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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they deal with a motor couplable to a valve stem to operate the valve.
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.
Claims 1-4, 5-9, 12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0266214).
As to Claim 1, Robinson discloses a flood irrigation valve apparatus, comprising:
A motor (32) coupled to a stem (54; Paragraph 0015: "the valve attachment 36 may extend from the housing 52 to enable the valve attachment 36 to engage a corresponding component 54 (e.g., a valve stem or shaft coupled to the valve stem) to actuate the multiple valves 12") of a flood irrigation valve (12) by a mounting system (Figure 3), wherein the mounting system comprises:
A stem top mount (52) including a first attachment point (Connection between 52 and 102) for a drive shaft (104) of the motor (32) and a second attachment point (36) for the stem (54) of the flood irrigation valve (12); and
A bracket (108 or alternatively Hole receiving 102) to couple the motor to a support structure (60).
As to Claim 2, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Robinson also discloses wherein the bracket (Hole receiving 102) comprises a through-hole through which the drive shaft (Portion 102 of shaft 104) of the motor extends to connect to the stem top mount (52).
As to Claim 3, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Robinson also discloses wherein the support structure (60) is coupled to a frame (Figure 2) of the flood irrigation valve (12).
As to Claim 4, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Robinson also discloses wherein the flood irrigation valve comprises a previously assembled flood irrigation valve (12).
As to Claim 5, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Robinson also discloses wherein the drive shaft (104) of the motor is affixed to (via 36) a top of the stem (54) of the flood irrigation valve.
As to Claim 6, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Robinson also discloses wherein the motor (32) is stationary with respect to the stem (54) of the flood irrigation valve (When stem 54 is connected to second attachment point 36, the motor is stationary).
As to Claim 7, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Robinson also discloses wherein the motor (32) provides direct rotation to the stem of the flood irrigation valve via the drive shaft of the motor (The drive shaft aligns the motor to the stem thereby allowing the motor to provide the direct rotation).
As to Claim 8, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Robinson also discloses further comprising a switch (90) operatively coupled to the motor (32), the switch to transmit one or more signals to the motor (32) to cause the motor to generate mechanical energy.
As to Claim 9, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Robinson also discloses further comprising a processing device (82) operatively coupled to the motor (32), the processing device to transmit one or more signals to the motor (32) to cause the motor to generate mechanical energy.
As to Claim 12, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Robinson also discloses further comprising:an energy source (Paragraph 0011: "e.g., electric drive assembly, hydraulic drive assembly, or pneumatic drive assembly”) coupled to the motor (32), wherein the energy source generates electrical energy that is provided to the motor, wherein the motor generates mechanical energy using the electrical energy.
As to Claim 14, Robinson discloses a flood irrigation system, comprising:
One or more flood irrigation valves (12) deployed to a field; and
One or more flood irrigation valve apparatuses (30) coupled to the one or more flood irrigation valves (12), wherein the one or more flood irrigation valve apparatuses comprise:
A motor (32) coupled to a stem (54; Paragraph 0015: "the valve attachment 36 may extend from the housing 52 to enable the valve attachment 36 to engage a corresponding component 54 (e.g., a valve stem or shaft coupled to the valve stem) to actuate the multiple valves 12") of a flood irrigation valve (12) by a mounting system (Figure 3), wherein the mounting system comprises:
A stem top mount (52) including a first attachment point (Connection between 52 and 102) for a drive shaft (104) of the motor (32) and a second attachment point (36) for the stem (54) of the flood irrigation valve (12); and
A bracket (108 or alternatively Hole receiving 102) to couple the motor to a support structure (60).
As to Claim 15, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Robinson also discloses wherein the bracket (Hole receiving 102) of the one or more flood irrigation valve apparatuses (30) comprises a through-hole through which the drive shaft (Portion 102 of shaft 104) of the motor extends to connect to the stem top mount (52).
As to Claim 16, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Robinson also discloses wherein the support structure (60) of the one or more flood irrigation valve apparatuses (30) is coupled to a frame (Figure 1) of a corresponding flood irrigation valve (12) of the one or more flood irrigation valves.
As to Claim 17, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 14 (Refer to Claim 14 discussion). Robinson also discloses wherein the one or more flood irrigation valve apparatuses further comprise a processing device (82) operatively coupled to the motor, the processing device to transmit one or more signals to the motor (12) to cause the motor to generate mechanical energy.
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.
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0266214) alone.
As to Claim 10, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 9 (Refer to Claim 9 discussion). Robinson also discloses further comprising a sensor (94; Paragraph 0018: “e.g., pressure sensors, temperature sensors, valve position sensors, fluid characteristic sensors, or the like”) and the apparatus handles water (Paragraph 0012: “Furthermore, it should be understood that the multiple valves 12 may be used to regulate any of a variety of fluids, such as any type of produced fluids, extracted fluids, supplied fluids, injected fluids, mud, water, steam, oil, gases, or the like, in any type of drilling and/or production system”). Although Robinson does not explicitly disclose a water sensor to monitor a water level of a field associated with the existing flood irrigation valve, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that a water level is a type of fluid characteristic. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the sensor has the capability of monitoring a water level of a field associated with the existing flood irrigation valve with the motivation of increasing the utility of the apparatus.
As to Claim 11, Robinson as modified teaches the invention of Claim 10 (Refer to Claim 10 discussion). Robinson as modified also teaches wherein the processing device (32) controls the motor to actuate the valve (12) of the flood irrigation valve based on the water level of the field.
As to Claim 13, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 12 (Refer to Claim 8 discussion). However, Robinson is silent about wherein the energy source comprises a solar panel and a battery. Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known to use solar panels and batteries to energize machinery, appliances and electronics. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the energy source comprise a solar panel and a battery with the motivation of using a well-known technique to obtain energy to operate the apparatus.
As to Claim 18, Robinson discloses the invention of Claim 17 (Refer to Claim 17 discussion). Robinson also discloses further comprising a sensor (94; Paragraph 0018: “e.g., pressure sensors, temperature sensors, valve position sensors, fluid characteristic sensors, or the like”) and the apparatus handles water (Paragraph 0012: “Furthermore, it should be understood that the multiple valves 12 may be used to regulate any of a variety of fluids, such as any type of produced fluids, extracted fluids, supplied fluids, injected fluids, mud, water, steam, oil, gases, or the like, in any type of drilling and/or production system”). Although Robinson does not explicitly disclose a water sensor to monitor a water level of a field associated with the existing flood irrigation valve, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that a water level is a type of fluid characteristic. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the sensor has the capability of monitoring a water level of a field associated with the existing flood irrigation valve with the motivation of increasing the utility of the apparatus.
As to Claim 19, Robinson as modified teaches the invention of Claim 18 (Refer to Claim 18 discussion). Robinson as modified also teaches wherein the processing device (32) controls the motor to actuate the valve (12) of the flood irrigation valve based on the water level of the field.
As to Claim 20, Robinson as modified teaches the invention of Claim 19 (Refer to Claim 19 discussion). Robinson as modified also teaches wherein the one or more flood irrigation valves (12) are in communication (via 80 and 90) to provide a valve opening pattern to irrigate one or more sections of the field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 6:00PM 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 supervisor, AMBER ANDERSON can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights