Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/368,115

ROTATING IRRIGATION SCREEN APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 14, 2023
Examiner
GURTOWSKI, RICHARD C
Art Unit
1773
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BLUE ARC IRON WORKS, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
541 granted / 755 resolved
+6.7% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
790
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 755 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION For this Office action, Claims 1-20 are pending. 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 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 3 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 3, dependent on Claim 1, recites “a band that…protrudes from both sides of the panel”; however, this limitation is considered indefinite because the claims have not established sides of the panel. This issue further renders Claim 3 indefinite because the claim language is unclear where or how the belt can protrude from both sides of the panel when no sides have been established (especially since a panel could have more than two sides). For purposes of this examination, the examiner will consider any exposure of the belt beyond the panel to be protruding from a side of the panel. Claim 4 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 4 recites “wherein the panel mirrors the shape and size of the frame”, wherein this limitation is considered indefinite because the claim language is unclear to what extent the panel must mirror the shape and size of the frame to read on the claim. Mirroring seems to suggest the panel must have the exact shape and size of the frame, which—if so—would make the panel basically a duplicate of the frame (and therefore not a panel, yet another frame); the claim is therefore unclear to what extent such mirroring needs to take place to read on the claim. Furthermore, the specification does not seem to address the issue of mirroring. Applicant is urged to address this issue in the response to this Office action, wherein a prior art rejection may still be possible if amendments to the claim overcome this issue. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will not currently give patentable weight to Claim 4. Claims 13-20 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. Independent Claims 13 (upon which Claims 14-19 are dependent) and 20 both recite a “drum comprising a rod that is positionable in the bearing tube”; however, this limitation is considered indefinite because the claim language is unclear whether the drum or the rod is positionable within the bearing tube. The claim is unclear whether the entire drum should be positionable within the bearing tube or only a rod associated with the drum, wherein this issue is further compounded by the lack of any additional limitations addressing the structure of the rod/drum and its association with the bearing tube. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the drum must be connected to the bearing tube via the claimed rod. 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. Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lenhart et al. (herein referred to as “Lenhart”, US Pat Pub. 2003/0010705). Regarding instant Claim 1, Lenhart discloses a rotating irrigation screen apparatus (Abstract; Figures 1-2; Paragraph [0005]; Paragraph [0019]; Paragraph [0022]; rotary drum filter including at least screen mesh 36) comprising: a frame comprising a motor (Figure 1; Paragraph [0020]; motor 46 and gear box/speed reducer 47; connection between two and rest of device is a frame); a panel fastened to the frame, the panel comprising a drum aperture (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0019]; Paragraph [0024]; laterally spaced side walls 24 and 25 and flanges 70 and 71, both attached to each other; drum aperture in opening for drum 30); a second frame coupled to the panel (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0020]; drive shaft 48; sprocket 50 and other attachments such as chains 45); a bearing tube coupled to the second frame (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0020]; drive shaft 48 comprising at least bearing 52); a drum rotatably coupled to the bearing tube (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraphs [0019]-[0020]; drum 30 including cylindrical body 32 connected to drive shaft 48 via chains 45); and a belt tensioner (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0020]; sprockets 44 and 50 create tension with chains 45). Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lenhart further discloses comprising a mounting bracket that couples to the frame and that receives the motor (Figure 1; Paragraph [0020]; see mounting of gear box to side wall 24 via bearing opposite that of 52 in Figure 1). Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lenhart further comprises a band that circumscribes the drum aperture and protrudes from both sides of the panel (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0019]; Paragraph [0020]; Paragraph [0024]; chains 45 protrude from both sides of at least flange 70/71). Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lenhart further comprises a belt cover that conceals the belt tensioner (Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]; side walls 24, 25 and particularly flanges 70,71 and seals 42/43 conceal sprocket 44). Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lenhart further discloses wherein the bearing tube comprises one or more bearings (Paragraph [0020]; bearing 52 attached to drive shaft 48). Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 1, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lenhart further discloses comprising a spray bar with a lever that allows water to flow through the spray bar (Figure 1; Paragraph [0025]; spray pipe 56 and nozzles 58). Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 1, upon which Claim 9 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lenhart further discloses wherein the belt tensioner comprises a first bracket (Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]; see adjustable flanges 70,71 connected to sprockets 44 via seals 42,43). Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 9, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lenhart further discloses wherein the first bracket couples to a first bolt, the first bolt being coupled to a mounting bracket (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0025]; stud 55 and pipe bracket 54 both attach to flange 70). Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 9, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lenhart further discloses wherein a belt guide roller couples to the first bracket and interacts with a belt to increase or decrease tension on the belt that wraps around the drum (Figure 1; Paragraph [0020]; see guide 44’, provides guidance to other laterally spaced chain 45, increasing or decreasing tension based on motion of other chain). Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 1, upon which Claim 12 is dependent, has been rejected above. Lenhart further discloses wherein the drum is secured to the bearing tube via a drum fastener (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0020]; chains 45 serve to fasten drum 30 to drive shaft/bearing tube 48). 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. 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenhart et al. (herein referred to as “Lenhart”, US Pat Pub. 2003/0010705) in view of Purtrell, US 3298388. Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. However, Lenhart is silent on the bearing tube comprising one or more drain apertures that allow water to drain therefrom. Purtrell discloses a draining sprinkler connector in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of providing agricultural irrigation (Col. 1, Lines 23-25). Purtrell further discloses a tube comprising one or more drain apertures in order to ensure that any water entrained within the tube is removed (Col. 2, Lines 63-72; see pipe and drains). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bearing tube of Lenhart to further comprise the one or more drain apertures that allow water to drain therefrom as taught by Purtrell because Purtrell discloses such drain apertures ensure that any water entrained within the tube is removed (Purtrell, Col. 2, Lines 63-72). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT. 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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 270-0475. 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. /RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 02/07/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595192
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ALKALINE WATER HAVING PH STABILITY AND INCREASED MINERAL CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590021
System and Methods for Wastewater Treatment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590983
Fluid Device And Method For Controlling Fluid Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12565434
PREVENTION OF SILICA FOULING IN GEOTHERMAL BRINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559301
MEMBER, CONTAINER, CHEMICAL LIQUID STORAGE BODY, REACTOR, DISTILLATION COLUMN, FILTER UNIT, STORAGE TANK, PIPE LINE, AND CHEMICAL LIQUID MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 755 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