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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “a first portion” and “a second portion” however these limitations already appear in claim 1 and as such these recitations appear to be a double inclusion of the “first portion” and the “second portion.” See MPEP 2173.05(o).
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 (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 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 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Connor et al. (US Pat No 10,619,775 B2).
Re claim 1, O’Connor et al. show an adjustable sprinkler head (Figs. 6-8) comprising:
a base (603a) with a first end (at 602) connectable to an irrigation line through which water is supplied to the sprinkler head and a second end (at 606) opposite the first end (at 602);
a body (622/624) pivotably connected to the second end (at 606) of the base (603a) at a first end (at 622) of the body so that the body (622/624) is adjustably pivotable relative to the base (col. 16, lines 8-10); and
a nozzle connector (608) rotatably connected at a first end (at 726) to a second end (at 724) of the body (624) so that the nozzle connector is adjustably rotatable relative to the body (col. 16, lines 30-32),
wherein a nozzle is connectable to a second end of the nozzle connector (608; col. 15, lines 9-15),
wherein the base (603a) comprises a first portion (603a) and a second portion (606) with the first portion (603a) including the first end (at 602) of the base connectable to the irrigation line so that the first portion is rotatable relative to the irrigation line (col. 15, lines 9-15),
wherein the second end (at 606) of the base includes a nub (see annotated figure) having a flange (see annotated figure) creating an area (714) of lesser diameter and an O ring (712) on the area,
wherein the first end (at 622) of the body (622/624) has a rim (see annotated figure) for receiving a retainer (720),
wherein the retainer (720) is configured to receive the first end (at 622) of the body (622/624) such that when the second end (at 606) of the base is inserted sufficiently into the retainer (720), the nub (see annotated figure) is separated from the rim (see annotated figure) by at least a portion of the retainer (720), and
wherein the supplied water travels through a base conduit (716) in the base into a body conduit (706) in the body, then into a nozzle connector conduit (626) in the nozzle connector, and out the nozzle connected to the nozzle connector (col. 15, lines 9-15).
PNG
media_image1.png
927
901
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, O’Connor et al. show the first end (602) of the base (603a) is threaded (Fig. 7) for threadably connecting the base to the irrigation line (col. 15, lines 9-15).
Re claim 3, O’Connor et al. show the body (622/624) is adjustably pivotable from 120 degrees to 180 degrees relative to the base (603a; col. 2, lines 10-11).
Re claim 4, O’Connor et al. show the nozzle connector (608) is adjustably rotatable 360 degrees relative to the body (622/624; col. 2, lines 14-15).
Re claim 5, O’Connor et al. show the second end of the nozzle connector (608) is threaded (Fig. 7) for threadably connecting the nozzle connector to the nozzle (col. 15, lines 9-15).
Re claim 6, O’Connor et al. show the retainer (720) has cutouts (see annotated figure) so that the retainer (720) is resiliently bendable inward as the retainer (720) is introduced into the second end (at 606) of the base (603a) and resiliently snappable back outward once the retainer (720) is inserted sufficiently to be on the area (714) of lesser diameter of the second end (at 606) of the base (603a).
Re claim 7, O’Connor et al. disclose the retainer (720) is integrally formed (col. 16, lines 8-10) with the body (622/624).
Re claim 15, O’Connor et al. show the base (603a) comprises a first portion (602) and a second portion (606), and
wherein the first portion includes the first end (at 602) of the base connectable to the irrigation line so that the first portion is rotatable relative to the irrigation line (col. 15, lines 9-15) and the second portion (606) includes the second end (at 606) of the base so that the second portion of the base is pivotably connected to the body (col. 16, lines 8-10).
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.
Claims 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor et al. (US Pat No 10,619,775 B2) in view of Walters et al. (US Pat No 10,239,074 B2). All citations to O’Connor unless otherwise specified.
Re claim 8, O’Connor et al. show the retainer (720) is resiliently bendable inward as the retainer (720) is introduced into the first end (at 622) of the body (622/624) and resiliently snappable back outward once the retainer (720) is inserted past the rim (see annotated figure).
O’Connor et al. does not teach wherein the retainer is welded or glued to the body.
