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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 22nd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claim have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 22nd, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a” should be removed in ln. 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a rotary drive mechanism in claim 1, ln. 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the rotary drive mechanism is a motor and the device configured to measure an angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle is a sensor, as described in Paragraphs 0009 and 0059 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 8, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) in view of Heaney (US 20200284374 A1), Orubor (US Patent 9,220,191), and Klinefelter et al. (US Patent 10,232,395).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a lawn or garden maintenance device (400, Fig. 11), comprising:
a housing (406, Fig. 11);
a water supply coupling (418, Fig. 11, Col. 29, Ln. 35-39) provided on the housing (406, shown in Fig. 11);
a sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, Fig. 11) rotatably mounted in the housing (406, sprinkler head 408 moves rotationally with respect to the sprinkler 400 and sprinkler housing 406, shown in Fig. 11, Col. 54, Ln. 34-37);
a rotary drive mechanism (422, 424, 426, 430, 453, sprinkler 400 has a sprinkler head positioner 422 and a sprinkler head position determiner 430 that is a rotary encoder, which permits the sprinkler to rotate, Fig. 11, Col. 29, Ln. 49-64) mounted in the housing (406, shown in Fig. 11) and operatively connected to the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, shown in Fig. 11) for bidirectional rotation of the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, sprinkler motor reversing unit 453 operates similar to reversing unit 153 of Fig. 3, which reverses the direction of travel of the sprinkler head so the sprinkler 400 rotates bidirectionally, Fig. 11, Col. 26, Ln. 52-67, Col. 29, Ln. 49-64);
a main water line conduit (414, 420, 564, 511, 514, Figs. 11-12) disposed in the housing (406, shown in Fig. 11) for fluidly connecting the water supply coupling (418, Fig. 11) and the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, shown in Fig. 11);
a motorized variable valve (572, 574, Fig. 12) disposed in the main water line conduit (414, 420, 564, 511, 514, Figs. 11-12) for adjusting rate of fluid flow therein (valve allows the flow to be variably adjusted, and the flow control valve 572 and the flow control valve positioner 574 operates similarly to flow control valve 172 and flow control valve positioner 174 of Fig. 3, which can be operated using a motor, Col. 12, Ln. 21-30, Col. 31, Ln. 46-58);
a pressure sensor (494, Fig. 11) at or near the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, shown in Fig. 11);
a microcontroller (450, 582, 584, Figs. 11-12) operatively coupled to the rotary drive mechanism (422, 424, 426, 430, 453, Fig. 11, Col. 30, Ln. 17-25), the pressure sensor (494, Fig. 11, Col. 30, Ln. 6-9), and the motorized variable valve (572, 574, Fig. 12, Col. 31, Ln. 46-58, Col. 33, Ln. 29-54); and
a power source (440, Fig. 11) configured to power the motorized variable valve (572, 574, not explicitly shown, but the flow control valve 572 and the flow control valve positioner 574 operates similarly to flow control valve 172 and flow control valve positioner 174 of Fig. 3, which can be operated using a motor that is operated by electric power, Fig. 12), and the microcontroller (450, 582, 584, power line 440 provides power to sprinkler control unit 450, Figs. 11-12, Col. 30, Ln. 26-46).
However, Nelson does not disclose the microcontroller being configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first predefined watering zone comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs, control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially irrigate the plurality of concentric watering arcs by controlling an angular sweep of the sprinkler head nozzle through actuation of the rotary drive mechanism as claimed. Heaney teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (10 in Fig. 1, entire structure in Fig. 2) comprising the microcontroller (32, Fig. 1) being configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first predefined watering zone comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs, control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially irrigate the plurality of concentric watering arcs by controlling an angular sweep of the sprinkler head nozzle through actuation of the rotary drive mechanism (speed, duration, direction, and all functions related to control of the sprinkler system are controlled by algorithms running on the MCU 32 that can repeat a user-defined pattern including a series of concentric arcs 24, which combine into a defined area as the sprinkler sweeps across each arc in sequence by using a circular lawn sprinkler mechanism to drive rotation of the sprinkler head 14 to actuate the mechanism controlling direction of the rotation, and the specific location/arc can be controlled using different angles and pressures, shown in Figs. 4-4A, Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0045, 0048, 0052).
Nelson and Heaney are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the microcontroller taught in Heaney’s device to Nelson’s device, to have the microcontroller being configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first predefined watering zone comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs, control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially irrigate the plurality of concentric watering arcs by controlling an angular sweep of the sprinkler head nozzle through actuation of the rotary drive mechanism as claimed. Doing so provides a sprinkler system that is able to deliver a small footprint of water to a specific location in a reproducible manner (Heaney, Paragraph 0006).
However, Nelson and Heaney do not teach at least one container for storing concentrated liquid solution, an injector, a microcontroller operatively coupled to the injector, the microcontroller configured to control a sprinkler head water jet throw distance by controlling a position of the motorized variable valve, and control application of liquid solution by controlling the injector, and a power source configured to power the injector as claimed. Orubor teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one container (38, 36, 40, Fig. 1) for storing concentrated liquid solution (41, Fig. 1), the at least one container (38, 36, 40, Fig. 1) being enclosed by the housing (interpreting enclosed as to surround, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 12, 36, shown in Fig. 1);
an injector (interpreting as a device to force a fluid into, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 66, pumping device 66 pumps solution 41 from the accumulator 40 to force the solution 41 to flow into passage 24, Fig. 11, Col. 5, Ln. 37-46), connected to the at least one solution container (38, 36, 40, Fig. 11) and encased by the housing (interpreting encased as to surround, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 12, 36, shown in Fig. 11), configured to inject a concentrated liquid solution (41, Figs. 1, 11) into the main water line (24, Figs. 1, 11) or sprinkler head nozzle (52, pumping device 66 pumps solution 41 from the accumulator 40 to flow into passage 24, which then flows into sprinkler or spray head 52, Fig. 1, Col. 4, Ln. 46-63, Col. 5, Ln. 37-46);
a microcontroller (74, Fig. 11) operatively coupled to the injector (66, Fig. 11, Col. 5, Ln. 47-59), the microcontroller (74, Fig. 11) being configured to control application of liquid solution (41, Figs. 1, 11) by controlling the injector (66, controller 74 is operatively connected to pumping device 66 to control the operation of the pumping device 66 to pump the solution 41, Fig. 11, Col. 5, Ln. 37-59); and
a power source (72, Fig. 11) configured to power the injector (66, Fig. 11, Col. 5, Ln. 37-59).
Nelson, Heaney, and Orubor are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the at least one container, the housing, the injector, the microcontroller, and the power source taught in Orubor’s device to Nelson’s device, as modified by Heaney, to have at least one container for storing concentrated liquid solution, the at least one container being enclosed by the housing, an injector, connected to the at least one solution container and encased by the housing, configured to inject a concentrated liquid solution into the main water line or sprinkler head nozzle, a microcontroller operatively coupled to the rotary drive mechanism, the pressure sensor, the motorized variable valve, and the injector, the microcontroller being configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first predefined watering zone comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs, control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially irrigate the plurality of concentric watering arcs by controlling an angular sweep of the sprinkler head nozzle through actuation of the rotary drive mechanism, and control application of liquid solution by controlling the injector, and a power source configured to power the motorized variable valve, the injector, and the microcontroller. The at least one container and the housing taught in Orubor would replace the housing disclosed in Nelson. Doing so provides an improved system to control application of chemicals to lawns in amounts and periods (Orubor, Col. 1, Ln. 34-39).
However, Nelson, Heaney, and Orubor do not teach the microcontroller being configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first predefined watering zone comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs, control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially irrigate the plurality of concentric watering arcs by controlling an angular sweep of the sprinkler head nozzle through actuation of the rotary drive mechanism and controlling a sprinkler head water jet throw distance by controlling a position of the motorized variable valve as claimed. Klinefelter teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (100, Fig. 1) comprising the microcontroller (164, Fig. 1) being configured to control a sprinkler head water jet throw distance by controlling a position of the motorized variable valve (160, valve 160 can be controlled by a motor, and sprinkler program instructions can include valve setting instructions that are dependent on angular position of the nozzles 104 about the axis 126 relative to a reference, which allows to modify the distance the discharge streams travel from the sprinkler, Col. 13, Ln. 42-45, Col. 14, Ln. 55-63).
Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the microcontroller taught in Klinefelter’s device to Nelson’s device, as modified by Heaney and Orubor, to have the microcontroller being configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first predefined watering zone comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs, control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially irrigate the plurality of concentric watering arcs by controlling an angular sweep of the sprinkler head nozzle through actuation of the rotary drive mechanism and controlling a sprinkler head water jet throw distance by controlling a position of the motorized variable valve, and control application of liquid solution by controlling the injector as claimed. Doing so improves watering precision and decreases water waste (Klinefelter, Col. 2, Ln. 29-36).
Regarding claim 2, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device according to claim 1. Orubor further teaches the power source (72, Fig. 11) includes a rechargeable battery (the power source can be batteries, Col. 5, Ln. 37-59) for powering the motorized variable valve (68, 70, Fig. 11, Col. 5, Ln. 37-59), the injector (66, Fig. 11, Col. 5, Ln. 37-59), and the microcontroller (74, Fig. 11, Col. 5, Ln. 37-59), and a solar panel (not explicitly shown, but solar panels can be used as external power, Col. 5, Ln. 37-59) for recharging the rechargeable battery (not explicitly shown, but solar panels can be used as external power to power the batteries 72, Col. 5, Ln. 37-59).
With respect to claim 3, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. Nelson further discloses the rotary drive mechanism (422, 424, 426, 430, 453, Fig. 11, Col. 30, Ln. 17-25) includes:
a bidirectional rotary motor (422, 453, sprinkler motor reversing unit 453 operates similar to reversing unit 153 of Fig. 3, which reverses the direction of travel of the sprinkler head so the sprinkler 400 rotates bidirectionally, Fig. 11, Col. 26, Ln. 52-67, Col. 29, Ln. 49-64);
a gear train (424, 426, Fig. 11) operatively connecting the bidirectional rotary motor (422, 453, Fig. 11) to the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, shown in Fig. 11).
In regards to claim 4, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device as claimed in claim 1. Orubor further teaches the injector (66, Fig. 11) comprises at least one pump (66 is a pumping device, Col. 5, Ln. 47-59) having an inlet (bottom end of pumping device 66, shown in Fig. 11) and outlet (top end of pumping device 66, shown in Fig. 11), the pump inlet (bottom end of pumping device 66, shown in Fig. 11) being fluidly connected to the at least one container (38, shown in Fig. 11) and the pump outlet (top end of pumping device 66, shown in Fig. 11) being fluidly connected to the sprinkler head nozzle (52, shown in Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 8, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device according to claim 1. Nelson further discloses the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, Fig. 11) has an exit portion (outlet of discharge nozzle 410, shown in Fig. 11) which, in operation, is disposed at a fixed angle relative to the ground (shown in Fig. 11), and
the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, Fig. 11) generates a water jet (Col. 29, Ln. 31-49).
Heaney further teaches the microcontroller (32, Fig. 1) controls the rotary drive mechanism to distribute the water jet sequentially along the plurality of concentric watering arcs (speed, duration, direction, and all functions related to control of the sprinkler system are controlled by algorithms running on the MCU 32 that can repeat a user-defined pattern including a series of concentric arcs 24, which combine into a defined area as the sprinkler sweeps across each arc in sequence by using a circular lawn sprinkler mechanism to drive rotation of the sprinkler head 14 to actuate the mechanism controlling direction of the rotation, and the specific location/arc can be controlled using different angles and pressures, shown in Figs. 4-4A, Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0045, 0048, 0052).
With respect to claim 11, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device according to claim 1. Heaney further teaches each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs is represented by control data including at least two of: sprinkler head nozzle rotational position, water pressure or water jet throw distance, sprinkler head rotational speed or motor duty cycle, sprinkler head rotational direction, and number of passes (the specific location/arc can be controlled using different angles of rotation and pressures, shown in Figs. 4-4A, Paragraphs 0006, 0042-0044).
Regarding claim 17, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device according to claim 2. However, Nelson, Heaney, and Orubor do not teach an angular position sensor as claimed. Klinefelter teaches an angular position sensor (not explicitly shown but the sprinkler 100 can include a sensor, Col. 17, Ln. 1-10) configured to measure an angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle (102, not explicitly shown but the sprinkler 100 can include a sensor that detects the angular position of the nozzle head relative to the base 106, Fig. 3, Col. 17, Ln. 1-10).
Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of angular position sensor taught in Klinefelter’s device to Nelson’s device, as modified by Heaney and Orubor, to have an angular position sensor configured to measure an angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle. Doing so improves watering precision and decreases water waste (Klinefelter, Col. 2, Ln. 29-36).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) in view of Heaney (US 20200284374 A1), Orubor (US Patent 9,220,191), and Klinefelter et al. (US Patent 10,232,395) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Lips (US Patent 6,314,979).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device as claimed in claim 4. Orubor further teaches a replaceable bottle (38, container 38 is removable from the system, shown in Fig. 1), the replaceable bottle (38, Fig. 1) being sized for containment within the at least one container (38, 36, 40, shown in Fig. 1);
a cap (44, Fig. 2) mountable on the replaceable bottle (38, shown in Fig. 2).
However, Nelson, Heaney Orubor, and Klinefelter do not teach the replaceable bottle having a first tube disposed therein for ingress of concentrated liquid solution stored within the bottle, the cap having a second tube disposed therein for fluidly connection with the replaceable bottle tube, and the cap tube being fluidly connected to the pump inlet. Lips teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (10, Fig. 1) comprising the replaceable bottle (94, Fig. 1) having a first tube (tube within reservoir 94, shown in Fig. 1) disposed therein for ingress of concentrated liquid solution stored within the bottle (shown in Fig. 1, Col. 11, Ln. 64 to Col. 12, Ln. 19), the cap (top cap of containment assembly 90, shown in Fig. 1) having a second tube (92, Fig. 1) disposed therein for fluidly connection with the replaceable bottle tube (tube within reservoir 94, shown in Fig. 1), and the cap tube (92, Fig. 1) being fluidly connected to the pump inlet (70, shown in Fig. 2A).
Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, and Lips are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the tubes taught in Lips’ device to Nelson’s device, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, to have the replaceable bottle having a first tube disposed therein for ingress of concentrated liquid solution stored within the bottle, the cap having a second tube disposed therein for fluidly connection with the replaceable bottle tube, and the cap tube being fluidly connected to the pump inlet. Doing so provides a liquid dispensation system that is produced and operated at a cost effective basis (Lips, Col. 1, Ln. 52-58).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) in view of Heaney (US 20200284374 A1), Orubor (US Patent 9,220,191), and Klinefelter et al. (US Patent 10,232,395) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stewart et al. (US 20080230627 A1) and Millar (US 20180359954 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device according to claim 1. However, Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter do not teach the injector comprises a piston as claimed. Stewart teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (14, Fig. 1) comprising the injector (80, Figs. 2, 4) comprises:
a piston (84, 80 is a piston portion that has a piston 84, Figs. 2, 4, Paragraph 0040) mounted within the at least one container (68, shown in Fig. 2), wherein the at least one container (68, Fig. 2) is fluidly connected at an upstream end (98, Fig. 2) to receive water from the main water line (18, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0038) and is fluidly connected at a downstream end (41, Fig. 2) to dispense concentrated liquid solution to the sprinkler head nozzle (12, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0042), and wherein concentrated liquid solution (74, Fig. 2) is stored between the piston (80, shown in Fig. 2) and the downstream end (41, shown in Fig. 2).
Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, and Stewart are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the piston taught in Stewart’s device to Nelson’s device, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, to have a piston mounted within the at least one container, wherein the at least one container is fluidly connected at an upstream end to receive water from the main water line and is fluidly connected at a downstream end to dispense concentrated liquid solution to the main water line or sprinkler head nozzle, and wherein concentrated liquid solution is stored between the piston and the downstream end. Doing so provides the user more control over the amount of fluid to be dispensed (Stewart, Paragraph 0045).
However, Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, and Stewart do not teach a second electronically controllable valve as claimed. Millar teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (100, Fig. 1A) comprising a second electronically controllable valve (180, flow control valves may be communicatively coupled to a master controller 160 and there can be multiple valves 180, Fig. 1A, Paragraph 0029) installed upstream of the upstream end (bottom end of track 102b, shown in Fig. 1A) of the at least one container (102b, Fig. 1A) for regulating the amount of water flowing into the at least one container (102b, Fig. 1A, Paragraph 0029), the second valve (180, Fig. 1A) being operatively connected to the microcontroller (160, Fig. 1A) for controlling the dispensation of concentrated liquid solution into the main water line or sprinkler head nozzle (master controller 160 transmits signals for operation of the control valves 180 to selectively control flow of fluid, Paragraph 0029).
Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, Stewart, and Millar are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the second electronically controllable valve taught in Millar’s device to Nelson’s device, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, and Stewart, to have a second electronically controllable valve installed upstream of the upstream end of the at least one container for regulating the amount of water flowing into the at least one container, the second valve being operatively connected to the microcontroller for controlling the dispensation of concentrated liquid solution into the main water line or sprinkler head nozzle. Doing so ensures precise amounts of fluids are supplied to plant material (Millar, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 7, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, Stewart, and Millar, discloses the device according to claim 6. Orubor further teaches a puncture point (not explicitly shown, but the structure could include a membrane piercing valve 42 to penetrate through membrane seal 44, Col. 4, Ln. 1-6) for puncturing a sealing membrane (44, Fig. 2) of a solution refill bottle (38, Fig. 1, Col. 4, Ln. 1-6), and as modified by Stewart above regarding claim 6, would result in a piston has a puncture point for puncturing a sealing membrane of a solution refill bottle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 11-14, in view of Heaney (US 20200284374 A1), Orubor (US Patent 9,220,191), and Klinefelter et al. (US Patent 10,232,395) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 14-24.
With respect to claim 9, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device as claimed in claim 8. Nelson further discloses the device (400, Fig. 11) can be calibrated to define and irrigate one or more predefined watering zones including the first predefined watering zone (user can set up a flow program for particular sprinklers, which have specific application zones, of an overall sprinkler system, Col. 31, Ln. 15-28) by provisioning a web server (remote programming unit 470 is similar to the remote user interface 200’ of Fig. 3, user interface can be provided on a display screen of a handheld user device such as a smart phone, a tablet device, and/or a laptop computer, which can be connected to several internet websites, the Examiner takes Official Notice based on reliance of common knowledge in the art that a web server exists to allow communication with a smart phone, a tablet device, and/or a laptop computer to connect to the several internet websites, Col. 30, Ln. 53-67, Col. 45, Ln. 32-63) and an application executing on a mobile device (mobile app) (470, Fig. 11, Col. 30, Ln. 53-64) which communicates with the web server (a web server exists to allow communication with a smart phone, a tablet device, and/or a laptop computer to connect to the several internet websites, Col. 30, Ln. 53-67, Col. 45, Ln. 32-63), wherein the microcontroller (450, Fig. 11) is configured to communicate wirelessly with at least the mobile app (470, Fig. 11, Col. 30, Ln. 53-64) which also provides a user interface (remote programming unit 470 is similar to the remote user interface 200’ of Fig. 3, user interface can be provided on a display screen of a handheld user device such as a smart phone, a tablet device, and/or a laptop computer, Col. 30, Ln. 53-67, Col. 45, Ln. 32-63) to the device (470, Fig. 11).
However, Nelson does not disclose each user-defined application zone in one embodiment. In the embodiments of Figs. 14-24, Nelson further discloses a user can set the first a predefined watering zone (80, Fig. 20) by:
(i) using the user interface to wirelessly communicate adjustments to the angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle and to the sprinkler head water jet throw distance (user uses user interface which wirelessly communicates with the controller of the sprinkler to adjust the angle of the nozzle and the flow to the farthest reach of the area to be sprinkled, Col. 40, Ln. 36-52), wherein in response to the adjustments the microcontroller varies the angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle and varies the position of the variable valve (controller processes data to adjust the sprinkler to desired position set by the user, Col. 40, Ln. 52 to Col. 41, Ln. 3);
(ii) repeating procedure (i) until the sprinkler head angular position and water jet throw distance are confirmed by the user via the user interface (user can repeat steps until user activates the “SET” feature on the user interface, Col. 40, Ln. 36-59), whereupon the angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle and the pressure measured by the pressure sensor are memorized by the web server in association with a first corner of the first predefined watering zone (data collected by the device can be stored in memory, and the third embodiment can implement certain optional features from the other embodiments, such as the pressure sensor in the second embodiment, Col. 30, Ln. 6-9, Col. 40, Ln. 59 to Col. 41, Ln. 8);
(iii) repeating procedures (i) and (ii) in respect of at least two additional corners of the first predefined watering zone (user can set the same procedures above for other locations and sprinklers in the area, and the third embodiment can implement certain optional features from the other embodiments, shown in Fig. 13A, Col. 40, Ln. 59 to Col. 41, Ln. 8), whereby a closed geometric area can be determined representing the first predefined watering zone (user defines desired sprinkling program for the area through the user interface, Col. 40, Ln. 36-59);
(iv) computing the first irrigation path for irrigating the geometric area representing the first predefined watering zone based on the memorized angular positions and pressures and storing the path at the server (user can record a path using dimensions and shapes of the areas to be irrigated using GPS that can be transferred to a handheld user device to plan an irrigation regimen, Col. 45, Ln. 50-63).
Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the motorized variable valve taught in Nelson’s device in the embodiment of Figs. 14-24, to Nelson’s device, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter above, in the embodiment of Figs. 11-13, to have the device comprising a user-defined application zone as claimed. Doing so is beneficial when large complex areas need to be irrigated and gives the user more control over the area to be irrigated (Nelson, Col. 45, Ln. 48-63).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 11-14, in view of Heaney (US 20200284374 A1), Orubor (US Patent 9,220,191), and Klinefelter et al. (US Patent 10,232,395) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 14-24, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wiebe (US 20160158783 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter, discloses the device according to claim 9. Nelson further discloses the device microcontroller (470, Fig. 11) can communicate with the web server (a web server exists to allow communication with a smart phone, a tablet device, and/or a laptop computer to connect to the several internet websites, Col. 30, Ln. 53-67, Col. 45, Ln. 32-63);
the device microcontroller (450, Fig. 11) is configured to periodically poll the web server to determine whether to irrigate or not (sprinkler control unit has signal communication with the remote programming unit 470 and the user uses the remote programming unit to control when to spray over an area, Col. 31, Ln. 8-27);
wherein the web server triggers the device to irrigate (Col. 31, Ln. 8-27) and communicates the first irrigation path to the device microcontroller (Col. 45, Ln. 50-63).
However, Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter do not teach the web server dynamically computes the first irrigation path for the first predefined watering zone based at least in part on local weather data obtained by the web server. Wiebe teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (entire structure, Fig. 6)comprising the web server dynamically computes the first irrigation path for the first predefined watering zone based on local weather data obtained by the web server (Paragraph 0031-0032, 0069, 0101, Claim 9).
Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, and Wiebe are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the device taught by Wiebe the device taught by Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, and Klinefelter above, to have the web server dynamically computes the first irrigation path for the first predefined watering zone based at least in part on local weather data obtained by the web server. Doing so allows the system to adapt based on real-time weather changes to prevent overwatering in a specific area (Wiebe, Paragraphs 0031-0032).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 11-14, in view of Heaney (US 20200284374 A1), Orubor (US Patent 9,220,191), and Klinefelter et al. (US Patent 10,232,395) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 14-24, as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 2-10, and further in view of Moeller (US 20200315111 A1).
In regards to claim 12, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, and Wiebe, discloses the device according to claim 9. However, Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, and Wiebe do not teach control data communicated by the web server to the device includes data for control of the injector. Moeller teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (200, Fig. 2) comprising control data communicated by the web server to the device includes data for control of the injector (Paragraph 0028, Claim 17).
Nelson, Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, Wiebe, and Moeller are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the device taught by Moeller, to the device taught by Nelson, as modified by Heaney, Orubor, Klinefelter, and Wiebe above, to have control data communicated by the web server to the device includes data for control of the injector. Doing so notifies the user on how much liquid is being injected (Moeller, Paragraph 0028, Claim 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752