tedDETAILED 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one outlet configured to emit the liquid…the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes of the diffuse configured to deflect the liquid to form a generally rectangular pattern extending from the peripheral side of the diffuser.” Claim 14 recites “at least one outlet arranged to emit liquid…superimposing the spray sub-patterns over one another forms a generally rectangular pattern of the liquid.” Applicant argues the disclosure of paragraph 0032 and Figure 5F. The pattern shown in figure 5F cannot be generated by one outlet. Figure 4B shows the pattern generated by one outlet 122.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes of the diffuser configured to deflect the liquid to form a generally rectangular pattern extending from the peripheral side of the diffuser.” Claim 14 recites “superimposing the spray sub-patterns over one another forms a generally rectangular pattern of the liquid.” The specification discloses, in paragraph 00030, “variation in the angular spacing, size and shape of the vanes results in the differently configured flow channels and thus in the various spraying sub-patterns seen in Figs. 5B – 5E.” Yet the specification provides no details of the angular spacing, size and shape of the vanes. The amount of direction provided by the inventor is very little. One of ordinary skill in the art would be left to try a virtually endless number of permutations in angular spacing, size and shape of the vanes. This constitutes undue experimentation.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-22 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 “a generally rectangular pattern” in lines 15-16. The shape of the pattern limited by the claim is uncertain. Neither the claim nor the specification provides a definition of what constitutes “generally rectangular.” To what degree can a rectangle be changed to constitute “generally rectangular?” The specification asserts rectangular pattern 77. Yet, one of ordinary skill in the art could conclude that the pattern 77 shown in the figures 4A-4C is parabolic or lobe shaped. Absent any guidance on the interpretation of “generally rectangular,” the shape limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “adjacent” in line 3. The term “adjacent” is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. “Adjacent” is a relative term that requires a subjective determination. What may constitute near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not constitute near by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “at least two flow channels” in line 4. The appear to be double inclusion of the “plurality of circumferentially spaced apart flow channels” recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “liquid” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “liquid” recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “or” in line 5. Claim 4 appears to be a Markush type claim. A Markush listing is normally closed ended. See MPEP 2117.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a respective generally rectangular pattern” in lines 2-3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “generally rectangular pattern” recited in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "area size" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "shape" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a generally rectangular pattern” in lines 15-16. The shape of the pattern limited by the claim is uncertain. Neither the claim nor the specification provides a definition of what constitutes “generally rectangular.” To what degree can a rectangle be changed to constitute “generally rectangular?” The specification asserts rectangular pattern 77. Yet, one of ordinary skill in the art could conclude that the pattern 77 shown in the figures 4A-4C is parabolic or lobe shaped. Absent any guidance on the interpretation of “generally rectangular,” the shape limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “multiple flow channels” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “group of flow channels” recited in claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “multiple flow channels” in line 2. It is uncertain what quantity is defined by “multiple.” A multiple of one defines any quantity, rendering the limitation moot.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a respective generally rectangular pattern” in lines 2-3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “generally rectangular pattern” recited in claim 14.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “at least one outlet” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “at least one outlet” recited in claim 14.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “adjacent” in line 3. The term “adjacent” is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. “Adjacent” is a relative term that requires a subjective determination. What may constitute near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not constitute near by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "area size" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "shape" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a generally rectangular pattern” in line 15. The shape of the pattern limited by the claim is uncertain. Neither the claim nor the specification provides a definition of what constitutes “generally rectangular.” To what degree can a rectangle be changed to constitute “generally rectangular?” The specification asserts rectangular pattern 77. Yet, one of ordinary skill in the art could conclude that the pattern 77 shown in the figures 4A-4C is parabolic or lobe shaped. Absent any guidance on the interpretation of “generally rectangular,” the shape limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “circumferentially adjacent vanes” in lines 2-3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes” recited in claim 21.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “adjacent” in line 3. The term “adjacent” is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. “Adjacent” is a relative term that requires a subjective determination. What may constitute near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not constitute near by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 7-18 and 20-22, the function of producing a generally rectangular pattern and the spray sub-patterns appears to be dependent on the subject matter of claim 19, i.e., the flow channels differing in angular extent, size and shape and the vanes having unequal circumferential angular spacing, angular thickness, size shape and orientation. The structure recited by the claims is not commensurate in scope with the function recited by the claims.
The claims are replete with indefiniteness. The above listing is ONLY EXEMPLARY. Limited time for examination precludes a complete editorial review that only takes away from substantive examination. Applicant is required to review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 12-14, 17, 18 and 20-22 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hunnicutt et al. (2010/0301135).
Hunnicutt et al. disclose a strip irrigator sprinkler having a central axis (X) (C-C), the strip irrigator sprinkler comprising:
a stationary body 16 having at least one outlet 20 arranged and configured to emit liquid along an axis (Y) (vertical axis through slot 20, i.e., when slot 20 is open to span a few to several vanes; the opening arc/size of slot 20 can be adjusted by using valve sleeve 64, see paragraph 0077), the axis (Y) extending alongside the central axis (X) at a given lateral side of said central axis (X); and
a diffuser 22 mounted on the stationary body and arranged to rotate about the central axis (X) relative to the stationary body, the diffuser having a lower side (bottom side of deflector 22 having vanes 24) that opposes an upper side (top side of nozzle body 16, i.e., collar 82, valve sleeve 64, nozzle cover 62, nozzle collar 128) of the stationary body, the lower side of the diffuser including a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes 24 which define a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart flow channels (flow channels between vanes 24; paragraph 0061), the flow channels opening out to both the lower side of diffuser facing the stationary body, and also to a peripheral side of the diffuser (see figures), the at least one outlet configured to emit the liquid to impinge against the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes such that the diffuser rotates in response to the impinging liquid and the liquid is deflected in a radially outward direction away from the central axis (X), the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes of the diffuser configured to deflect the liquid to form a generally rectangular pattern extending from the peripheral side of the diffuser;
wherein the generally rectangular pattern is formed by interaction of the emitted liquid with a group of the flow channels;
wherein interaction of the emitted liquid with each flow channel of the group of flow channels forms a respective sub-pattern of irrigation, wherein superimposing the respective sub-patterns over one another forms the generally rectangular pattern;
wherein at least two of the sub-patterns (pattern from one vane to another vane) are substantially different in one or more of area size, shape and angular orientation relative to the central axis (X);
wherein the at least one outlet is two or more outlets each of the two or more outlets forming a respective generally rectangular pattern (paragraph 0060 discloses arcuate slot 20 producing one or more water jets; arcuate slot 20 must inherently have two or more outlets to generate more than one water jet);
wherein coupling the diffuser to the stationary body is by snap fitting (product by process) the diffuser onto a stem 34 of the stationary body.
Regarding claims 14, 17, 18 and 20-22, see above.
Hunnicutt et al. disclose the physical structure of the claimed invention. Therefore, the device of Hunnicutt et al. is inherently capable of producing the generally rectangular pattern.
Alternatively, Hunnicutt et al. disclose, in paragraph 0060, an adjustable arcuate spray pattern between 0 and 360 degrees. Even if the spray pattern is circular, consider a 180 degree spray pattern shown below. The half circular spray pattern is shown within a rectangular area.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
135
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The spray pattern is generally rectangular with the upper left and lower left corners being rounded. This is similar to Applicant’s spray pattern shown in figure 4B where the upper left and lower left corners are rounded in the semi/truncated elliptical pattern (truncated on the right side).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-11, 13-16 and 18-22 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Geerligs et al. (2019/0015849).
