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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) 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.
Claim 5 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the claim fails to specify where the ”at least one interchangeable head being a pipe nipple extractor” is connected to the sprinkler removal tool. As claim 5 depends upon claim 1, and claim 1 requires, inter alia, a U-shaped head attached to the elongate handle, it begs the question as to where the “interchangeable head” would be attached to the tool.
The term “pipe nipple extractor” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pipe nipple extractor” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “pipe nipple extractor” is a generic name for component that does not explicitly define a specific set of physical characteristics.
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, 7-9, 11, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 1,962,534 A to (SWEETLAND).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, noting Fig. 4, (SWEETLAND) discloses a sprinkler removal tool (“a key or wrench”) comprising: an elongate handle comprising an elongate shaft 24; and a U-Shaped head attached to the elongate handle, the U-Shaped head comprising two opposing prongs extending in a direction generally parallel to the handle, wherein the U-shaped head comprises a cross support and two arms forming the U-shape, wherein said cross support is configured with a width to extend across a center of a gear drive sprinkler cap, wherein said arms are configured to extend beneath said center to engage depressions in said cap, wherein rotation of said handle causes rotation of said cap relative to the body of the gear drive sprinkler (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, handle comprises two opposing hand grips extending in opposite directions from said elongate shaft.
Regarding claim 8, the elongate shaft has a lengthwise axis parallel to the lengthwise axis of each of said arms of said U-shaped head.
Regarding claim 9, the U-shaped head comprises a continuous piece of metal (assumed).
Regarding claim 11, the U-shaped head is fixedly attached to said handle.
Regarding claim 12, the handle comprises a T-shape.
Regarding claim 15, the arms of said U-shape are parallel to said elongate shaft of said handle.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3259000 A to (LASCH, SR).
Regarding claim 1, (LASCH, SR) discloses a lawn sprinkler head wrench comprising: an elongate handle comprising an elongate shaft 1; and a U-Shaped head attached to the elongate handle, the U-Shaped head comprising two opposing prongs 3, 4 extending in a direction generally parallel to the handle 1, wherein the U-shaped head comprises a cross support (disc 2) and two arms 3, 4 forming the U-shape, wherein said cross support 2 is configured with a width to extend across a center (movable center 12) of a gear drive sprinkler cap (sprinkler head flange 13), wherein said arms 3, 4 are configured to extend beneath said center 12 to engage depressions in said cap, wherein rotation of said handle causes rotation of said cap relative to the body of the gear drive sprinkler (Col. 2, lines 3-53).
Regarding claim 7, the handle comprises two opposing hand grips extending in opposite directions from said elongate shaft.
PNG
media_image2.png
700
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the elongate shaft has a lengthwise axis parallel to the lengthwise axis of each of said arms of said U-shaped head.
Regarding claim 12, the handle comprises a T-shape.
Regarding claim 15, the arms of said U-shape are parallel to said elongate shaft of said handle.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (SWEETLAND), as applied to claim 1, as being obvious in view of US 6,840,140 B1 to (Wenacur).
(SWEETLAND), as applied to claim 1, provides a sprinkler removal tool having the features claimed, except that the head is apparently fixed to the elongate shaft rather than being removably attached.
PNG
media_image3.png
352
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
314
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Wenacur) provides a tool having, inter alia, an elongate handle comprising an elongate shaft 38, 67; and a head 31 attached to the elongate handle, the head comprising two opposing prongs (projecting pins 32 and 34) extending in a direction generally parallel to the handle, wherein the head comprises a cross support 31 and two arms (projecting pins 32 and 34) forming a U-shape, and teaches that the head 31 is removable from the elongate handle (in the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 6, elongate shafts 38 and 67 have a stud 70 and 80, respectively, and the head 31 has a square socket 72 to removably receive the respective stud 70 or 80.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sprinkler tool of (SWEETLAND) by providing a removable interface between the elongate shaft and the U-shaped head, such as the stud and square socket interface as taught by (Wenacur), and having the predictable result of providing a sprinkler tool with a replaceable or interchangeable head for use in different applications.
Claim(s) 1 and 5, as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,349,624 B1 to (Fahringer).
(Fahringer) provides a sprinkler tool having an elongate handle (crossbar 36) comprising an elongate shaft (rectangular handle stem 34) and a head (body 20). The head (body 20) has two opposing ends (extractor end 24 and opposite end 28) that are interchangeable by rotating the body 20 that is connected to the elongate shaft 34 via a pivot pin (Figs. 1 and 2; Col. 4, lines 5-30) wherein extractor end 24 is complimentary in diameter to standard sprinkler pipes and fittings, including sprinkler heads, for insertion into a head, riser, nipple, pipe or the like for tightening and loosening head-to-riser, riser-to-pipe, nipple-to-riser or other connections, and for extracting sprinkler heads, nipples, risers and other joint or pipe members. Referring to Fig. 3, (Fahringer) teaches that “on the side of the body 20 opposite the side to which the handle is attached, in the generally central portion thereof, the tool has two spaced projections 38 separated by a flattened region 40 (i.e., forming a U-shaped head), thereby providing a spanner type wrench for the removal or tightening of sprinkler heads or
PNG
media_image5.png
234
353
media_image5.png
Greyscale
other sprinkler system components.” (Col. 4, lines 30-36)
PNG
media_image6.png
382
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
While (Fahringer) does not explicitly state that the head(s) are interchangeable, (Fahringer) teaches the combination of a sprinkler removal tool with both a “U-shaped” head for engaging depressions in a sprinkler cap, and a pipe nipple extractor; thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sprinkler tool of (Fahringer) by providing individual heads (bodies 20) wherein at least one of which has a U-shape for engaging depressions in a sprinkler cap, and at least one of the other heads has a pipe nipple extractor.
PNG
media_image7.png
373
268
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (SWEETLAND), as applied to claim 1 above, as being obvious in view of (Fahringer).
(SWEETLAND), as applied to claim 1, provides a sprinkler removal tool having the features claimed, except that the head and handle appear to be constructed as one piece, rather than the head and handle being attached to one another by a threaded attachment.
(Fahringer), previously discussed, provides a sprinkler tool wherein, in the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 2, that “a handle crossbar 36 is fixedly, threadably attached to the other end of the stem and secured there by a set screw (FIG. 2).” (Col. 4, lines 27-29), thus suggesting that “a threaded attachment” is an obvious means for attaching tool components.
PNG
media_image8.png
382
410
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sprinkler tool of (SWEETLAND) by, as an alternative means of construction, providing a threaded attachment for attaching the elongate handle to the U-shaped head, as demonstrated in (Fahringer).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (SWEETLAND) or (LASCH, SR), as applied to claim 1 above, as being obvious in view of US 10,627,009 B2 to (Shiner).
(SWEETLAND) or (LASCH, SR), as applied to claim 1 above, provide a sprinkler removal tool according to the claim, except for failing to disclose that the U-shaped head comprises aluminum.
(Shiner) provides a water shut-off valve tool 50 having, inter alia, an elongate handle comprising an elongate shaft 54; and a U-Shaped head (tool tip 56) attached to the elongate handle, the U-Shaped head comprising two opposing prongs extending in a direction generally parallel to the handle, wherein the U-shaped head comprises a cross support and two arms forming the U-shape; and, (Shiner) teaches: “the tool 50 is made of metal, plastic, a combination of the two, or of other materials. In certain instances, the tool tip 56 is formed as unitary piece of bar, bent into a U-shape. In certain instances, the entire tool 50 is formed as a unitary injection molding of plastic. If metal or partially metal, the metal can be steel with an anti-corrosion treatment (e.g., paint, galvanizing, or other), a corrosion resistant metal (e.g., aluminum alloys, zinc alloys, or other), or another metal.” (Col. 3, lines 16-24)
PNG
media_image9.png
471
314
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified (SWEETLAND) or (LASCH, SR), as applied to claim 1 above, by manufacturing the head of aluminum, as an obvious material choice, as taught by (Shiner).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (SWEETLAND), as applied to claim 1 above, as being obvious in view of US 2021/0348705 A1 to (FRINK et al.).
(SWEETLAND), as applied to claim 1, provides a sprinkler removal tool having the features claimed, except for failing to provide a rubber coating or a plastic coating for the handle.
(FRINK et al.) provide an apparatus having, inter alia, an elongate handle 6 comprising an elongate shaft 8, and teaches “To further enhance the ability to grip and hold the handle 6, the outer surface of the handle 6 can be textured or have a covering. The outer surface of the handle 6 for example can be knurled to reduce slipping of the handle 6 within the hand. For the sake of comfort, the handle 6 can have a covering or coating of plastic, rubber, foam or the like.” (paragraph [0021]).
PNG
media_image10.png
620
475
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
370
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the handle of (SWEETLAND) by providing a coating of plastic or rubber, as taught by (FRINK et al.) enhancing a user’s grip on the handle or improving a user’s comfort while handling the tool.
Conclusion
Based upon cited references above, the invention as claimed lacks novelty and an inventive step.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as describing features related to the pending application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Thomas whose telephone number is (571) 272-4497. The examiner’s e-mail address is: dave.thomas@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 11:30-7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David B. Thomas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DBT/