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 1-7 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “can be” in line 1. It is unclear whether the limitations that follow are to be interpreted as intended use, or positively recited limitations.
Claims 1-7 lack a transitional phrase denoting the transition between the preamble and the limiting recitations of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the attachment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “easily” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The same rejection applies to the instance in claim 3.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the top" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the top” in line 1. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the top of the sprinkler head or the attachment.
Claim 4 is rejected, as the limitations are narrative in form.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “an additional ring bracket.” The limitation does not depend from a claim that puts forth a ring bracket. It is unclear whether the limitation puts forth a ring bracket, or an additional add-on bracket.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bracket surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claims 6 and 7, the limitation “differing diameters and heights” is unclear.
In claim 7, line 2, the limitation “it” is unclear. Does the limitation refer back to the sleeve or bracket?
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonhoff (US 5,102,048).
Regarding claim 1, Bonhoff discloses an add-on bracket (the combination of mat 12 and the ring including support struts 16) that can be attached to an underground sprinkler system sprinkler head such that the attachment prevents or resists the natural tendency of the sprinkler head to sink over time (Column 2, lines 33-41, The bracket may be attached to a bracket of a desired size, in order to prevent sinking of the sprinkler).
Regarding claim 2, Bonhoff discloses the attachment in claim #1 such that the attachment can easily be slid onto a sprinkler head prior to underground installation (Column 2, lines 33-41, The sizing of the receiving opening of the bracket may be configured to be slid on prior to installation).
Regarding claim 3, Bonhoff discloses the attachment in claim #1 such that the attachment can be easily added from the top after the sprinkler is already installed underground (Column 2, lines 33-41, The sizing of the receiving opening of the bracket may be configured to be slid on after installation).
Regarding claim 4, Bonhoff discloses the attachment in claim #1 such that the attachment is designed to look like a plant with one or more leaves (The attachment resembles a plant with a central portion, and a radially extending leaf). The leaf design includes open space that allows grass roots or other plants to grow through the attachment (Abstract, interstitial spaces in the mat allow for grass and roots to grow through) in order to provide additional resistance to sinking (The structure provides for the claimed function).
Regarding claim 5, Bonhoff discloses the attachment in claim #1 such that the attachment includes spikes (16) in order to better grip the surrounding soil (20).
Regarding claim 6, Bonhoff discloses an additional ring bracket (20) of differing diameters and heights such that it can be used to adjust the space between the top of the sprinkler head and the vertical position of the bracket surface of claim #1 (Column 2, lines 33-41, The ring 14 central diameter may be varied and different from that of the rings 20; The rings 20 are driven into the soil, and the depth of the rings provides for adjustment of the space between the top of the sprinkler head and the position of the bracket surface).
Regarding claim 7, Bonhoff discloses an additional secured sleeve (16’) attached to the bracket of claim #1 of differing diameters and heights such that it can be used to surround the sprinkler head to protect the sprinkler head (Figure 6, the bracket may include an additional sleeve 16’ that surrounds the sprinkler and provides protection of the sprinkler head.
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