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 Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “having opposite first and seconds and length,” in line 2, should read -- having opposite first and second ends and length.--
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the wheel support legs,” in line 15 of claim 1 and line 18 of claim 6, should read -- the pair of wheel support legs.-- Same objection applies to all pending claims.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “its end opposite” in line 14, should read -- its opposite end.-- Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
In claim 1, line 14, the recitation “one wheel” appears to be a double inclusion of at least one wheel of the “pair of wheels” recited in line 12. Same rejection applies to claim 6.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wheels" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The are a total of three wheels (“one wheel” in line 14 and a “pair of wheels” line 12) in the claim, it is unclear which wheels are referred by the Applicant in line 16. Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to claim 6.
In claim 3, line 4, the recitation “first and second wheel support legs” appears to be a double inclusion of the “pair of wheel support legs” recited in line 13 of claim 1. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "… first and second wheel support legs, each configured to releasably hold a respective wheel support leg when in the storage configuration" in lines 4-5. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect. It is unclear how each of the wheel support leg releasably hold itself? Clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “type,” in line 2, is akin to the phase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In patent law, the term "type" is generally treated similarly to phrases like "or the like" in that both are considered vague and typically render a claim indefinite. Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, avoiding ambiguity. See MPEP § 2181. Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to claim 8.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakhos (US20200360743) in view of Hubei Flying Construction patent (CN207803047. Hubei hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Bakhos discloses a foldable wheeled ([0011]) sprinkler cart (Figs 1 and 2) comprising: a first water conduit (11 and 4) having opposite first (at 12) and seconds (connecting 2) and a length extending therebetween, the first water conduit bent at a position (pointed by “11” in Fig. 1) between its first and second ends thereby forming a first (horizontal) conduit section and a second (vertical) conduit section, the first end having a hose coupling (12); a second water conduit (2) having opposite first (upper) and second (lower) ends and a length extending therebetween; a telescoping connection ([0015]) connecting the first and second water conduits; a sprinkler head (1) attached to the second end of the second conduit; a coupling (at 3) configured to (capable of) detachably connect the second end of the first conduit and the first end of the second conduit in a fluidically sealed connection; a pair of wheels ([0011]); a pair of wheel support legs (6 and 10), each pivotally attached at one end to the first conduit and having one wheel attached at its opposite (lower) end (one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that the wheels must be installed at the lower end of the legs for transporting the cart); and wherein the cart has an in-use configuration (Fig. 1) where the wheel support legs are pivoted away from the first conduit and the wheels together with the first section of the first conduit provide ground support to the cart.
Bakhos fails to disclose a sliding hinge connecting the first and second water conduits; a coupling configured to detachably connect the second end of the first conduit and the first end of the second conduit in a fluidically sealed connection.
However, Hubei teaches a mobile sprayer (Figs. 1-3) comprising a sliding (of 63) hinge (62, 63) connecting the first and second water conduits (See Fig. 2 with additional annotations below); a coupling (between 61) configured to (capable of) detachably connect the second end of the first conduit and the first end of the second conduit in a fluidically sealed connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a sliding hinge, as taught by Hubei, to replace the telescoping connection of Bakhos, in order to provide different spraying operation (Abstract, “Invention content” in page 3 and Figs, 1-3).
With respect to claim 2, Bakhos’ foldable wheeled sprinkler cart modified by Hubei’s sliding hinge, Bakhos further discloses wherein the cart has a storage (folded) configuration ([0008]) where the wheel support legs are pivoted toward the first conduit and lay generally along the first conduit and where the second conduit is rotated toward the first conduit and lays generally along the first conduit.
With respect to claim 3, Bakhos’ foldable wheeled sprinkler cart modified by Hubei’s sliding hinge, Bakhos further discloses the foldable wheeled sprinkler cart of claim 2, further comprising: a first clip (3, 5, 9) attached to the first conduit and configured to (capable of) releasably hold the second conduit when in the storage configuration; and first and second wheel support legs, each configured to (capable of) releasably hold a respective wheel support leg when in the storage configuration.