However, Walters et al. disclose a spray device with a joint welded to the body (col. 4, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weld the retainer to the body, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, no criticality for the claimed limitation is apparent.
Re claim 10, O’Connor et al. show a first end (at 726) of the nozzle connector (608) is provided with a nipple (see annotated figure) having a connector flange (see annotated figure) creating a nipple area (726) of lesser diameter and an O ring (722) on the nipple area (726),
wherein the second end (at 624) of the body has a body rim (see annotated figure) for accommodating a body retainer (724),
wherein the body retainer (724) has cutouts (see annotated figure) so that the body retainer (724) is resiliently bendable inward as the body retainer (724) is introduced into the first end (at 726) of the nozzle connector (608) and resiliently snappable back outward once the body retainer (724) is inserted sufficiently to be on the lesser diameter of nipple area (726).
PNG
media_image2.png
830
817
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11, O’Connor et al. show the body retainer (724) is resiliently bendable inward as the body retainer (724) is introduced into the second end (at 624) of the body (622/624), resiliently snappable back outward once the body retainer (724) is inserted past the body rim (see annotated figure).
O’Connor et al. does not teach wherein the body retainer is welded or glued to the body.
However, Walters et al. disclose a spray device with a joint welded to the body (col. 4, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weld the body retainer to the body, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, no criticality for the claimed limitation is apparent.
Re claims 13 & 18, O’Connor et al. show the body (622/624) is adjustably pivotable from 120 degrees to 180 degrees relative to the base (603a; col. 2, lines 10-11), and wherein the nozzle connector (608) is adjustably rotatable 360 degrees relative to the body (622/624; col. 2, lines 14-15).
Re claim 14, O’Connor et al. show a first end (at 726) of the nozzle connector (608) is provided with a nipple (see annotated figure) having a connector flange (see annotated figure) creating a nipple area (726) of lesser diameter and an O ring (722) on the nipple area (726),
wherein the second end (at 624) of the body has a body rim (see annotated figure) for accommodating a body retainer (724),
wherein the body retainer (724) has cutouts (see annotated figure) so that the body retainer (724) is resiliently bendable inward as the body retainer (724) is introduced into the second end (at 624) of the body (622/624), resiliently snappable back outward once the body retainer (724) is inserted past the body rim (see annotated figure), and
wherein the body retainer (724) is resiliently bendable inward as the body retainer (724) is introduced into the first end (at 726) of the nozzle connector (608) and resiliently snappable back outward once the body retainer (724) is inserted sufficiently to be on the lesser diameter of nipple area (726).
O’Connor et al. does not teach wherein the body retainer is welded or glued to the body.
However, Walters et al. disclose a spray device with a joint welded to the body (col. 4, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weld the body retainer to the body, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, no criticality for the claimed limitation is apparent.
Re claim 17, O’Connor et al. show an adjustable sprinkler head (Figs. 6-8) comprising:
a base (603a) with a first end (602) having female threading (Fig. 7) so that the base is threadably connectable to an irrigation line through which water is supplied to the sprinkler head (col. 15, lines 9-15) and a second end (606) opposite the first end;
a body (622/624) pivotably connected to the second end (606) of the base at a first end (at 622) of the body so that the body is adjustably pivotable relative to the base (col. 16, lines 8-10); and
a nozzle connector (608) rotatably connected at a first end (at 726) to a second end (at 624) of the body (622/624) so that the nozzle connector is adjustably rotatable relative to the body (col. 16, lines 30-32),
wherein a second end (at 608) of the nozzle connector has male threading (Fig. 7) so that a nozzle is threadably connectable to the nozzle connector (col. 15, lines 9-15),
wherein the supplied water travels through a base conduit (716) in the base into a body conduit (706) in the body, then into a nozzle connector conduit (626) in the nozzle connector, and out the nozzle connected to the nozzle connector (col. 15, lines 9-15),
wherein the second end (606) of the base includes a nub (see annotated figure) having a flange (see annotated figure) creating an area (714) of lesser diameter and an O ring (712) on the area,
wherein the first end (at 622) of the body has a rim (see annotated figure) for accommodating a retainer (720),
wherein the retainer (720) has cutouts (see annotated figure) so that the retainer (720) is resiliently bendable inward as the retainer (720) is introduced into the first end (at 622) of the body (622/624), resiliently snappable back outward once the retainer (720) is inserted past the rim (see annotated figure),
wherein the retainer (720) is resiliently bendable inward as the retainer is introduced into the second end (606) of the base (603a) and resiliently snappable back outward once the retainer (720) is inserted sufficiently to be on the area (714) of lesser diameter of the second end (606) of the base (603a),
wherein a first end (at 726) of the nozzle connector (608) is provided with a nipple (see annotated figure) having a connector flange (see annotated figure) creating a nipple area (726) of lesser diameter and an O ring (722) on the nipple area (726), wherein the second end (at 624) of the body has a body rim (see annotated figure) for accommodating a body retainer (724), wherein the body retainer (724) has cutouts (see annotated figure) so that the body retainer (724) is resiliently bendable inward as the body retainer (724) is introduced into the second end (at 624) of the body (622/624), resiliently snappable back outward once the body retainer (724) is inserted past the body rim (see annotated figure), such that when the nozzle connector (608) is rotated relative to the body (622/624), the body retainer (724) remains fixed within the body (col. 16, lines 30-32),
wherein the body retainer (724) is resiliently bendable inward as the body retainer (724) is introduced into the first end (at 726) of the nozzle connector (608) and resiliently snappable back outward once the body retainer (724) is inserted sufficiently to be on the lesser diameter of nipple area (726), and
wherein the retainer (720) and the body retainer (724) are configured, dimensioned, and arranged so that the retainer (720) does not contact the body retainer (724).
O’Connor et al. does not teach the retainer is welded or glued to the body and the body retainer is welded or glued to the body.
Walters et al. disclose a spray device with a joint welded to the body (col. 4, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weld the retainer to the body, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, no criticality for the claimed limitation is apparent.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor et al. (US Pat No 10,619,775 B2) in view of Wangsgaard (US Pat No 9,781,886 B1).
Re claim 9, O’Connor et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach at least one of the base and the body is provided with knurling.
However, Wangsgaard teach multiple exterior surfaces provided with knurling (col. 10, lines 8-9 and col. 11, lines 24-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the base and body of O’Connor et al. with knurling as taught by Wangsgaard to facilitate grasping by hand (Wangsgaard – col. 11, lines 26-27).
Re claim 16, O’Connor et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach a second end of the first portion is provided with a base nipple having a base flange creating an area of lesser diameter of the base nipple and an O ring on the area of the base nipple,
wherein a base retainer is resiliently bendable inward as the base retainer is introduced into the second portion and resiliently snappable back outward,
wherein the base retainer resiliently bends inward as the base retainer is introduced into the first portion and resiliently snappable back outward once the base retainer is inserted sufficiently to be on the lesser diameter of the area of the base nipple.
However, Wangsgaard shows a base (Fig. 3, 150) comprising a first portion (168) and a second portion (162), wherein a second end (160) of the first portion (168) is provided with a base nipple (170) having a base flange creating an area of lesser diameter (inside 170) of the base nipple and an O ring (154) on the area of the base nipple,
wherein a base retainer (198) is resiliently bendable inward as the base retainer is introduced into the second portion (162) and resiliently snappable back outward (col. 12, lines 52-54),
wherein the base retainer (198) resiliently bends inward as the base retainer (198) is introduced into the first portion (168) and resiliently snappable back outward once the base retainer (198) is inserted sufficiently to be on the lesser diameter of the area of the base nipple.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a base nipple and base retainer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitations.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor et al. (US Pat No 10,619,775 B2) in view of Walters et al. (US Pat No 10,239,074 B2) and further in view of Wangsgaard (US Pat No 9,781,886 B1).
Re claim 12, O’Connor et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach at least one of the nozzle connector and the body is provided with knurling.
However, Wangsgaard teach multiple exterior surfaces provided with knurling (col. 10, lines 8-9 and col. 11, lines 24-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the nozzle connector and body of O’Connor et al. with knurling as taught by Wangsgaard to facilitate grasping by hand (Wangsgaard – col. 11, lines 26-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any embodiment applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752