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 response filed on August 19, 2026 is acknowledged. One page of specification was received on August 19, 2026. The specification is NOT acceptable because the last specification and drawing (new Fig. 10) submitted on April 8, 2026 were not entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-7, 11, 15-17 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 15, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II in the reply filed on July 15, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Furthermore, the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 12-14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bentley et al. (US 20150102127. Bentley hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Bentley discloses a deflector plate (230. Figs. 1-12) for a sprinkler assembly (200), the deflector plate comprising: a central opening (246. Fig. 9) with a plurality of notches (six triangular notches near 246) extending radially outward (from X axis); a flat planar deflector surface (six lower flat tip end near 246. See Fig. 8 with additional annotations below) positioned adjacent the central opening, the deflector surface being free of slope or curvature and free of additional diverting structure; and a plurality of deflector grooves (232) extending radially outward from the flat deflector surface and in communication with the plurality of notches.
With respect to claim 2, Bentley discloses the deflector plate according to claim 1, wherein the notches are arrayed circumferentially about the central opening, and wherein side walls of adjacent ones of the notches meet at a point to define an inward-facing edge (that defines 214).
With respect to claim 3, Bentley discloses the deflector plate according to claim 2, wherein radially outermost walls of the notches extend farther outward than an outermost periphery of the flat deflector surface (Figs. 7 and 8).
With respect to claim 4, Bentley discloses the deflector plate according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of deflector grooves are configured to (capable of) create rotational torque (as a rotatable impeller. Abstract) on the deflector plate when water is deflected into the plurality of deflector grooves by the flat deflector surface.
With respect to claim 8, Bentley discloses wherein the (the combined six lower tip end near 246 having the form of a circle. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circular) flat deflector surface is circular (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 9, Bentley discloses wherein the notches are spaced from the flat deflector surface (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 10, Bentley discloses wherein the central opening and the plurality of deflector grooves are configured such that a water stream flowing through the central opening and impacting the flat deflector surface is deflected outward into the plurality of deflector grooves (Fig. 3 and “flows of liquid (shown with arrows F).” [0037]).
With respect to claim 12, Bentley discloses a deflector plate (200. Figs. 1-12) comprising: a deflector surface (Figs. 8 and 9. Surfaces surrounded by the “cylindrical exterior.” See Fig. 8 with additional annotations below) disposed at a center of the deflector plate (230), the deflector surface comprising either (1) a flat planar surface free of slope or curvature (six lower flat tip end near 246. See Fig. 8 with additional annotations below), or (2) a convex rounded deflector convex surface (See Fig. 8 with additional annotations below), the deflector surface (from 246 to 248) being free of additional diverting structure; a plurality of deflector grooves (232) extending radially outward from the (center of) deflector surface, wherein the deflector surface is configured such that a water stream impacting the (center of) deflector surface is deflected outward by the deflector surface into the plurality of deflector grooves (Fig. 3 and “flows of liquid (shown with arrows F).” [0037]).
With respect to claim 13, Bentley discloses wherein the deflector surface comprises a flat (six lower tip end near 246. Fig. 8) surface.
With respect to claim 14, Bentley discloses the deflector plate according to claim 13, comprising a radiused area (near 316. Fig. 12) in each of the plurality of deflector grooves at radial outermost edges of the deflector surface.
With respect to claim 18, Bentley discloses wherein the deflector surface and the plurality of deflector grooves are disposed on a nozzle-facing (upward) side of the deflector plate.
