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 amendment filed December 10th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 10th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the first water conduit and the second water conduit can be accommodated in the two notches to fill the notches” should be revised to “the first water conduit and the second water conduit can be accommodated in the notch of the at least one partition to fill the notch” in ln. 32-33 to retain consistency of terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the front ends" in ln. 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “at least one front end” or “a plurality of front ends” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "these casings" in ln. 19. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to the at least one casing previously introduced in the claim, or if the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that “these casings” are the same feature as the at least one casing previously recited in the claim. The examiner recommends revising “these casings” to “the at least one casing” to retain consistency of terms.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “when the drainage plate and the sprinkler cover are combined, in addition to allowing one of the circulation holes to be connected to the casing, the first water conduit and the second water conduit can be accommodated in the two notches to fill the notches” in ln. 30-33. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the limitation “in addition to allowing” requires the combination of the drainage plate and the sprinkler cover to require one of the circulation holes to be connected to the casing, or if “in addition to allowing” is referring that one of the circulation holes to be connected to the casing is optional when the drainage plate and the sprinkler cover are combined. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the limitation “in addition to allowing” requires the combination of the drainage plate and the sprinkler cover to require one of the circulation holes to be connected to the casing. The examiner suggests revising the limitation “in addition to allowing” to "when the drainage plate and the sprinkler cover are combined, one of the circulation holes can be connected to the casings, and the first water conduit and the second water conduit can be accommodated in the two notches to fill the notches" to rectify the issue.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US Patent 6,905,082).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a garden hose nozzle (entire structure, Fig. 1), comprising a hose nozzle body (10, Figs. 1-2), a water guide base (11, 13, 40, Figs. 1-4), a sprinkler cover (20, Figs. 1-4), and a drainage plate (30, Figs. 1-5),
wherein: the hose nozzle body (10, Figs. 1-2) comprises a water outlet channel (12, Figs. 1, 3-4), and a front of the water outlet channel (front of mouth 12, Figs. 1, 3-4) is enlarged to form a rim (front edge of mouth 12, shown in Fig. 1);
the water guide base (11, 13, 40, Figs. 1-4) has a water flow channel (42, Figs. 1-4) running through (shown in Figs. 1-4) and a shaft (14, Figs. 1, 3-4) extending out (shown in Fig. 1), when the water guide base (11, 13, 40, Figs. 1-4) is combined with the rim (front edge of mouth 12, shown in Figs. 1, 3-4), the water flow channel (42, Figs. 1-4) and the water outlet channel (12, Figs. 1, 3-4) are connected (shown in Figs. 3-4);
the sprinkler cover (20, Figs. 1-4) comprises an annular wall (21, Figs. 1-4), and a front end of the annular wall (front end of peripheral fence 21, shown in Fig. 1) is closed with a panel (front plate structure of head 20, annotated in Fig. 1), so that the drainage plate (30, Figs. 1-5) is combined and fixed on a rear end of the annular wall (rear end of peripheral fence 21, shown in Figs. 1-4);
an axis hole (22, Figs. 1-4, annotated in Fig. 1) is formed in a center of the panel (center of annotated panel, shown in Figs. 1-4) and the drainage plate (30, shown in Figs. 1-4) so that the sprinkler cover (20, Figs. 1-4) combined with the drainage plate (30, shown in Figs. 1-4) can pivot with the shaft (interpreting that the sprinkler cover and the drainage plate pivot around the shaft, 14, Figs. 1, 3-4) of the water guide base (11, 13, 40, Figs. 1-4) by the axis hole (22, cover 30 is secured to head 20 through peripheral skirt 38 to form an integral piece, and center hole 22 is engaged through bore 41 of the buffering plate 40 and threaded to hub 14 to rotatably secure head 20 to sprayer body 10 and allow rotation of the head 20 and cover 30 relative to sprayer body 10 and hub 14, shown in Figs. 3-4, Col. 3, Ln. 31-36, Col. 4, Ln. 13-20, 41-49);
the panel (annotated in Fig. 1) is provided with a first annular shower area (26, Fig. 1), and a second annular shower area (25, Fig. 1) arranged in sequence from the outside to the inside (shown in Fig. 1), the first annular shower area (26, Fig. 1) and the second annular shower area (25, Fig. 1) are covered with a plurality of micro-sprinkling holes (shown in Fig. 1), the sprinkler cover (20, Figs. 1-4) is provided with at least one casing (50, 51, 52, 53, Fig. 2), and the front ends of these casings (front ends of barrels 50, 51, 52, 53, shown in Fig. 2) are respectively penetrated by water spouts (28, Fig. 1, Col. 3, Ln. 56-65) that can produce different water splash shapes (shown in Fig. 1, Col. 3, Ln. 56-65), the casings (50, 51, 52, 53, Fig. 2) are connected by a partition (54, external walls of barrels 50, 51, 52, 53, shown in Fig. 2, Col. 3, Ln. 49-55), and at least one partition (54, external walls of barrels 50, 51, 52, 53, Fig. 2) is provided with a notch (interpreting as an indentation or incision on an edge or surface, Oxford Dictionary, annotated in Fig. 2);
the drainage plate (30, Figs. 1-5) is provided with a plurality of circulation holes (31, Fig. 5) and extends out a first water conduit (34, Figs. 1-2, 5) and a second water conduit (35, Figs. 1-2, 5), front ends of the first water conduit and the second water conduit (front ends of entrances 34, 35, shown in Figs. 1-2, 5) are both closed (entrances 34, 35 may be rotated through rotation of cover 30 and head 20 relative to the sprayer body 10 to selectively allow water to flow to either or both barrels 51, 52, or remain closed, shown in Fig. 5, Col. 4, Ln. 42-58), the first water conduit (34, Figs. 1-2, 5) has at least one first opening (opening within entrance 34, shown in Figs. 1-2) passing through in the direction near the first annular shower area (26, shown in Figs. 1-2) and is provided with a first water retaining plate (38, shown in Figs. 1-2) on the outside (shown in Fig. 1), the second water conduit (35, Figs. 1-2, 5) has at least one second opening (opening within entrance 35, shown in Figs. 1-2) passing through in the direction near the second annular shower area (25, shown in Figs. 1-2) and is provided with a second water retaining plate (annotated in Fig. 1) on the inside (shown in Fig. 1), when the drainage plate (30, Figs. 1-5) and the sprinkler cover (20, Figs. 1-4) are combined (shown in Figs. 3-4), in addition to allowing one of the circulation holes (31, Fig. 5) to be connected to the casing (interpreting as the combination of the drainage plate and the sprinkler cover to require one of the circulation holes to be connected to the casing, 50, 51, 52, 53, shown in Figs. 3-4), the first water conduit (34, Figs. 1-2, 5) and the second water conduit (35, Figs. 1-2, 5) can be accommodated in the two notches (annotated in Fig. 4) to fill the notches (shown in Fig. 4), by rotating the sprinkler cover (20, Figs. 1-4), the garden hose nozzle (entire structure, Fig. 1) can have the functions of an inner ring mist, an outer ring mist coming from the first annular shower area (26, Fig. 1), or other different spray shapes formed by different water spouts (28, rotation of head 20 relative to sprayer body 10 permits formation of various water flowing patterns, shown in Fig. 1, Col. 3, Ln. 56-65, Col. 4, Ln. 27-34); and the inner ring mist and the outer ring mist can function at the same time to increase the spray volume (rotation of the head 20 and the cover 30 can permit water to flow out of both perforations 25 and orifices 26 at the same time, which increases overall spray volume flowing out of head 20, Col. 4, Ln. 42-49).
PNG
media_image1.png
604
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
473
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
737
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses the garden hose nozzle of claim 1. Wu further discloses wherein, inside the rim (front edge of mouth 12, shown in Fig. 1), a water tank (internal space within mouth 12, shown in Figs. 3-4) is separated out from the front end of the water outlet channel (front end of mouth 12, shown in Figs. 3-4), a groove edge (annotated in Fig. 3) of the water tank (internal space within mouth 12, shown in Figs. 3-4) is connected to the water guide base (11, 13, 40, shown in Figs. 3-4), so that the water source can be directed to one side and then sent forward from the water flow channel (indicated by the arrow within mouth 12, shown in Figs. 3-4).
PNG
media_image4.png
790
699
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses the garden hose nozzle of claim 1. Wu further discloses the circulation hole (31, Fig. 5) is formed with a flange (edge of holes 31, shown in Figs. 1-2) extending forward (shown in Figs. 1-2) so that the flange (edge of holes 31, shown in Figs. 1-2) can be connected with the casing (50, 51, 52, 53, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 4, Ln. 27-34, 59-67).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US Patent 6,905,082) in view of Burnworth et al. (US Patent 7,281,673).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses the garden hose nozzle of claim 1. Wu discloses the sprinkler cover (20, Figs. 1-4) drives the drainage plate (30, Figs. 1-5) to rotate (Col. 3, Ln. 31-36, Col. 4, Ln. 13-20, 41-49). However, Wu does not disclose the hose nozzle body is provided with a positioning pin pushed outward by a spring, the rear end of the drainage plate is recessed with at least one positioning hole, and the positioning hole is used to accommodate the a positioning pin when the sprinkler cover drives the drainage plate to rotate, so that the user can feel the halt of the rotation.
Burnworth teaches the hose nozzle body (22, Fig. 1) is provided with a positioning pin (32, Fig. 2) pushed outward by a spring (34, Fig. 2), the rear end of the drainage plate (44, shown in Fig. 3) is recessed with at least one positioning hole (60, Fig. 3), and the positioning hole (60, Fig. 3) is used to accommodate a positioning pin (32, Fig. 2), so that the user can feel the halt of the rotation (Col. 5, Ln. 21-33).
Wu and Burnworth are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of garden hose nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the positioning hole and the positioning pin taught in Burnworth’s garden hose nozzle to Wu’s garden hose nozzle, to have the motivation to provide a user a positive indication that the sprinkler cover is properly positioned with a selected spray station (Burnworth, Col. 4, Ln. 29-38).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US Patent 6,905,082) in view of Kah, III et al. (US Patent 6,237,862, herein referenced to as “Kah”).
In regards to claim 4, Wu discloses the garden hose nozzle of claim 1. However, Wu does not disclose the hose nozzle body and the water guide base are combined by using a high-frequency welding technology. Kah teaches a garden hose nozzle (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising the hose nozzle body (8B, Fig. 1) and the water guide base (8A, Fig. 1) are combined by using a high-frequency welding technology (Col. 3, Ln. 54-60).
Wu and Kah are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of garden hose nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of welding taught in Kah’s garden hose nozzle to Wu’s garden hose nozzle, to have the motivation to secure the hose nozzle body and the water guide base better (Kah, Col. 3, Ln. 54-60). Even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the claim itself, not on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US Patent 6,905,082) in view of Guo (US Patent 6,273,343).
In regards to claim 5, Wu discloses the garden hose nozzle of claim 1. Wu discloses the sprinkler cover (20, Figs. 1-4) and the drainage plate (30, Figs. 1-5) are combined by using welding processes (Col. 4, Ln. 13-20). However, Wu does not explicitly disclose the sprinkler cover and the drainage plate are combined by using a high-frequency welding technology.
Guo teaches the sprinkler cover (10, Figs. 4-6) and the drainage plate (50, Figs. 4-6) are combined by using a high-frequency welding technology (Col. 4, Ln. 1-15).
Wu and Guo are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of garden hose nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of high-frequency welding technology taught in Guo’s garden hose nozzle to Wu’s garden hose nozzle, to have the motivation to solidly secure the sprinkler cover and the drainage plate (Guo, Col. 4, Ln. 1-15). Even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the claim itself, not on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US Patent 6,905,082) in view of Wang et al. (US 20190184409 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Wu discloses the garden hose nozzle of claim 1. However, Wu does not disclose at least one of the casings includes a bubbler. Wang teaches a spray hose nozzle (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising at least one of the casings (external housing surrounding bubbler 3, shown in Fig. 2) includes a bubbler (3, Figs. 1-2).
Wu and Wang are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spray nozzles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the bubbler taught in Wang’s nozzle to Wu’s nozzle, to have the motivation to produces a softer flow of water (Wang, Paragraph 0039).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights