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 § 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 1-9 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 two rails" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The introducing limitation puts forth “at least two rails.” In the instance where there are more than two rails, are the sprinkling units slidably disposed on two of the rails, or all of the rails? The same rejection applies to the instances in claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two sprinkling units" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The introducing limitation puts forth “at least two sprinkling units.” In the instance where there are more than two sprinkling units do all of the sprinkling units slide along the rails in different directions?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the two water pipes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The introducing limitation puts forth “at least two water pipes.” In the instance where there are more than two water pipes, are the two of the pipes separated by the partition board, or all of the pipes?
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
“The limitations “a spray holder swingably disposed on the base and having a hollow core with a chamber therein, wherein an opening is formed at a top of the spray holder and is in communication with the chamber [. . . .] wherein the end of the water feeding valve holder has at least two water pipes, and a connector disposed at a free end of each of the water pipes [. . . .] at least two rails are disposed on an upper surface of the lid, each have a position-limiting slot penetrating the lid, and are each in communication with the chamber through the position-limiting slot; and at least two sprinkling units slidably disposed on the two rails of the lid, respectively, each having a hollow core with a water feeding space therein [. . . .] a lower surface of each of the sprinkling units has a water feeding hole in communication with the water feeding space, allowing the connectors of the water pipes to be fitted to the water feeding holes, the connectors each abutting against two ends of the position-limiting slots” are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art. ‘490 puts forth a sprinkling device that includes water pipes with connectors that feed into a discharge unit, but fails to disclose the claimed chamber, rails, position-limiting spot, or lid, configured as claimed. ‘137 and ‘238 disclose sprinklers that include lid, valving, and rail structure, but fails to disclose the chamber, connector, pipe, and lid position-limiting structure. Examiner finds no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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 R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752