Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/163,964

SPRINKLER, IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED METHODS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 03, 2023
Examiner
DANDRIDGE, CHRISTOPHER R.
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
H2O Innovation Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
375 granted / 575 resolved
-4.8% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
633
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 575 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 7/14/2025 is acknowledged. 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. Claims 1-8 are 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 1 recites the limitation "fluid" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stiatti (US 20220018324). Regarding claim 1, Stiatti discloses an agricultural irrigation system comprising: piping (110) for conveying a fluid to an agriculture field (the limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Abstract); and sprinklers (140), each one of the sprinklers (140) having : a body (Figure 1) having an inlet (115) and an outlet (Figure 1 depicts the fluid being issued through the outlet), the body having an internal cavity in fluid communication with the inlet and with the outlet (Figure 1 suggests this structure), fluid configured to flow through the internal cavity along a flow path extending from the inlet to the outlet (Figure 1); a sprinkler head in fluid communication with the internal cavity of the body and rotatable about a sprinkler head axis (The sprinkler depicted in figure 1 includes the claimed structure and operates as claimed); and a sprinkler power assembly (10) comprising: a rotor (40) with a rotor shaft (Figure 7) and rotor blades (41) rotatable about a rotor axis (Figure 1 depicts the turbine which includes blades and is mounted on a shaft to rotate), the rotor blades in fluid communication with the inner cavity and positioned along the flow path (Figure 1), the rotor blades and the rotor shaft configured to be rotated by the fluid flowing along the flow path (Paragraph 1); and an electrical generator coupled to the rotor shaft (Paragraphs 51 and 71). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiatti in view of Nelson (US 8,302,882). Regarding claim 2, Stiatti discloses the agricultural irrigation system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein each sprinkler further comprises a motion sensor positioned on the body and oriented toward the sprinkler head, the motion sensor configured to emit a signal indicative of the sprinkler head having ceased to rotate about the sprinkler head axis. Nelson discloses a sprinkler that includes a motion sensor (194), the motion sensor configured to emit a signal indicative of the sprinkler head having ceased to rotate about the sprinkler head axis (Column 14, lines 3-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stiatti with the disclosures of Nelson, providing the sprinkler to include a motion sensor (Nelson, 194), the motion sensor configured to emit a signal indicative of the sprinkler head having ceased to rotate about the sprinkler head axis (Nelson, Column 14, lines 3-11), in order to provide for a means to account for pressure variations, as disclosed by Nelson (Column 13, lines 51-55). Nelson appears to suggest that the detector is positioned on the body and oriented toward the sprinkler head, as it is within the supply conduit. Should it be found that the detector is not positioned on the body and oriented toward the sprinkler head, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position the detector as claimed since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claim 3, Stiatti in view of Nelson discloses the agricultural irrigation system of claim 2, wherein each sprinkler further comprises a controller (124) positioned on the body (Figure 2, the controller is attached to the bottom of the body) and powered by the electrical generator (Paragraph 55), the controller in communication with the motion sensor to transmit the signal (as modified, Nelson, Column 13, lines 47-48). Regarding claim 4, Stiatti in view of Nelson discloses the agricultural irrigation system of claim 3, further comprising a wireless communication network in communication with the controller of each sprinkler (Paragraph 55), to receive from the controller the motionless signal (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; the network is capable of performing the claimed function). Regarding claim 6, Stiatti in view of Nelson discloses the agricultural irrigation system of claim 2, wherein each motion sensor includes a magnet rotatable about the sprinkler head axis (Nelson, Column 14, lines 3-11, the magnet rotates with the impeller). Regarding claim 7, Stiatti in view of Nelson discloses the agricultural irrigation system of claim 3 wherein each controller is configured to collect data of the corresponding sprinkler (Paragraph 61). Claim(s) 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiatti in view of Nelson and Oezdemir (US 2017/0295415). Regarding claim 5, Stiatti in view of Nelson discloses the agricultural irrigation system of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the wireless communication network is configured to emit an alert upon receiving the motionless signal. Oezdemir discloses a device wherein a wireless system emits an alert when a flow rate falls below a particular level (Paragraph 130). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stiatti in view of Nelson with the disclosures of Oezdemir, providing the wireless communication network (of Stiatti) configured to emit an alert upon receiving the motionless signal (Oezdemir, paragraph 130), in order to provide for resource efficiency, as disclosed by Oezdemir (Paragraph 2). Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiatti in view of Coleman (WO 2010/020764). Regarding claim 8, Stiatti discloses (Original) The agricultural irrigation system of claim 1, wherein, but fails to disclose each sprinkler power assembly comprises at least one of a condenser, a solar panel, and a wind turbine. Coleman discloses a device wherein a power assembly includes a wind turbine (abstract, air turbine). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stiatti with the disclosures of, providing the system to further include a wind turbine, in order to provide for delivery of air to the field (Page 16, lines 8-12). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE Primary Examiner Art Unit 3752 /CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 03, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599924
ATOMIZATION BOTTLE AND LIQUID ATOMIZATION DEVICE INCLUDING THE ATOMIZATION BOTTLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599793
COOPERATIVE FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594445
ADDRESSING OPTICAL FIRING CARTRIDGE USING CHROMATIC ABERRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594444
Mobile Fire-Fighting Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582855
INTEGRATED AIR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.1%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 575 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month