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 26 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 16-20 are newly added. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 27 August 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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 17-18 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 17 recites the limitation "each lower linear cutout" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the extent of cam plate visibility" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7, 9-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2011/0248102).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a sprinkler apparatus (fig. 5) comprising:
a frame (51/53);
a generally tubular shaped housing (10/30, which is a hollow pipe, see par. 32, 33 and fig. 1) rotatably attached to the frame (fig. 5);
a nozzle strip (40) positioned inside the tubular shaped housing (fig. 1), the nozzle strip comprising a plurality of flexible nozzles (41, see par. 37 - “The two adjustment pieces 20 swing respectively around the pivot hole 21 that is used as a static pivot so as to move the plurality of nozzle tubes 41 at different angle synchronously”, which inherently requires the nozzles to be flexible), the flexible nozzles normally positioned in upward direction (figs. 1, 2);
a cam plate (20) positioned inside the housing (fig. 1), the cam plate comprising a plurality of cam slots (22) configured to engage with and thereby adjust the position of at least some of the plurality of flexible nozzles upon rotation of the cam plate within the housing (par. 37); and
a gauge window (33) formed in the housing (fig. 2), wherein the gauge window is configured to expose a portion of the cam plate (fig. 2) such that movement of the cam plate is visibly discernible so as to designate an extent of angular displacement of the flexible nozzles based on a position of the cam plate viewable through the gauge window (fig. 2),
and the gauge window comprises a plurality of vertically stacked linear cutouts (see annotated figure; further it is noted that the term “cutout” is construed to mean “something cut out or off from something else”, and there is a gap “something cut out” between each of these lines).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the gauge window is tapered or triangular shaped (fig. 2 - the inner side of the window 33 is shorter than the outer side such that the space tapers in the direction from the outside to the inside).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 2 and further wherein the gauge window is narrowest at an upper end of the gauge window and widest at a lower end of the gauge window (fig. 2 - window 33 is widest at the end closer to the reference numeral 30 and narrower the opposite end).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein an upper end of the gauge window extends higher than a lower end of said cam slots during rotation of the cam plate (fig. 4 - window 33 is entirely above cam slots 23 at all times).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 4 and further wherein at least an upper end of the gauge window is located entirely between adjacent cam slots such that the cam slots do not extend behind the gauge window during rotation of the cam plate (see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image2.png
351
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
503
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the plurality of vertically stacked linear cutouts comprise a plurality of vertically adjacent slits, each slit being an elongated, substantially straight-edged opening having a width less than its length (see annotated figure - which are slits formed into the top surface of 30, see also fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 6 and further wherein the gauge window comprises 3 to 12 adjacent slits (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image4.png
324
752
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the cam plate comprises an adjustment tab (23), whereby the rotational position of the cam plate can be adjusted in opposite rotational directions by applying a downward force on the adjustment tab (par. 37).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the cam plate comprises a first cam plate and a second cam plate (fig. 1), and the first cam plate is rotatable independent from the second cam plate (fig. 1), the gauge window comprises a first gauge window and a second gauge window (fig. 1), the first gauge window is configured to expose a portion of the first cam plate such as to designate an extent of angular displacement of the flexible nozzles based on a position of the first cam plate viewable through the first gauge window, and the second gauge window is configured to expose a portion of the second cam plate such as to designate an extent of angular displacement of the flexible nozzles based on a position of the second cam plate viewable through the second gauge window (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 10 and further wherein the nozzle strip comprises a first set of nozzles and a second set of nozzles (fig. 1), the first cam plate is arranged to adjust the position of the first set of nozzles, the second cam plate is arranged to adjust the position of the second set of nozzles (par. 37; fig. 1), and the first cam plate is arranged adjacent to the second cam plate in a longitudinal direction of the sprinkler (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the gauge window is configured such that the cam slot adjacent to the gauge window does not extend within the gauge window at any position of the rotational movement of the cam plate (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image5.png
503
788
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein an upper portion of the gauge window is configured to be narrower than a distance between cam slots positioned adjacent to the gauge window, and is further configured to extend between the adjacent cam slots when the cam plate is fully extended across the gauge window (see annotated figure and figs. 1, 4 - the upper most right corner of the window 33 is arranged between the far left cam slot and the next slot to the right).
PNG
media_image6.png
356
674
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 11 and further wherein the first cam plate comprises a first adjustment tab (23), whereby the rotational position of the first cam plate can be adjusted in opposite rotational directions by applying a downward force on the first adjustment tab (par. 37), and the second cam plate comprises a second adjustment tab (other 23), whereby the rotational position of the second cam plate can be adjusted in opposite rotational directions by applying a downward force on the second adjustment tab (par. 37).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the housing comprises a cover portion (30), the cover portion comprising a plurality of openings (31, see fig. 1), the cam plate is an elongated curved plate (fig. 1) comprising an adjustment element (23), and the cam plate is configured to pivot or tilt in a circumferential direction relative to the cover portion (par. 37), the cover portion being fixed to the housing (par. 36; figs. 2, 4), and a first nozzle (any of 41) of the plurality of flexible nozzles extends outside the sprinkler apparatus via a first cam slot (a corresponding slot 22) of the plurality of cam slots and a first opening (a corresponding opening 31) of the plurality of openings on the cover (figs. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein a visible area of the cam plate exposed through the plurality of vertically stacked linear cutouts increases monotonically with increasing angular displacement of the cam plate.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 1 and further wherein the plurality of vertically stacked linear cutouts are oriented and dimensioned to be simultaneously viewable from a lateral viewing direction relative to a longitudinal axis of the tubular housing (fig. 5 – the linear cutouts protrude outwardly and upwardly from the frame of the sprinkler which configures them to be viewable from a direction on the same level with the longitudinal axis).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Wang discloses the sprinkler apparatus described regarding claim 6, and further wherein the wherein the gauge window comprises 10 adjacent slits. Wang does not disclose that the gauge window comprises 4 to 8 adjacent slits.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the oscillating sprinkler system of Wang to reduce the number of slits to comprise 4 to 8, instead of 10, if it is desired to show fewer gradations between the endpoints of the positions. Further, such a modification would reduce the number of slits that need to be manufactured and thereby ease manufacture of the sprinkler system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,853. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 1-15 of the instant application are obvious over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,853 in view of Wang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of Wang being used in the current rejection. Therefore, Wang is interpreted to teach “a plurality of vertically stacked linear cutouts” of amended claim 1, as explained in the rejection above.
Further regarding claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that Claim 1 “requires a window architecture that reveals only a portion of the cam plate through the vertically stacked cutouts”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752