Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 21, 2026
Application No. 18/746,680

Pressure Compensation Members, Emitters, Drip Line And Methods Relating To Same

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 18, 2024
Priority
Jan 27, 2017 — provisional 62/451,541 +3 more
Examiner
ZHOU, QINGZHANG
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
RAIN BIRD Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
575 granted / 854 resolved
+7.3% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
900
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
49.9%
+9.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 854 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 25-30 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 18, 2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 11-24 in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant's election with traverse of Species V in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species S, T, U, V, W, and Y (FIGS. 21A-26) all illustrate a similar pressure compensating member and are covered by the limitations recited in claims 11-24. That is, claims 11-24 are generic to Species S, T, U, V, W, and Y. This is found persuasive. The Examiner hereby corrects the Species V to include Figs. 21A-26. Claim Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites "the projection". However, since the limitation refers to "at least one projection" introduced in claim 12, it is suggested to amend the limitation to -the at least one projection-.. 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 11-24 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. The term “…substantially about a perimeter…” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Claims 12-24 are also rejected under 112(b) because of dependency on claim 11. The term “…predominantly positioned in a downstream half…” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predominantly” 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. Does predominantly mean more than 50% of their physical volume? Does it mean their center of mass? Does it mean most of the individual projections if there are many? As a result, the Examiner cannot properly construe the metes and bound of the limitations. Claims 15 and 16 recites the limitations "the first projections” and “the second projection". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to maintain antecedent basis, the limitations must mirror the exact language introduced in claim 14: “the first of the at least two projections” and “the second of the at least two projections.” Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-24 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 an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art references Ensworth et al. (US 2015/0041563 A1) in view of Daigle et al. (US 6,015,102) disclose almost all the structural elements recited in the claims. However, the combination of these references fails to teach elements: "the pressure compensating member has a second operation state impeding the first operation state when grit at the constriction reduces the second cross-sectional flow area below a threshold, causing a build-up of internal pressure on the first side of the flexible floor upstream of the constriction which moves the flexible floor to increase the second cross- sectional flow area to flush the grit and return the pressure compensating member to the first operation state." Furthermore, the Examiner found no additional reference that would render the claimed invention obvious without impermissible hindsight. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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 HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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. JOEL . ZHOU Primary Examiner Art Unit 3752 /QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746557
Embedded carousel ambient light shower
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12741293
DISPERSER AND METHOD FOR USING SAME
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12734533
SYSTEM FOR GENERATING TRACER PARTICLES
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12728820
Air Cleaning Device
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12728303
AIRCRAFT OVEN WITH SAFETY OPERATION MODE
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+24.4%)
3y 2m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 854 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month