With respect to claim 19, Bentley discloses a sprinkler (Figs. 1-12) comprising:
a base unit (holder of 150 and 210. Figs. 2, 7 and 8) coupleable with a source of water under pressure (108. [0028]);
a nozzle (200) disposed in the base unit; and
a deflector plate (230) coupled with the base unit and disposed facing the nozzle, the deflector plate including:
a deflector surface (Figs. 8 and 9. Surfaces surrounded by the “cylindrical exterior.” See Fig. 8 with additional annotations below) disposed at a center of the deflector plate (230), the deflector surface comprising either (1) a flat planar surface free of slope or curvature (six lower flat tip end near 246. See Fig. 8 with additional annotations below), or (2) a rounded convex surface (See Fig. 8 with additional annotations below), the deflector surface (from 246 to 248) being free of additional diverting structure;
a plurality of deflector grooves (232) extending radially outward from the deflector surface,
wherein the deflector surface is configured such that a water stream exiting the nozzle impacts the (center of) deflector surface is deflected outward by the deflector surface into the plurality of deflector grooves (Fig. 3 and “flows of liquid (shown with arrows F).” [0037]).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that reference numeral 246 of Bentley cannot be interpreted as "central opening" because “Entrance 246” is the entrance portion of the conduits 232. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Every word in a claim must be considered when determining its scope and patentability. In other words, one cannot make a narrow understanding of portion of the rejection, out of context, and ignores other parts of the claim because the claims are rejected “as a whole.” As elaborated in the previous and current rejection, Bentley discloses a deflector plate (230. Figs. 1-12) for a sprinkler assembly (200), the deflector plate comprising: a central opening (246. Fig. 9) with a plurality of notches (six triangular notches near 246) extending radially outward (from X axis). Therefore, the central opening is collectively defined by the six entrances 246 and the plurality of notches (six triangular notches near 246). The rejection is not limited to the subset (one sentence of the claim) the applicant is addressing. The rejection must be read and understood “as a whole.”
The applicant further argues that Bentley FIG. 8 do not establish that the identified regions constitute the claimed “flat planar deflector surface” and the flat deflector surface itself receives and redirects the incoming stream.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). MPEP § 2125. In the instant case, the identified regions provide more than one “flat planar deflector surface” and the “flat deflector surface” itself receives and redirects the incoming stream.
The applicant also argues that Bentley fails to disclose a rounded convex surface, the deflector surface (from 246 to 248) being free of additional diverting structure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Fig. 8 with additional annotations above, Bentley discloses six rounded convex surfaces and portion of the deflector surface, from 246 to 248, is being free of additional diverting structure.
With respect to claim 4, the Applicant argues that Bentley does not disclose that conduits 232 may be shaped and sized to facilitate rotation of impeller 230. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, paragraph [0046] of Bentley discloses “…Further, the curved shape of concave surface 256 and convex surface 258 can facilitate rotation of impeller 230 about the axis of rotation X by directing flows of liquid F…” Second, the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). MPEP § 2125.
With respect to claim 8, the Applicant argues that the claim requires only one circular flat deflector surface, not multiple discontinuous surfaces arranged circumferentially about an axis. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. No such limitations (only one circular flat deflector surface) can be found in the claimed invention. Second, the term “circular” is defined as 1a. “having the form of a circle” and 2b. “having a circular base or bases.” Merriam-Webster.com. Therefore, the term “circular” does not specifically requires a perfect circle. The term “circular” refers to having a shape or form akin to a circle or partial circle.
With respect to claim 10, the Applicant raises no new issue. Applicant's arguments directed to claim 10 have been addressed in Claim 1 section above.
With respect to claim 12, the Applicant argues that Bentley fails to disclose “the deflector surface is disposed at a center of the deflector plate.” The applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot due to the new interpretation of the Bentley reference. The deflector surface is now being interpreted as surfaces surrounded by the “cylindrical exterior.” See Fig. 8 with additional annotations above. Bentley further discloses the deflector surface is configured such that a water stream impacting the (center of) deflector surface is deflected (in the direction) outward by the deflector surface into the plurality of deflector grooves. See new rejection elaborated above.
With respect to claim 14, the Applicant argues that Bentley fails to disclose the deflector plate according to claim 13, comprising a radiused area in each of the plurality of deflector grooves at radial outermost edges of the deflector surface. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Fig. 12 with additional annotation below:
PNG
media_image2.png
280
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19, the Applicant raises no new issue. Applicant's arguments directed to claim 19 have been addressed in Claim 12 section above. As for the water stream exiting the nozzle must impact the claimed deflector surface and be deflected outward by that deflector surface into the deflector grooves, Similar to the explanation above, when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). MPEP § 2125. In the instant case, the identified regions of Bentley is capable of performing the function recited in claim 19. Furthermore, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See: MPEP §2114. A recitation of function may not distinguish over the prior art since an apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what it does.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights