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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manor (US Pat No 4,512,517).
Re claim 1, Manor shows an extendable sprinkler (Figs. 1 & 3) comprising:
a support conduit (17) comprising an inflow portion (18) configured to be connected to a water supply conduit (abstract) and an outflow portion (col. 4, lines 14-17);
a riser conduit (16) extending through an opening of the outflow portion of the support conduit (17);
a sprinkler nozzle (52) connected to the riser conduit (16) configured to expel water that passes through the support conduit (17) and the riser conduit (16) to the sprinkler nozzle (52); and
an annular stretchable bladder (3) comprising a smooth and cylindrical outer surface, a proximal portion (at 4) connected to the support conduit (17) and a distal portion (at 2) connected to the riser conduit (16) or the sprinkler nozzle, configured to stretch axially when the riser (16) moves from a retracted position to an extended position under force of water (col. 2, lines 56-68 through col. 3, lines 1-30) flowing through the water supply conduit (abstract) and the riser conduit (16).
Re claim 2, Manor shows a resilient member (9) mounted between (col. 2, lines 56-59) the riser conduit (16) and the support conduit (17) configured to move the riser conduit (16) from the extended position to the retracted position.
Re claim 3, Manor shows the resilient member comprises a helical spring (9).
Re claim 4, Manor shows the riser conduit (16) comprises a distal flange portion (2) extending radially outwardly from an open distal end (1) of the riser conduit, and
wherein the annular stretchable bladder (3) is connected to a peripheral edge of the distal flange portion (2).
Re claim 5, Manor shows the annular stretchable bladder (3) encloses (Fig. 3) the outflow portion (col. 4, lines 14-17) of the support conduit (17) to prevent liquids and debris from entering the support conduit (17) through the opening of the outflow portion of the support conduit (17).
Re claim 7, Manor shows in the retracted position (Fig. 1), the extendable sprinkler is configured to be entirely below ground level (col. 2, lines 13-14 & col. 4, lines 61-64).
Re claim 10, Manor shows the sprinkler nozzle (52) comprises a perforated cover (53) or disk positioned over an open distal portion (at 1) of the riser conduit (16).
Re claim 12, Manor shows a drainage and sprinkler system (col. 2, lines 10-13), comprising:
a plurality of extendable sprinklers (Figs. 1 & 3), each of which comprise:
a support conduit (17) comprising an inflow portion (18) configured to be connected to a water supply conduit (abstract) and an outflow portion (col. 4, lines 14-17);
a riser conduit (16) extending through an opening of the outflow portion of the support conduit (17);
a sprinkler nozzle (52) connected to the riser conduit (16) configured to expel water that passes through the support conduit (17) and the riser conduit (16) to the sprinkler nozzle (52); and
an annular stretchable bladder (3) comprising a smooth and cylindrical outer surface, a proximal portion (at 4) connected to the support conduit (17) and a distal portion (at 2) connected to the riser conduit (16) or the sprinkler nozzle, configured to stretch axially when the riser conduit (16) moves from a retracted position to an extended position under force of water (col. 2, lines 56-68 through col. 3, lines 1-30) flowing through the water supply conduit (abstract) and the riser conduit (16); and
at least one water supply conduit fluidly connected to the plurality of extendable sprinklers configured to deliver water from a water source to the support conduits of the plurality of extendable sprinklers (col. 2, lines 10-13),
wherein the plurality of extendable sprinklers (Fig. 1) are in the extended position when the water is provided to the plurality of sprinklers from the water source (col. 4, lines 65-68 through col. 5, lines 1-9), and
wherein the plurality of extendable sprinklers (Fig. 1) are in the retracted position when the water is not provided to the plurality of extendable sprinklers from the water source (col. 4, lines 65-68 through col. 5, lines 1-9).
Re claim 21, Manor shows the annular stretchable bladder (3) is free from one or more of seams, openings, holes, gaps, protrusions, convolutions, corrugations, or ridges (the walls of the bladder shown in Manor are free from seams, openings, holes, gaps, protrusions, convolutions, corrugations, or ridges).
Re claim 22, Manor shows the annular stretchable bladder (3) is inflatable.
Re claim 23, Manor shows the outer surface of the annular stretchable bladder (3) is flush with (at 4 and 2 respectively) an outer surface of the at least one of the support conduit (17) or the riser conduit (16).
Re claim 24, Manor shows the annular stretchable bladder (3) is configured not to extend radially or bulge by any appreciable amount as the riser moves from the retracted position to the extended position.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katzman et al. (US Pub No 20070095935 A1).
Re claim 25, Katzman et al. shows an extendable sprinkler (Figs. 8A & 8B) comprising:
a support conduit (392/394) comprising an inflow portion (see annotated figure) configured to be connected to a water supply conduit (see annotated figure) and an outflow portion (414);
a riser conduit (400) extending through an opening of the outflow portion (414) of the support conduit (392/394);
a sprinkler nozzle (Fig. 1, 62/92) connected to the riser conduit configured to expel water that passes through the support conduit and the riser conduit to the sprinkler nozzle; and
an annular stretchable bladder (386) comprising a smooth and cylindrical outer surface, a proximal portion (388) connected to the support conduit (392/394), and a distal portion (398) connected to the riser conduit (400) or the sprinkler nozzle, configured to stretch axially (paragraph 0106) when the riser moves from a retracted position (Fig. 8A) to an extended position (Fig. 8B) under force of water flowing through the water supply conduit (392/394) and the riser conduit (400);
the annular stretchable bladder (386) encloses an annular space (Fig. 8B, inside 386) between an inner surface of the annular stretchable bladder (386) and an outer surface of the riser conduit (400), and wherein water from the water supply conduit (see annotated figure) flows into the annular space and into the riser conduit (400).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manor (US Pat No 4,512,517).
Re claim 6, Manor discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the annular stretchable bladder comprises at least one of silicone, neoprene, isoprene, rubber, or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the annular inflatable bladder comprise at least one of silicone, neoprene, isoprene, rubber, or any combination thereof, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed materials.
Re claim 9, Manor discloses the claimed invention except for an axial length of the riser conduit is about 3.0 inches to about 12 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give the riser conduit an axial length of about 3.0 inches to about 12 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the height that the riser conduit reaches which achieves the recognized result of raising above the height of the plants in the field (Manor – col. 4, lines 37-42), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed range.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manor (US Pat No 4,512,517) in view of Strecker (DE 4103271 C1).
Re claim 13, Manor discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach at least one extendable drain at least partially buried below a ground surface, the at least one extendable drain comprising an inflow port connected to the water supply conduit configured to permit the water to pass from the water supply conduit to an interior of the at least one extendable drain causing the at least one extendable drain to move between a retracted position and an extended position.
However, Strecker shows at least one extendable drain (16) at least partially buried below a ground surface (36), the at least one extendable drain comprising an inflow port (40) connected to the water supply conduit configured to permit the water to pass from the water supply conduit to an interior of the at least one extendable drain (16) causing the at least one extendable drain to move between a retracted position and an extended position (“double arrow” in the figure & col. 2, lines 34-41).
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 provide the system of Manor with the at least one extendable drain taught by Strecker to separate out substances whose specific weight is larger or smaller than the specific weight of the liquid (Strecker – col. 1, lines 3-7).
Re claim 14, Manor as modified by Strecker show the at least one extendable drain comprises:
a housing (Strecker - 32) comprising a top (Strecker – at 34), a bottom (Strecker - at 44), and a sidewall (Strecker - at 32) extending between the top and the bottom of the housing comprising an annular stretchable sleeve (Strecker - col. 2, lines 61-63), the housing defining an interior volume (Strecker - inside 32) configured to be at least partially filled by the water from the water supply conduit causing the annular stretchable sleeve (Strecker - 32) to stretch axially thereby increasing a distance between the top of the housing and the bottom of the housing; and
a drain member (Strecker - 22) comprising an open top fixed to the top (Strecker - at 34) of the housing (Strecker - 32), an open bottom (Strecker - at 44), and a sidewall (Strecker - at 22) extending between the top and the bottom of the drain member through the interior volume of the housing,
wherein at least partially filling the interior volume of the housing moves the drain member axially causing the annular stretchable sleeve to stretch, thereby increasing the distance between the top of the housing and the bottom of the housing to move the at least one extendable drain from the retracted position to the extended position (Strecker - “double arrow” in the figure & col. 2, lines 34-41).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or render obvious the automatic activation system in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments directed toward the amended claim language, specifically the terms “smooth” and “stretch,” it should first be noted that applicant’s specification provides no special definitions for either of these terms. Applicant’s specification provides examples which vary in scope and are not considered binding as these are merely examples. Applicant quotes said examples, for instance paragraph 0069 of applicant’s specification describes the term “smooth” in regards to surfaces as “free from seams, openings, holes, gaps, or any other areas that would allow sand, silt, and other debris to enter the interior of the devices.” To which, the bellows present in Manor is explicitly and clearly free of “seams, openings, holes, gaps, or any other areas that would allow sand, silt, and other debris to enter the interior of the devices.” Next, paragraph 0073 of applicant’s specification states “the annular sleeve 32 can have a substantially smooth (e.g., cylindrical) outer surface that is substantially free from protrusions, convolutions, corrugations, ridges, or other surfaces that may inhibit the sleeve 32 from moving through dirt or sand as the drain 10 extends or retracts.” It should be noted that the bellows present in Manor is clearly cylindrical and uninhibited from extending or retracting, but further the surfaces of the bellows itself are also free from protrusions, convolutions, corrugations, and ridges as readily seen in figure 3.
No examples are provided for the term “stretch.” Applicant merely contends that the bellows in Manor “comprises the folds or corrugations that unfold as the telescoping unit extends.” However, Merriam-Webster provides numerous definitions for the term “stretch” such as “to reach out: extend,” “to extend in length,” “to pull taut,” “to enlarge or distend especially by force,” and “to extend or expand as if by physical force.” This is a non-exhaustive list, to which, the bellows in Manor fits all of these definitions and therefore can be said to “stretch” as claimed.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
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 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
Prosecution Insights