Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 fixing part” in claim 8. This is being interpreted to mean the part of the irrigation device that connects the hose to the tee joint.
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.
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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlberg (4365750) in view of Lo (9439365).
Regarding claim 1, Carlberg discloses an irrigation spraying device, comprising: a tee joint (20, fig 2), a ground picket (17, fig 2), a spraying head (23, fig 2), and two quick connectors (21, fig 2); wherein the spraying head is disposed on a top portion of the tee joint and configured to spray water for irrigation; wherein the two quick connectors are disposed on two sides of the tee joint respectively and configured to be connected with water hoses respectively; wherein a top portion of the ground picket is provided with an engaging portion (part of 17 that connects to the tee portion 20, fig 2) configured to connect with the tee joint.
Carlberg does not disclose the engaging portion comprises at least one clip, a top end of each of the at least one clip is open, and the ground picket is configured to be connected with the tee joint through the at least one clip.
Lo teaches an irrigation spike (1, fig 1) wherein the engaging portion (12, fig 1) comprises at least one clip (filled portion, annotated fig 4 below), a top end of each of the at least one clip is open (annotated fig 4), and the ground picket is configured to be connected with the tee joint through the at least one clip (the tee rests within the clip, fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ground picket engaging portion disclosed by Carlberg by having the engaging portion connect to the tee through a clip based on the teachings of Lo. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the engagement portion clip on would simplify manufacturing, allowing for the connection of two simple structures rather than one complex structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Carlberg discloses wherein a shape of the ground picket is a conical plate-shaped structure, and two sides of the ground picket are provided with reinforcing ribs (fig 2, the plates form reinforcing ribs and the shape tapers down in a conical structure to the end).
Regarding claim 3, Carlberg does not disclose wherein each of the two quick connectors comprises: a sealing ring, a fixing part, and a snap cover; the snap cover is defined with a through hole matched with the fixing part, and the sealing ring is sleeved in the snap cover; the fixing part comprises a snap ring configured to connect with the water hose, and elastic snap claws; and the snap claws are disposed around an axis of the snap ring and configured to be inserted in the through hole of the snap cover.
Lo teaches an irrigation device (2, fig 1), wherein the irrigation device comprises a tee with two quick connectors (211, 215, fig 1) wherein each of the two quick connectors comprises: a sealing ring (27, fig 8), a fixing part (26, fig 8), and a snap cover (25a, fig 8); the snap cover is defined with a through hole (fig 7) matched with the fixing part, and the sealing ring is sleeved in the snap cover (fig 8, the sealing ring is between the snap cover and the fixing part); the fixing part comprises a snap ring (211a, fig 1) configured to connect with the water hose, and elastic snap claws (26a, col 5, lines 5-13); and the snap claws are disposed around an axis of the snap ring (fig 8, these are all disposed through the same axis) and configured to be inserted in the through hole of the snap cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quick connection portion disclosed by Carlberg by using the hose quick connection portion of Lo. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an outer clamping method such as the one used by Lo can maintain connection for higher flow pressures and thus would be preferred in larger irrigation systems.
Regarding claim 4, Carlberg discloses wherein the spraying head is in threaded fit (22, fig 2) with the tee joint.
Regarding claim 5, Carlberg discloses an adjusting part (34, fig 2) disposed between the spraying head and the tee joint, wherein the adjusting part is sleeved in the spraying head, the adjusting part is disposed with an elastic structure (30, fig 2), and the adjusting part is defined with a plurality of water outlet grooves (33, fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Carlberg discloses a connecting part (18, fig 2) disposed between the spraying head and the tee joint; wherein the connecting part is provided with a mounting end (end near 21, fig 2) configured to connect with the tee joint, and a threaded end (22, fig 2) configured to connect with the spraying head.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlberg in view of Lo, Lin (11480275), and Auguste (US-Pub 2019/0141916).
Regarding claim 8, Carlberg discloses an irrigation spraying device, comprising: a tee joint (20, fig 2); a ground picket (17, fig 2), wherein the ground picket comprises an engaging portion (part connecting to 21, fig 2), and the tee joint is engageable with ground picket through the engaging portion; a spraying head (23, fig 2), detachably connected on the tee joint; and quick connectors (21, fig 2), connected on two sides of the tee joint (1) respectively.
Carlberg does not disclose wherein the quick connectors are detachably connected on two sides of the tee joint respectively; wherein each of the quick connectors comprises: a sealing ring, a fixing part, and a snap cover; wherein the sealing ring is configured to sleeve in the snap cover; wherein the fixing part comprises a snap ring and a plurality of snap claws, and the plurality of snap claws are configured to be driven close to an axis of the snap ring during tightening a connection of the snap cover with the tee joint in a situation that an end of a water hose is sleeved in the snap and the plurality of snap claws are inserted in a through hole of the snap cover, thereby making the water hose fit with the tee joint.
Lo teaches an irrigation device (2, fig 1), wherein the irrigation device comprises a tee with two quick connectors (211, 215, fig 1) wherein the quick connectors are detachably connected on two sides of the tee joint (2, fig 3) respectively; wherein each of the quick connectors comprises: a fixing part (26, fig 8), and a cover (25, fig 8); wherein the fixing part comprises a connection ring (211a, fig 8) and a plurality of snap claws (26a 26b, fig 7 it can be seen that the snap claws have a plurality of claws spread around the circumference), and the plurality of snap claws are configured to be driven close to an axis of the connection ring during tightening a connection of the cover (fig 8, when a hose or cap like 28 is threaded into the connector, the snap claws 26a/b are driven further in to create a stable connection) with the tee joint in a situation that an end of a water hose (a water hose would be inserted in the same manner as 28 in fig 8, see B/C, fig 10) is sleeved in the connection ring and the plurality of snap claws are inserted in a through hole of the snap cover (fig 7 vs fig 8), thereby making the water hose fit with the tee joint.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quick connection portion disclosed by Carlberg by using the hose quick connection portion of Lo. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an outer clamping method such as the one used by Lo can maintain connection for higher flow pressures and thus would be preferred in larger irrigation systems.
Lin teaches a hose connector with a sealing ring (27, fig 3), wherein the sealing ring is configured to sleeve in the snap cover (13, fig 3) of the connection device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quick connection portion disclosed by Carlberg and Lo by using a sealing ring sleeved into the cover of Carlsberg and Lo based on the teachings of Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a sealing ring around a hose connection is a cheap and effective method of minimizing potential leakage.
Auguste teaches wherein a hose connection for an irrigation sprayer can be a snap on (par. 0046) rather than a threaded connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quick connection portion disclosed by Carlberg and Lo by using a snap cover that connects to a snap ring on the fixing part rather than the threaded cover of Carlsberg and Lo based on the teachings of Auguste. Auguste teaches these as being functionally equivalent embodiments (par. 0046), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one could be used instead of the other based upon part and machining availability.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlberg as modified by Lo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roide (US-Pub 2011/0000976)
Regarding claim 7, Carlberg as modified by Lo does not disclose wherein a side edge of the spraying head (3) is provided with a plurality of water outlets (33) disposed around a central line of the spraying head (3).
Roide teaches an irrigation emitter (20, fig 6) wherein a side edge of the spraying head is provided with a plurality of water outlets (arrows leading out of the emitter head 20, fig 6) disposed around a central line of the spraying head (going vertically along the centerline of the emitter and ground spike, fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emitter head disclosed by Carlberg as modified by Lo by having the emitter head have a plurality of water outlets around the side edge rather than one on the top based on the teachings of Roid. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that spraying water upward can waste water as it is carried off by wind or can cause water to land on leaves increasing risk of infection, so spraying from the sides can reduce the risk of these negative outcomes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights