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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 24th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 24th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 17-22 remain pending in the application.
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 1-14 and 17-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the main water line" in ln. 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a main water line” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-14 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Carpenter teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (entire system, device is a cleaner spraying device for automatically spraying an enclosure, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0001), comprising:
a housing (2, Fig. 1);
a water supply coupling (fluid line between the cartridge or reservoir 1 and the fluid pump 6, pump 6 is in fluid communication and coupled to the reservoir 1, where fluid is transferred from to pump 6 which then pressurizes and releases a predefined amount of the fluid, annotated and shown in Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0040, 0093) provided on the housing (2, shown in Fig. 1);
a sprinkler head nozzle (7, Fig. 1) rotatably mounted in the housing (2, shown in Fig. 1), the sprinkler head nozzle (7, Fig. 1) being configured to deliver a fluid as a water jet (interpreting water jet as a usually forceful stream of fluid discharge from a narrow opening or a nozzle, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, liquid is pressurized and released by the piston of the pump 6 to a rotatable nozzle 7, which atomizes the liquid into a sprayed aerosol, Paragraph 0093);
a drive mechanism (4, 5, Fig. 1) mounted in the housing (2, shown in Fig. 1) and operatively connected to the sprinkler head nozzle (7, shown in Fig. 1);
a main water line conduit (there is a main fluid line between the cartridge or reservoir 1 that travels through the fluid pump 6, to the gear drive 5, and to the rotating nozzle 7, annotated and shown in Fig. 1) disposed in the housing (2, shown in Fig. 1) for fluidly connecting the water supply coupling (fluid line between the cartridge or reservoir 1 and the fluid pump 6, shown in Fig. 1) and the sprinkler head nozzle (7, shown in Fig. 1);
at least one container (1, Fig. 1) for storing concentrated liquid solution in fluid communication with the main water line (interpreting as the main water line conduit, fluid line between the cartridge or reservoir 1 and the rotating nozzle 7, cartridge or reservoir 1 holds a liquid cleaning solution, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0093);
an injector (6, Fig. 1), disposed in the housing (2, shown in Fig. 1) and configured to inject concentrated liquid solution from the container (1, Fig. 1) into the main water line (fluid line between the cartridge or reservoir 1 and the rotating nozzle 7, shown in Fig. 1) or sprinkler head nozzle (7, fluid pump 6 draws in, pressurizes, and releases the cleaning solution in a predefined amount to the rotatable nozzle 7, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0093); and
a microcontroller (3, Fig. 1) operatively coupled to the drive mechanism (4, 5, shown in Fig. 1) and the injector (6, electronic assembly 3 is connected to fluid pump 6 through the motor 4 and the gear drive 5, annotated and shown in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Carpenter discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the microcontroller is configured to communicate wirelessly with a remote interface device to set multiple user-defined application zones, each of which can be configured for different solution application rates and different distances from the sprinkler head nozzle, and wherein the microcontroller is configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first application zone of the multiple user-defined application zones, the first irrigation path comprising a plurality of concentric arcs within the first application zone, and control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially direct the water jet along each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs.
Nelson teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (400, Fig. 11), comprising:
a microcontroller (450, Fig. 11) operatively coupled to the drive mechanism (422, 424, 426, shown in Fig. 11, Col. 30, Ln. 15-46), wherein the microcontroller (450, Fig. 11) is configured to communicate wirelessly with a remote interface device (470, Fig. 11, remote programming unit 470 communicates with the sprinkler control unit 450 through a wireless connection, Col. 30, Ln. 53-64) to set multiple user-defined application zones (user can set up a flow program for particular sprinklers, which have specific application zones, of an overall sprinkler system, Col. 31, Ln. 15-28), each of which can be configured for different distances from the sprinkler head nozzle (angle of declination of the discharge nozzle can be adjusted to extend or retract the spray distance from the discharge nozzle that can define the area for sprinkling, Col. 39, Ln. 29-33).
Carpenter and Nelson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotationally driven sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the microcontroller taught in Nelson’s device to Carpenter’s device, to have the motivation to provide a sprinkler system that is area-programmable to allow a desired area to be sprinkled, while substantially reducing overspray and overlapping watering in area within the desired area to be sprinkled, in order to save water usage (Nelson, Col. 4, Ln. 67 to Col. 5, Ln. 5).
Carpenter, as modified by Nelson, discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach wherein the microcontroller is configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first application zone of the multiple user-defined application zones, the first irrigation path comprising a plurality of concentric arcs within the first application zone, and control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially direct the water jet along each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs as claimed.
Heaney teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (10 in Fig. 1, entire structure in Fig. 2) comprising the microcontroller (32, Fig. 1) is configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first application zone of the multiple user-defined application zones, the first irrigation path comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs within the first application zone (the sprinkler system delivers a sprinkler pattern as a series of curves, or concentric arcs, to a specific location or predefined area, which includes a first application zone, in a reproducible manner, and there may be multiple specific locations, Paragraphs 0006, 0043, 0053), and control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially direct the water jet along each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs (a user can describe a series of points and curves that combine into a predefined area or watering pattern, or an application zone, in which multiple arbitrarily shaped patterns can be achieved, and speed, duration, direction, and all functions related to control of the sprinkler system are controlled by algorithms running on the MCU 32 that can repeat the user-defined patterns including a series of concentric arcs 24 as the sprinkler sweeps across each arc in sequence, and the specific location/arc can be controlled using different angles and pressures, shown in Figs. 4-4A, Paragraphs 0006-0007, 0042-0043, 0045, 0052). Heaney’s microcontroller would be combined to Carpenter’s microcontroller, as modified by Nelson above, to allow Carpenter’s microcontroller to generate a first irrigation path for a first application zone of the multiple user-defined application zones, the first irrigation path comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs within the first application zone, and control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially direct the water jet along each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs.
Carpenter, Nelson, and Heaney are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotationally driven sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the microcontroller taught in Heaney’s device to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson, to have the motivation to deliver a small footprint of water to a specific location in a reproducible manner, in order to save water usage (Heaney, Paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 3, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 1 above. Nelson teaches the device (400, Fig. 11) further comprising a pressure sensor (494, Fig. 11), operatively connected to the microcontroller (450, shown in Fig. 11, Col. 30, Ln. 4-9), configured to sense pressure at or near the sprinkler head nozzle (Col. 30, Ln. 4-9).
In regards to claim 6, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 1 above. Carpenter further teaches the injector (6, Fig. 1) comprises at least one pump (Paragraph 0093) having an inlet (inlet of pump 6, shown in Fig. 1) and outlet (outlet of pump 6, shown in Fig. 1), the pump inlet (inlet of pump 6, shown in Fig. 1) being fluidly connected to the at least one container (1, shown in Fig. 1) and the pump outlet (outlet of pump 6, shown in Fig. 1) being fluidly connected to the sprinkler head nozzle (7, shown in Fig. 1).
In regards in claim 12, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 1 above. Nelson further teaches the drive mechanism (422, 424, 426, Fig. 11) includes:
a bidirectional rotary motor (422, motor 422 can be similar to motor 122 in embodiment of Fig. 3 and motor 122 is a rotary motor, Col. 9, Ln. 29-31, Col. 29, Ln. 49-58); and
a gear train (424, 426, shown in Fig. 11) operatively connecting the bidirectional rotary motor (422, shown in Fig. 11) to the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, shown in Fig. 11).
In regards to claim 19, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 1 above. Heaney further teaches each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs is represented by control data including at least two of: sprinkler head nozzle rotational position, water pressure or water jet throw distance, sprinkler head rotational speed or motor duty cycle, sprinkler head rotational direction, and number of passes (the specific location/arc can be controlled using different angles of rotation and pressures, shown in Figs. 4-4A, Paragraphs 0006, 0042-0044).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 11-13, and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 2-10.
Regarding claim 2, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 1 above. However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses all aspects of the present invention except the device comprising a position sensor. In the embodiment of Figs. 2-10, Nelson teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (100, Fig. 3) comprising a position sensor (138, Fig. 3), operatively connected to a microcontroller (150, shown in Fig. 3), configured to measure an angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle (position sensor signals to user an arc segment position for a specific contact, Col. 10, Ln. 55-61).
Carpenter, Nelson, and Heaney are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotationally driven sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the position sensor taught in Nelson’s device in the embodiment of Figs. 2-10, to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson, embodiment of Figs. 11-13, and Heaney above in claim 1, to have a position sensor, operatively connected to the microcontroller, configured to measure an angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle. Doing so notifies the user the position of the sprinkler head with respect to the fixed base (Nelson, Col. 10, Ln. 34-39).
Regarding claim 4, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 1 above. Nelson further teaches the device (400, Fig. 11) further comprising a variable valve (572, Fig. 12) disposed in the main water line conduit (414, 420, shown in Figs. 11-12) configured to adjust a rate of fluid flow in the main water line conduit (Col. 31, Ln. 46-58), the variable valve (572, Fig. 12) being operatively coupled to the microcontroller (Col. 31, Ln. 46-58). However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses all aspects of the present invention except a motorized variable valve. In the embodiment of Figs. 2-10, Nelson discloses a motorized variable valve (172, Fig. 3, Col. 13, Ln. 58 to Col. 14, Ln. 11).
Carpenter, Nelson, and Heaney are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotationally driven sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the motorized variable valve taught in Nelson’s device in the embodiment of Figs. 2-10, to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson, embodiment of Figs. 11-13, and Heaney above in claim 1, to have a motorized variable valve disposed in the main water line conduit configured to adjust a rate of fluid flow in the main water line conduit, the motorized variable valve being operatively coupled to the microcontroller. Doing so allows the user have more control to adjust the valve (Nelson, Col. 13, Ln. 58 to Col. 14, Ln. 11).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US Patent 8,986,417).
Regarding claim 5, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 1 above. However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses all aspects of the present invention except a device comprising a plurality of containers. Miller teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (10, Figs. 1-2), the device (10, Figs. 1-2) comprises a plurality of containers (22, Figs. 1-2) for storing concentrated liquid solution (Col. 16, Ln. 34-44), each container (22, Figs. 1-2) being in fluid communication with the main water line (20, shown in Figs. 1-2) via a separate secondary line (40, shown in Figs. 1-2).
Carpenter, Nelson, Heaney, and Miller are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotationally driven sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the plurality of containers taught in Miller’s device to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson and Heaney above in claim 1, to have the device comprises a plurality of containers for storing concentrated liquid solution, each container being in fluid communication with the main water line via a separate secondary line. Doing so allows for multiple liquid solutions to be used and stored in the system (Miller, Col. 4, Ln. 13-34).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilpatrick et al. (US Patent 9,623,427).
In regards to claim 7, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 6 above. However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses all features of the present invention except the pump comprises a positive displacement pump. Gilpatrick teaches the pump (460, Fig. 4) comprises a positive displacement pump (Col. 4, Ln. 24-27) configured to dose the concentrated liquid solution to the main water line (Col. 4, Ln. 24-36, Col. 6, Ln. 30-31).
Carpenter, Nelson, Heaney, and Gilpatrick are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driven sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the at least one pump taught in Gilpatrick’s device to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson and Heaney above in claim 1, to have the pump comprises a positive displacement pump. Doing so allows for a specific amount of liquid to be injected (Gilpatrick, Col. 4, Ln. 28-44, Col. 6, Ln. 30-31).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, further in view of Gilpatrick et al. (US Patent 9,623,427) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Millar (US 20180359954 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, and Gilpatrick, teaches the device of claim 7 above. However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, and Gilpatrick, discloses all of the features of the present invention except for a peristaltic pump. Millar teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (400, Fig. 4) comprises a peristaltic pump (410, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0045).
