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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on February 2, 2026 acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 in the direction of the given side.” Claim 14 recites “at least one outlet arranged to emit liquid…superimposing the spray sub-patterns of the group one over the other 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 diffuse configured to deflect the liquid to form a generally rectangular pattern extending in the direction of the given side.” Claim 14 recites “superimposing the spray sub-patterns of the group one over the other 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 "plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 recites the limitation "the direction of the given side" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is uncertain if “the direction” is in reference to the “radially outward direction” recited in line 14. The recitation “of the given side” indicates that it is not.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the given side" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 3, line 4, the limitation “some” renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 4, line 2, the recitation “each of the flow channels are configured” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “each of the flow channels are configured to form a spray sub-pattern” in line 2. It is uncertain whether each flow channel forms a respective spray sub-pattern or each of the flow channels, collectively, form a spray sub-pattern. The later interpretation appears to apply because the claim only requires “a spray sub-pattern,” i.e., one spray sub-pattern.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the spray sub-patterns" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “at least two different flow channels” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “plurality of circumferentially spaced apart flow channels” recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the sub-patterns" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "one" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the group of sub-patterns" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “substantially larger” in line 2. It is uncertain what constitutes “substantially larger.” The determination of “substantially larger” requires a subjective interpretation. What may be considered “substantially larger” by one of ordinary skill in the art may not constitute “substantially larger” by another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "area size" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “one” in line 2. It is uncertain whether it is a double inclusion of the “one” recited in claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the other sub-pattern" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “more than one flow channel” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “plurality of circumferentially spaced apart flow channels” recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the respective generally rectangular pattern" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “…interacts with each member of a group of said flow channels to form a spray sub-pattern with each said member” in lines 11-12. It is uncertain whether each of said member, collectively, forms a spray sub-pattern or each of said member forms a respective spray sub-pattern. The former interpretation appears to apply because the claim only requires “a spray sub-pattern,” i.e., one spray sub-pattern.
In claim 14, line 13, the limitation “some” renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the spray sub-patterns" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "one" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the other" in line 15. 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 15 recites the limitation “a given sub-pattern of the group” in lines 1-2. The “given sub-pattern” appears to be a double inclusion of the “spray sub-patterns” recited in claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “another sub-pattern of the group” in lines 1-2. The “another sub-pattern” appears to be a double inclusion of the “spray sub-patterns” recited in claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “more than one flow channel” line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “plurality of circumferentially spaced apart flow channels” recited in claim 14.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the respectively generally rectangular pattern" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “liquid” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “liquid” recited in claim 14.
Claim 19 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 18.
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 19 recites the limitation “at least two vanes” (two occurrences) in lines 6-7. Each recitation appears to be a double inclusion of the “plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes” recited in claim 18.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “…interacts with each member of a group of said flow channels to form a spray sub-pattern with each said member” in lines 12-13. It is uncertain whether each of said member, collectively, forms a spray sub-pattern or each of said member forms a respective spray sub-pattern. The former interpretation appears to apply because the claim only requires “a spray sub-pattern,” i.e., one spray sub-pattern.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the spray sub-patterns" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "area size" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "shape" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "one" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the other" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a generally rectangular pattern” in lines 16-17. 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “sub-patterns” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “spray sub-patterns” recited in claim 20.
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 of 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, 7-18 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 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 sideways away from the central axis (X), in a radially outward direction 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 in the direction of the given side;
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 forms a sub-pattern of irrigation and superimposing the sub-patterns of the group one over the other forms the resulting generally rectangular pattern of the liquid;
wherein at least two of the sub-patterns of the group (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 given sub-pattern of the group (from two vanes) of sub-patterns is substantially larger in area size than one of the other sub-pattern of the group of sub-patterns, the given sub-pattern arranged to receive more liquid than the one of the other sub-pattern;
wherein deflecting more liquid to form the given sub-pattern is obtained by directing more than one flow channel of the diffuser to deflect liquid to form the given sub-pattern;
wherein the at least one outlet is two or more outlets each forming the 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 14-18 and 20-22, see above.
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 sideways away from the central axis (X), in a radially outward direction 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 in the direction of the given side;
wherein:
each of said flow channels is defined between mutually facing surfaces of circumferentially adjacent vanes of the plurality of circumferentially spaced apart vanes;
at least some 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 flow channels are 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 different flow channels differ from one another in at least one of area size, shape and 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 forms a sub-pattern of irrigation and superimposing the sub-patterns of the group one over the other forms the resulting generally rectangular pattern of the liquid;
wherein at least two of the sub-patterns of the group (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 given sub-pattern of the group (from two vanes) of sub-patterns is substantially larger in area size than one of the other sub-patterns of the group of sub-patterns, the given sub-pattern arranged to receive more liquid than the one of the other sub-pattern;
wherein deflecting more liquid to form the given sub-pattern is obtained by directing more than one flow channel of the diffuser to deflect liquid to form the given 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “generally rectangular pattern” is disclosed in paragraph 0032 and shown in figure 5F. Claims 1 and 14 require only one outlet. The spray pattern of figure 5F cannot be generated by one outlet. One outlet generates the pattern shown in figure 4B.
Regarding Applicant’s argument to the generally rectangular pattern and the spray sub-patterns, in Hunnigutt et al., the flow channels at the outer ends of the outlet receive less liquid when the liquid at the outer ends only fill less than the entire flow channel at the outer ends. The flow channels in the middle of the outlet are fully filled. In Geerlings et al., the flow channels are of different shape, size and angular extent as shown in figures 28-37.
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 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