With respect to claim 4, Bakhos’ foldable wheeled sprinkler cart modified by Hubei’s sliding hinge, Hubei further teaches the foldable wheeled sprinkler cart of claim 1, wherein: the sliding hinge has a first hinge part (See Fig. 2 with additional annotations below and the hydraulic cylinders 63) attached to first conduit and a second hinge part attached to the second conduit; the first hinge part having a pair of spaced, elongated members each having a slot (center bore) extending along its length; and the second hinge part being disposed between the elongated members and pivotally and (rotatably) slidably received in each slot.
With respect to claim 5, Bakhos’ foldable wheeled sprinkler cart modified by Hubei’s sliding hinge, Bakhos further discloses the foldable wheeled sprinkler cart of claim 1, wherein the sprinkler head is a 360-degree impact type sprinkler head ([0017] and Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 6, Bakhos discloses a foldable wheeled ([0011]) sprinkler cart (Figs 1 and 2) comprising: a first water conduit (11 and 4) having opposite first (at 12) and seconds (connecting 2) and a length extending therebetween, the first water conduit bent at a position (pointed by “11” in Fig. 1) between its first and second ends thereby forming a first horizontal conduit section and a vertical second conduit section, the first end having a hose coupling (12); a second water conduit (2) having opposite first (upper) and second (lower) ends and a length extending therebetween; a telescoping connection ([0015]) connecting the first and second water conduits; a sprinkler head (1) attached to the second end of the second conduit; a coupling (at 3) configured to (capable of) detachably connect the second end of the first conduit and the first end of the second conduit in a fluidically sealed connection; a pair of wheels ([0011]); a pair of wheel support legs (6 and 10), each pivotally attached at one end to the first conduit and having one wheel attached at its (lower) end opposite (one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that the wheels must be installed at the lower end of the legs for transporting the cart); wherein the cart has an in-use configuration (Fig. 1) where the wheel support legs are pivoted away from the first conduit and the wheels together with the first section of the first conduit provide ground support to the cart; and wherein the cart has a storage (folded) configuration ([0008]) where the wheel support legs are pivoted toward the first conduit and lay generally along the first conduit and where the second conduit is rotated toward the first conduit and lays generally along the first conduit.
Bakhos fails to disclose a sliding hinge connecting the first and second water conduits; a coupling configured to detachably connect the second end of the first conduit and the first end of the second conduit in a fluidically sealed connection.
However, Hubei teaches a mobile sprayer (Figs. 1-3) comprising a sliding (of 63) hinge (62, 63) connecting the first and second water conduits (See Fig. 2 with additional annotations below); a coupling (between 61) configured to (capable of) detachably connect the second end of the first conduit and the first end of the second conduit in a fluidically sealed connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a sliding hinge, as taught by Hubei, to replace the telescoping connection of Bakhos, in order to provide different spraying operation (Abstract, “Invention content” in page 3 and Figs, 1-3).
With respect to claim 7, Bakhos’ foldable wheeled sprinkler cart modified by Hubei’s sliding hinge, Hubei further teaches the foldable wheeled sprinkler cart of claim 1, wherein: the sliding hinge has a first hinge part (See Fig. 2 with additional annotations below and the hydraulic cylinders 63) attached to first conduit and a second hinge part attached to the second conduit; the first hinge part having a pair of spaced, elongated members each having a slot (center bore) extending along its length; and the second hinge part being disposed between the elongated members and pivotally and (rotatably) slidably received in each slot.
With respect to claim 8, Bakhos’ foldable wheeled sprinkler cart modified by Hubei’s sliding hinge, Bakhos further discloses the foldable wheeled sprinkler cart of claim 1, wherein the sprinkler head is a 360-degree impact type sprinkler head ([0017] and Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a mobile sprayer: Ricjey, Gelaude, Harward, Van Epps, Hsu, Lowenstein, Brueske and Tobin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 7, 2026