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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Millius et al. (US 2022/0368195).
For claim 1, Millius et al. teach an assembly for use in an irrigation system for plants, wherein the assembly unit comprises: at least one communication function element for forming part of a communication system of the irrigation system, wherein, the communication function element comprises a sensor and an actuator (Note that the valve system (102) comprises ports and valve seats in order to define and supply water to an irrigation line. Furthermore, the valve systems comprise a control unit (314) having a communication module wherein this valve system also has a sensor which is designed as a flow sensor; see [0068], [0179] and [0180]); the actuator is connected or connectable to at least one valve in a fluid branch of the irrigation system, and the actuator is configured for adjusting the valve (Note that according to figure 3B, the valve system comprises at least two channels, and therefore also at least one branch having corresponding valves (320 or 302). The valves are control valves which therefore comprise an actuator).
For claims 2 and 20, Millius et al. teach wherein the sensor comprises a pressure switch or a pressure sensor for measuring the water pressure in the irrigation system in the immediate vicinity of the assembly unit, in particular in the main line of the irrigation system (see [0105]).
For claim 3, Millius et al. teach wherein the pressure switch or the pressure sensor is configured in such a manner that when a predetermined and/or adjustable water pressure threshold value is exceeded, a microcontroller of the communication function element having comprising at least one data output or actuator connection and at least one data input or sensor connection is activated (see [0105]).
For claim 5, Millius et al. teach the data output or actuator connection comprises a wireless actuator data transmission element; and the data input or sensor connection comprises in particular a wireless sensor data transmission element (Note that the valve system 102 comprises a control device 314 which can receive wireless data commands/communication; see [0131]).
For claim 6, Millius et al. teach at least one fluid function element for forming a part of a fluid system of the irrigation system, wherein the fluid function element comprises a first fluid branch and, in the fluid branch, a valve connected to the actuator (see [0068], [0155], [0107], [0158]).
For claim 7, Millius et al. teach the fluid function element comprises a second fluid branch, connected in parallel to the first fluid branch;
the second fluid branch comprises a generator (312,310) for generating electrical energy, in particular a turboelectric generator, for operating one or more electrical elements selected from a group consisting of: actuators, sensors, radio transmitters, and radio receivers, and the assembly unit further comprises a battery comprising a charging circuit for storing electrical energy (see [0162],[0178]).
For claims 8 and 19, Millius et al. teach a main unit comprising:
at least one fluid function element for forming part of a fluid system of the irrigation system; and at least one communication function element for forming part of a communication system of the irrigation system; and
a plurality of assembly units of claim 1 (Note that according to [0068], the system consists of a plurality of elements, wherein a control unit (110) is provided which can communicate with the valve system and at the same time also controls further valves).
For claim 9, Millius et al. teach wherein the main unit and the plurality of assembly units each comprise parts of a wireless communication system configured to enable communication between the main unit and the plurality of assembly units by means of a wireless communication protocol (see Figure 1, [0111], and [0131]).
For claim 10, Millius et al. teach wherein the main unit has further comprises a main microcontroller (130).
For claim 11, Millius et al. teach wherein at least one assembly unit of the plurality of assembly units comprises a secondary microcontroller (314).
For claim 12, Millius et al. teach wherein the main unit comprises an Internet gateway (see Figure 1, [0072], [0266], and [0267]).
For claim 13, Millius et al. teach a first secondary microcontroller of a first assembly unit is configured to communicate with a second secondary microcontroller of a second assembly unit via a first wireless communication protocol; and the first secondary microcontroller and the second secondary microcontroller are each configured to communicate with the main microcontroller via a second wireless communication protocol ([0069]-[0071] indicate that there are one or more controllers, computing devices, and/or servers within the irrigation system; therefore, it is inherently that there are also multiple wireless communication protocols therein).
For claim 14, Millius et al. teach wherein the main microcontroller of the main unit is configured to communicate directly with the main microcontroller of a second assembly unit kit of claim 10 via a third wireless communication protocol (Note that control units (110) can communicate with one another, see Figure 1).
For claim 15, Millius et al. teach wherein the main unit and the plurality of assembly units are configured to interact with a server, with a database, with a cloud, with a mobile APP or web application via the Internet gateway (Note that Internet connection via the cloud, see Figure 1).
For claim 16, Millius et al. teach wherein the main unit comprises a main valve and a pressure sensor downstream of the main valve in a flow direction (see [0105]).
For claim 17, Millius et al. teach wherein the main unit comprises a pressure release valve (inherently included within the irrigation system of Millius et al.).
For claim 18, Millius et al. teach wherein the irrigation system comprises at least one assembly unit of claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millius et al. (US 2022/0368195).
For claim 4, as described above, Millius et al. disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning a self-holding circuit.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Millius et al. so as to include the use of self-holding circuit, since using another type of circuit is considered as a matter of design choice depended on the intended use of the user, wherein no stated problem is solved, or any new or unexpected result achieved, since it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the type of circuit used in Millius et al..
Conclusion
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
