled to the input connections (see Fig. 1), wherein the control circuitry is configured to derive control signals from the modulated power signals received from the control wire path and based on the control signals (see col. 4, lines 28-31), and output signaling to the coil to control the electromagnetic flux at the coil.
Although Sherwin discloses solenoid valves and the decoder circuitry, Sherwin is silent as to a housing (although a housing is probably present, it is not inherent). Sturman discloses a similar irrigation control device (and the associated method of making) comprising: a coil (160) adapted to develop an electromagnetic flux sufficient to cause actuation of irrigation equipment; control circuitry (electronics of circuit shown in Fig. 3 on circuit board 68) to receive control signals from an irrigation control unit and electrically coupled to the coil to control the flux at the coil; and a housing (34, 60) covering at least a portion of the coil and at least a portion of the control circuitry. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the housing of Sturman with any (and all) of the decoder and solenoid valve combinations in order to protect the circuitry and coil from the water.
Although the modified Sherwin discloses a two-wire power system and control circuitry, it is silent as to any communication or feedback from the control circuitry to the irrigation control unit by any means (or specifically shorting in claim 12). Christiansen discloses a similar control system for an irrigation system. The system uses a two-wire line to send signals to circuitry for plural valves. Christiansen also discloses communication back to the main control unit by various means including shorting (see, for example, col. 7, lines 25-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the controller, two-wire system, and circuitry of Christiansen with the irrigation system of the modified Sherwin in order to provide an answering signal to the controller as taught by Christiansen.
Sturman discloses the housing being multiple pieces that are integrated together rather than having the housing be an integrally formed one-piece housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the housing of Sturman be an integrally formed one-piece housing so as to reduce the number of parts retained in inventory and to aid in manufacturing the system.
Claims 1-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato et alia (US Patent Number 7,273,206), hereinafter “Sato” in view of Sherwin, Sturman, and Christiansen.
Sato discloses a device comprising: a coil (32) adapted to develop an electromagnetic flux sufficient to cause actuation of a valve; control circuitry (on circuit board 52) to receive control signals from a control unit and electrically coupled to the coil to control the flux at the coil; and a housing (30, 53, 6) covering at least a portion of the coil and at least a portion of the control circuitry.
Sato is silent as to the where the valve is used, so it fails to disclose the irrigation equipment and being threaded into the irrigation equipment. Sato also fails to disclose the receiving control signals from an external irrigation control unit.
Sherwin discloses a coil (solenoid valves V, see col. 2, line 65) configured to develop an electromagnetic flux sufficient to cause actuation of irrigation equipment (see col. 1, line 11);control circuitry (decoder 12) electrically coupled to the coil and configured to receive, at input connections, modulated power signals (see col. 2,lines 10-15) from an external irrigation control unit of an irrigation control system via a control wire path (2-wire line) coupled to the input connections (see Fig. 1), wherein the control circuitry is configured to derive control signals from the modulated power signals received from the control wire path and based on the control signals (see col. 4, lines 28-31), and output signaling to the coil to control the electromagnetic flux at the coil.
Although Sherwin discloses solenoid valves and the decoder circuitry, Sherwin is silent as to a housing (although a housing is probably present, it is not inherent). Sturman discloses a similar irrigation control device (and the associated method of making) comprising: a coil (160) adapted to develop an electromagnetic flux sufficient to cause actuation of irrigation equipment; control circuitry (electronics of circuit shown in Fig. 3 on circuit board 68) to receive control signals from an irrigation control unit and electrically coupled to the coil to control the flux at the coil; and a housing (34, 60) covering at least a portion of the coil and at least a portion of the control circuitry. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the housing of Sturman with any (and all) of the decoder and solenoid valve combinations in order to protect the circuitry and coil from the water.
Although the modified Sherwin discloses a two-wire power system and control circuitry, it is silent as to any communication or feedback from the control circuitry to the irrigation control unit by any means (or specifically shorting in claim 12). Christiansen discloses a similar control system for an irrigation system. The system uses a two-wire line to send signals to circuitry for plural valves. Christiansen also discloses communication back to the main control unit by various means including shorting (see, for example, col. 7, lines 25-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the controller, two-wire system, and circuitry of Christiansen with the irrigation system of the modified Sherwin in order to provide an answering signal to the controller as taught by Christiansen.
The modified Sato discloses the housing being multiple pieces that are integrated together rather than having the housing be an integrally formed one-piece housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the housing of the modified Sato be an integrally formed one-piece housing so as to reduce the number of parts retained in inventory and to aid in manufacturing the system.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sherwin in view of Sturman and Christiansen (or Sato in view of Sherwin, Sturman, and Christianson) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nakanishi.
The modified Sherwin (or Sato) fails to disclose the potting material. Nakanishi discloses using potting material in a similar electromagnetically-actuated device with control circuitry on a circuit board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the potting material of Nakanishi with the irrigation device of the modified Sherwin or Sato in order to resist shock and vibration and to protect the circuit board from moisture. Nakanishi also discloses having a curved portion corresponding to the coil and an extending portion covering the circuitry. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have changed the shape of the housing of the device of the modified Sherwin or Sato to have a curved portion surrounding the coil and an extended, curved section over the circuitry to conform the shapes of the components contained in the housing and reduce the amount of potting material necessary to fill the volume and reduce the time to manufacture.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,840,084.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader than the corresponding claims issued in the '084 patent in all aspects.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,851,447 either alone or in combination with Sturman, Sherwin, Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are either anticipated or any difference is an obvious variation. Most limitations are explicitly present in the ‘447 patent. The examiner takes official notice that any differences between the claims of the present application and the claims ‘447 patent are old and well known in the art (see the rejections based on Sturman, Sherwin, Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist above).
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,058,042 either alone or in combination with Sturman, Sherwin, Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are either anticipated or any difference is an obvious variation. Most limitations are explicitly present in the ‘042 patent. The examiner takes official notice that any differences between the claims of the present application and the claims ‘042 patent are old and well known in the art (see the rejections based on Sturman, Sherwin Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist above).
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,842,091 either alone or in combination with Sturman, Sherwin, Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are either anticipated or any difference is an obvious variation. Most limitations are explicitly present in the ‘091 patent. The examiner takes official notice that any differences between the claims of the present application and the claims ‘091 patent are old and well known in the art (see the rejections based on Sturman, Sherwin Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist above).
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,330,770 either alone or in combination with Sturman, Sherwin, Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are either anticipated or any difference is an obvious variation. Most limitations are explicitly present in the ‘770 patent. The examiner takes official notice that any differences between the claims of the present application and the claims ‘770 patent are old and well known in the art (see the rejections based on Sturman, Sherwin Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist above).
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,072 either alone or in combination with Sturman, Sherwin, Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are either anticipated or any difference is an obvious variation. Most limitations are explicitly present in the ‘770 patent. The examiner takes official notice that any differences between the claims of the present application and the claims ‘770 patent are old and well known in the art (see the rejections based on Sturman, Sherwin Nakanishi, Christiansen and/or Crist above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Keasel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4929. The examiner works a part-time schedule and can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart and Craig Schneider can be reached on 571-272-4881 and 571-272-3607, respectively. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC KEASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights