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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the amount of shading present reduces legibility. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84, paragraph m. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavrin et al. (RU 166251 U1) in view of Fabiano (US Pat No 5,772,118).
Re claim 1, Shavrin et al. show a garden sprinkler protecting rack (Fig. 2), wherein the protecting rack is a hollow cone (10; see translation p.3, lines 8-9 – “made in the form of a truncated hollow hemisphere”) with a smaller top and a larger bottom, so that an interior of the protecting rack provides a stacking space; the protecting rack has a top portion with a flange having a through hole (p. 3, line 8 – “with a through hole a the upper end”) and a lower portion of the protecting rack has a plurality of dividing openings (between 11) which forms a respective supporting foot (11) between each dividing opening.
Shavrin et al. does not teach the protecting rack is covered with a carbon fiber texture, the carbon fiber texture providing light reflection.
However, Fabiano shows a rack covered with a carbon fiber texture (col. 2, lines 65-66), the carbon fiber texture providing light reflection.
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 rack shown in Shavrin et al. made out of carbon fiber as taught by Fabiano to provide corrosion resistance (Fabiano – col. 3, line 1).
Re claim 2, Shavrin et al. as modified by Fabiano teach the carbon fiber texture is disposed on an outer surface of the protecting rack (Fabiano – col. 2, lines 65-66).
Re claim 3, Shavrin et al. as modified by Fabiano teach both an inner surface and an outer surface of the protecting rack are covered by the carbon fiber texture (Fabiano – col. 2, lines 65-66).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavrin et al. (RU 166251 U1) in view of Fabiano (US Pat No 5,772,118) and further in view of Sapatova (US Pat No 6,886,660 B2).
Re claims 4 & 5, Shavrin et al. as modified by Fabiano disclose every aspect of the claimed invention but do not teach wherein each supporting foot further has an indentation or a convex part for reinforcement.
However, Sapatova shows a plurality of supporting feet (Fig. 3, 56a), each including an indentation (40) and a convex part (42).
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 have each supporting foot for Shavrin et al. as modified by Fabiano include an indentation and a convex part as taught by Sapatova to provide alignment for the supporting feet when stacking.
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