Geerligs et al. disclose a strip irrigator sprinkler having a central axis (X) (vertical longitudinal axis), the strip irrigator sprinkler comprising:
a stationary body 17 having at least one outlet 15 arranged and configured to emit liquid along an axis (Y) (vertical axis through slot annular orifice 15), the axis (Y) extending alongside the central axis (X) at a given lateral side of said central axis (X); and
a diffuser 12 mounted on the stationary body and arranged to rotate about the central axis (X) relative to the stationary body, the diffuser having a lower side that opposes an upper side of the stationary body, the lower side of the diffuser including plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes 22 (different size, shape, spacing, thickness, orientation shown in figures 28-37) which define a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart flow channels (channels between vanes 22), the flow channels opening out to both the lower side of diffuser facing the stationary body, and also to a peripheral side of the diffuser (see figures), the at least one outlet configured to emit the liquid to impinge against the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes such that the diffuser rotates in response to the impinging liquid and the liquid is deflected in a radially outward direction away from the central axis (X), the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes of the diffuser configured to deflect the liquid to form a generally rectangular pattern extending from the peripheral side of the diffuser;
wherein:
each of the flow channels is defined between mutually facing surfaces of circumferentially adjacent vanes of the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes;
at least two flow channels differ from one another in one or more of angular extent, size and shape (see figures 32, 35, 37); and
at least two vanes of the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes have unequal circumferential angular spacing and at least two vanes of the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes differ from one another in one or more of angular thickness, size, shape and orientation;
wherein:
each of the at least two flow channels is configured to form a spray sub-pattern by liquid exiting via the diffuser's peripheral side;
the spray sub-patterns formed by at least two flow channels differ from one another in at least one of area size, shape or angular orientation relative to the central axis (X); and
superimposing the spray sub-pattens forms the generally rectangular pattern;
wherein the generally rectangular pattern is formed by interaction of the emitted liquid with a group of the flow channels;
wherein interaction of the emitted liquid with each flow channel of the group of flow channels forms a respective sub-pattern of irrigation, wherein superimposing the respective sub-patterns over one another forms the generally rectangular pattern;
wherein at least two of the sub-patterns (pattern from one vane to another vane) are substantially different in one or more of area size, shape and angular orientation relative to the central axis (X);
wherein a first sub-pattern (produced by the larger flow channels) of the sub-patterns has a first area size and a second sub-pattern (produced by the smaller flow channels) of the sub-patterns has a second area size, the first area size larger than the second area size, the first sub-pattern arranged to receive more liquid than the second sub-pattern;
wherein deflecting more liquid to form the first sub-pattern is obtained by directing more than one flow channel of the group of flow channels to deflect liquid to form the first sub-pattern;
wherein coupling the diffuser to the stationary body is by snap fitting (product by process) the diffuser onto a stem 20 of the stationary body.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 18-22, see above.
Geerligs et al. disclose the physical structure of the claimed invention. Therefore, the device of Geerligs et al. is inherently capable of producing the generally rectangular pattern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that half of a rectangle is still rectangular. The specification discloses that the entire pattern 77 is rectangular. Pattern 77, as shown in figure 5F and disclosed in the specification, is formed by two sets of sub-patterns 77a-77d, i.e., a compilation of two sets of sub-patterns 77a-77d forms a generally rectangular pattern 77. There appears to be no disclosure that one set of sub-pattern 77a-77d forms a rectangular pattern.
Regarding the undue experimentation rejection, Applicant merely alleges that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of designing the vanes of a diffuser. Applicant’s assertion is unsupported by evidence or the specification. It would appear that the generally rectangular pattern is achieved by at least two flow channels differing from one another is a specific (undisclosed) angular extent, size and/or shape.
Applicant argues that Hunnicutt and Geerlings fails to disclose a sprinkler configured to form a generally rectangular pattern. As detailed above, Hunnicutt discloses a 180 degree spray pattern where the upper left and lower left corners are rounded in the generally rectangular pattern, similar to Applicant’s figure 4B. Geerlings discloses the physical limitations of the claimed invention. Therefore Geerlings must also be capable of producing a generally rectangular pattern. Otherewise, the structure recited in the claims is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights