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
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) 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kegel (US 4,580,731).
Regarding claim 13, Kegel disclose an irrigation system comprising: a first joint (42) coupled to a second joint (54);
the first joint comprising a first terminal end (46) and an elongated member coupled (72) to the first terminal end (Figure 5), the elongated member comprising a first profile shape (cylindrical);
the second joint comprising a second terminal end (52) and a receiver plate (74) affixed to the second terminal end (Figure 5), the receiver plate comprising a first recess (74a); and
a bushing (76) positioned in the first recess (Figure 5), the bushing comprising a second recess (central opening), wherein:
the second recess includes a perimeter wall comprising a second profile shape (Cylindrical); the second profile shape corresponds to the first profile shape (Figure 5); and the elongated member extends through the second recess (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Kegel discloses the irrigation system of claim 13, wherein the elongated member comprises one or more of a post or a hook (Post).
Regarding claim 16, Kegel discloses the irrigation system of claim 13, wherein the first profile shape is circular (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, Kegel discloses the irrigation system of claim 13, wherein: the second recess extends entirely through the bushing from a first opening on a first side of the bushing to a second opening on a second side of the bushing (Figure 5); and the perimeter wall of the second recess comprises a first chamfer extending from the first opening and a second chamfer extending from the second opening and converging with the first chamfer (Figure 5, the bushing has a chamfer at its upper edge that converges with a chamfer extending from the lower edge at the central portion of the bushing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-2, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kegel, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kegel (US 4,580,731) In view of Teeter (US 2019/0008101), with disclosures of LeBaron (US 2021/0235640).
Regarding claim 1, Kegel discloses an irrigation system comprising:
a plurality of fluid delivery conduits (12, 14) having a plurality of receptacles spaced along the plurality of delivery conduits (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits comprise a span having a first peripheral end and a second peripheral end (Each of the conduits include a first and second end);
a first end segment coupled to the first peripheral end and a second end segment coupled to the second peripheral end (Column 3, lines 62-64, the disclosure suggests that a coupling 16 is attached to each end of pivoting sections), each of the first end segment (16) and the second end segment (16) having a length that is shorter than a distance between two of the plurality of receptacles (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), wherein each of the plurality of receptacles are spaced apart a uniform distance (suggested by the drawings, and wherein the first end segment is coupled, by a span coupling (48), to another structure comprising another span or a fluid source (to another span); and
the span coupling comprising:
an elongated member (72) comprising a first profile shape (Figure 5); and
a receiver plate (74) comprising a first recess (74a) and a bushing (76) positioned in the first recess (Figure 5), wherein the bushing comprises a second recess (Figure 5), wherein the second recess includes a perimeter wall comprising a second profile shape, wherein the second profile shape corresponds to the first profile shape (Figure 5, the shape of the opening in the bushing corresponds to the shape of the rod), and wherein the elongated member extends through the second recess to join the first end segment to the other structure (Figures 5 and 2).
Should it be found that each of the plurality of receptacles are not spaced apart by a uniform distance, Teeter discloses a device wherein receptacles are spaced apart by a uniform distance (Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kegel with the disclosures of Teeter, providing the receptacles spaced apart by a uniform distance, in order to provide for accommodation of a desired crop, as disclosed by LeBaron (Paragraphs 88-89).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Kegel alone or in combination with Teeter discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, wherein the length of the first end segment and the
length of the second end segment is less than half of the uniform distance by which each
of the plurality of receptacles is spaced apart (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kegel alone or in combination with Teeter discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, wherein the elongated member comprises one or more of a post or a hook (a post).
Regarding claim 10, Kegel alone or in combination with Teeter discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, wherein the first profile shape is circular (Figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 11, Kegel alone or in combination with Teeter discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, wherein: the second recess extends entirely through the bushing from a first opening on a first side of the bushing to a second opening on a second side of the bushing (Figure 5); and the perimeter wall of the second recess comprises a first chamfer extending from the first opening and a second chamfer extending from the second opening and converging with the first chamfer (Figure 5, the bushing has a chamfer at its upper edge that converges with a chamfer extending from the lower edge at the central portion of the bushing).
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) 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kegel alone or in combination with Teeter.
Regarding claims 3-7, Kegel alone or in combination with Teeter discloses the irrigation system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits comprises at least one individual fluid conduit having a first length (Figure 1), a second conduit and a third conduit (Figure 1), but fails to disclose at least one individual fluid conduit having a second length that is smaller than the first length; or
as to claim 4, wherein the first length of the at least one individual fluid conduit is between 38 feet and 45 feet; or
as to claim 5, wherein the plurality of fluid delivery conduits comprises at least one individual fluid conduit having a third length that is less than the first length and the second length; or
as to claim 6, wherein the uniform distance by which each of the plurality of receptacles is spaced apart is between 20” and 60” in length; or
as to claim 7, wherein the first end segment and the second end segment are between 2 and 3 feet 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 Kegel to have sizing 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 Kegel would not operate differently with the claimed sizing and the device would function appropriately having the claimed sizing. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the sizing claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Kegel alone or in combination with Teeter discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first profile shape is rectilinear.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the profile shape as rectilinear since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kegel alone or in combination with Teeter, further in view of Ririe (US 3,777,979).
