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 .
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 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a system to detect the sprinkler status and trigger the lid” in claim 4. This imitation invokes the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “system”; 2) it is modified by functional language “to detect” the sprinkler status and “trigger” the lid; and 3) it is not modified by any structure in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification (filed on 05/19/2025) discloses the system as a lid and a hinge that opens passively due to mechanical contact from the sprinkler, see page 11 “Operation of the System” section. Examiner will interpret this limitation as such, or equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 discloses: “a system to detect the sprinkler’s status and trigger the lid accordingly”. Usually in the art, “to detect” implies a form of sensor or electrical detector. However, in the context of this invention, Applicant is using the term “detect” to mean that the lid reacts to mechanical contact from the sprinkler in order to swing open. This is clear from Applicant’s disclosure Page 11 “Operation of the System” which discloses: “During sprinkler activation, typically controlled by a water pressure-based mechanism within the irrigation system, the sprinkler head rises vertically. In response, the lid (Element 6) pivots open via the hinge (Element 4) to allow unobstructed irrigation.” and “The lid (Element 6) opens passively due to direct mechanical contact between the rising sprinkler head and an interior surface of the mini cylinder (Element 7)”. As such, “detect” in this case is interpreted as the lid reacting to mechanical contact from the sprinkler. In fact, the specification also discloses “This movement is entirely mechanical and requires no electrical components or external sensors”.
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 2-5 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 2 recites the limitation "the vertical movement" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should read: a vertical movement.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the automated deployment" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should read: an automated deployment.
Claim 4 discloses: “a system to detect the sprinkler’s status and trigger the lid accordingly”. It is unclear what triggering the lid “accordingly” means. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret this as: retracting/opening the lid.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which discloses a method. However, claim 4 does not disclose a method step. Thus, it fails to further limit the method claim from which it depends on. Furthermore, it claims a system without steps of using the system. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
Claim 5 discloses: “An automated protective cover system for garden sprinklers, as described in the specification, to safeguard against dirt, debris, and other sources that may cause damage to the sprinkler” Examiner notes that “as described in the specification” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what features disclosed in the specification are actually part of the claimed system. In other words, there are no structural features positively claimed as part of the system. This means that the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergquist (U.S. 6,755,356).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Bergquist teaches a method for protecting garden sprinklers from environmental damage (as disclosed in the abstract) involves an automated deployment and retraction of a protective lid during sprinkler operation and rest (as disclosed in col 2, lines 50-67, the lid 10 has a spring-biased pivot 14 that is biased in a closed position, when the sprinkler is activated and rises, mechanical contact forces the lid to open; and when the sprinkler is deactivated and retracts, the spring acting on the pivot forces the lid to close; as such, automated movement of the lid during operation of the sprinkler is disclose, thus reading on claim language).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Bergquist teaches the method of Claim 3, further comprises a system to detect the sprinkler's status and trigger the lid accordingly (as noted above, Examiner is interpreting “detecting” as the lid reacting to mechanical contact from the sprinkler, as per Applicant’s disclosure; as such Bergquist teaches a spring-biased pivot 14 connected to the lid 10, which opens in response to the mechanical contact from the sprinkler as it rises, i.e. triggers the lid, and closes when the sprinkler retracts) .
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Bergquist teaches an automated protective cover system for garden sprinklers (as disclosed in the abstract), as described in the specification, to safeguard against dirt, debris, and other sources that may cause damage to the sprinkler (Bergquist teaches an enclosure 5 with a spring-biased lid 10 mechanism that remains close during sprinkler deactivation in order to protect the sprinkler from dirt or debris. Examiner notes that Bergquist teaches a system that is the same as it is disclosed in Applicant’s specification).
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergquist (U.S. 6,755,356).
Regarding claim 1, Bergquist teaches a protective cover system (8) for garden sprinklers (as disclosed in abstract) comprises an enclosure (5) with a lid mechanism (10).
However, Bergquist does not teach the enclosure being made out of PVC.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the enclosure out of any suitable material, including PVC, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is considered prima facie obviousness given that it performs the same function as it was determined in In re Leshin (see MPEP 2144.07). In the present case, Bergquist discloses all the general structure of the claim and the material of the enclosure would not affect the way the device operates. Furthermore, Applicant has not provided criticality for making the enclosure out of PVC. Therefore, this is further considered an obviousness design choice; as it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bergquist so that PVC is used for the enclosure to make use of its mechanical properties such as versatility, durability and cost-effectiveness.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Bergquist teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the lid mechanism is synchronized with the vertical movement of the garden sprinkler (as disclosed in col 2, lines 50-67, the lid 10 has a spring-biased pivot 14 that is biased in a closed position, when the sprinkler is activated and rises, mechanical contact forces the lid to open; and when the sprinkler is deactivated and retracts, the spring acting on the pivot forces the lid to close; as such, the lid mechanism is synchronized with the vertical movement of the garden sprinkler, as claimed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Snoddy (U.S. 2,514,346), Pfeiffer (U.S. 2,513,047), Ramsey (U.S. 2,983,451), Nullet (U.S. 2,757,045), Ronnfeldt (U.S. 2022/0355328), Lejosne (U.S. 4,776,403), and Kruer (U.S. 5,292,071).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752