Regarding claim 12, Kegel alone or in combination with Teeter discloses the irrigation system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the elongated member is curved along a longitudinal axis.
Ririe discloses a system wherein an elongated member (82) is curved along a longitudinal axis (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elongated member curved along a longitudinal axis, since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kegel (US 4,580,731).
Regarding claim 15, Kegel discloses the irrigation system of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the first profile shape is rectilinear.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the profile shape as rectilinear since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kegel in view of Trotter (US 20160369860).
Regarding claim 18, Kegel disclose a joint for an irrigation system comprising:
A terminal end (52);
a receiver plate (74) affixed to the terminal end (Figure 5);
the receiver plate comprising a first recess (74a); and
a bushing (76) positioned in the first recess (Figure 5), the bushing comprising a second recess (central opening) extending entirely through the bushing from a first opening on a first side of the bushing to a second opening on a second side of the bushing (Figure 5), wherein:
the second recess includes a perimeter wall, but fails to disclose the perimeter wall of the second recess comprises a first chamfer extending from the first opening and a second chamfer extending from the second opening and converging with the first chamfer at a waist that is narrower than the first opening and the second opening.
Trotter discloses a bushing (16) with a shape that includes a perimeter wall of is central recess includes a first chamfer extending from a first opening and a second chamfer extending from a second opening and converging with the first chamfer at a waist (72) that is narrower than the first opening and the second opening (Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kegel with the disclosures of Trotter, providing the bushing to include a shape wherein the perimeter wall of the second recess comprises a first chamfer extending from the first opening and a second chamfer extending from the second opening and converging with the first chamfer at a waist that is narrower than the first opening and the second opening, since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 19, Kegel in view of Trotter discloses the joint of claim 18, wherein, at the waist, the second recess comprises a profile shape that is circular (Trotter, Figure 8).
Regarding claim 20, Kegel in view of Trotter discloses the joint of claim 18, but fails to disclose wherein, at the waist, the second recess comprises a profile shape that is rectangular.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a rectangular profile shape, since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12/209,696. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 13 puts forth an elongated member, while claim 1 or ‘696 puts forth a hook. As prescribed by claim 14, a hook may be interpreted as an elongated member (see below):
19/037979
12,209,696
13. An irrigation system comprising: a first joint coupled to a second joint; the first joint comprising a first terminal end and an elongated member (hook) coupled to the first terminal end, the elongated member comprising a first profile shape; the second joint comprising a second terminal end and a receiver plate affixed to the second terminal end, the receiver plate comprising a first recess; and a bushing positioned in the first recess, the bushing comprising a second recess, wherein: the second recess includes a perimeter wall comprising a second profile shape; the second profile shape corresponds to the first profile shape; and the elongated member extends through the second recess.
1. An irrigation system, including a fluid connected pipe, comprising: a first joint coupled to a second joint; the first joint comprising a first terminal end and a hook coupled to the first terminal end, the hook comprising a point having a rectangular profile shape in a cross section; the second joint comprising a second terminal end and a receiver plate affixed to the second terminal end, the receiver plate comprising a first recess; and a bushing positioned in the first recess, the bushing comprising a second recess, wherein: the second recess includes a perimeter wall comprising a recess profile shape; the recess profile shape corresponds with the rectangular profile shape; and the point of the hook extends through the second recess; and a boot that is affixed to the first joint and the second joint and that encloses the first terminal end, the second terminal end, the hook, the receiver plate, and the bushing.
14. The irrigation system of claim 13, wherein the elongated member comprises one or more of a post or a hook.
15. The irrigation system of claim 13, wherein the first profile shape is rectilinear.
18. A joint for an irrigation system, the pipe comprising: a terminal end; a receiver plate affixed to the terminal end; the receiver plate comprising a first recess; and a bushing positioned in the first recess, the bushing comprising a second recess extending entirely through the bushing from a first opening on a first side of the bushing to a second opening on a second side of the bushing, wherein: the second recess includes a perimeter wall; and the perimeter wall of the second recess comprises a first chamfer extending from the first opening and a second chamfer extending from the second opening and converging with the first chamfer at a waist that is narrower than the first opening and the second opening.
20. The joint of claim 18, wherein, at the waist, the second recess comprises a profile shape that is rectangular.
2. The irrigation system of claim 1, wherein: the bushing and the first recess are associated with an interference fit; the perimeter wall of the second recess comprises: a first wall comprising a first chamfer extending from a larger opening of the second recess to a narrower waist of the second recess; and a second wall that opposes the first wall and that comprises a second chamfer extending from the larger mouth of the second recess to the narrower waist of the second recess; and the narrower waist is configured to provide a slip fit relative to the point.
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