Carpenter, Nelson, Heaney, Gilpatrick, and Millar are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driven sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the peristaltic pump taught in Millar’s device to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, and Gilpatrick above in claim 7, to have the positive displacement pump comprises a peristaltic pump. Doing so allows for an efficient pump to deliver a specific measured amount of liquid to be injected (Millar, Paragraph 0002).
In regards to claim 9, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, Gilpatrick, and Millar, teaches the device of claim 8 above. Nelson further teaches an inlet (412, Fig. 11) in a sprinkler head inlet pipe (408, 410, shown in Fig. 11). Millar further teaches the peristaltic pump (410, Fig. 4) has an outlet (414, Fig. 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, further in view of Gilpatrick et al. (US Patent 9,623,427) as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Millar (US 20180359954 A1) as applied to claims 8-9 above, and further in view of Dubiel et al. (US Patent 10,786,788).
Regarding claim 10, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, Gilpatrick, and Millar, teaches the device of claim 9 above. However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, Gilpatrick, and Millar, discloses all of the features of the present invention except for the sprinkler head inlet pipe has a portion with a tapered shape configured to provide a Venturi effect to aid in the ingress of fluid from the container. Dubiel teaches the sprinkler head inlet pipe (42, Fig. 4) has a portion with a tapered shape (56, Fig. 4) configured to provide a Venturi effect to aid in the ingress of fluid from the container (Col. 6, Ln. 41-45).
Carpenter, Nelson, Heaney, Gilpatrick, Millar, and Dubiel are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of driven sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sprinkler head inlet pipe taught in Dubiel’s device to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, Gilpatrick, and Millar above in claim 9, to have the sprinkler head inlet pipe has a portion with a tapered shape configured to provide a Venturi effect to aid in the ingress of fluid from the container. Doing so increases flow velocity of the fluid as it exits the system (Dubiel, Col. 6, Ln. 41-45).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Dubiel et al. (US Patent 10,786,788).
With respect to claim 11, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 6 above. However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses all features of the present invention except a replaceable bottle sized for containment within the at least one container. Dubiel teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (100, Fig. 11) comprising a replaceable bottle (200, Fig. 11) sized for containment within the at least one container (112, shown in Fig. 11); and
a cap (126, Fig. 12) mountable on the replaceable bottle (200, shown in Fig. 11, Col. 8, Ln. 1-26), the cap (126, Fig. 12) having a tube (174, Fig. 12) configured to provide fluid connection between the replaceable bottle (200, Figs. 11-12)
Carpenter, Nelson, Heaney, and Dubiel are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the replaceable bottle taught in Dubiel’s device to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson and Heaney above in claim 6, to have the device including a replaceable bottle sized for containment within the at least one container and a cap mountable on the replaceable bottle, the cap having a tube configured to provide fluid connection between the replaceable bottle and the pump inlet. Doing so allows for the fluid to be replenished easier for the user.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Younis et al. (US 20130153673 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 1 above. However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses all features of the present invention except for the sprinkler head nozzle comprises a laminar flow nozzle. Younis teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (entire system, Fig. 3) comprising a sprinkler head nozzle (30, Fig. 3), the sprinkler head nozzle (30, Fig. 3) comprises a laminar flow nozzle (Paragraph 0027).
Carpenter, Nelson, Heaney, and Younis are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the laminar flow nozzle taught in Younis’ device to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson and Heaney above in claim 1, to have the sprinkler head nozzle comprises a laminar flow nozzle. Doing so allows for fluid to be delivered with more accuracy with little splashing and spreading dispersion (Younis, Paragraph 0027).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Younis et al. (US 20130153673 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nelson (US Patent 4,730,786, hereinafter Nelson ‘786).
Regarding claim 14, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, and Younis, teaches the device of claim 13 above. However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, and Younis, discloses all features of the present invention except for the laminar flow nozzle includes a plurality of tubules, a stacked series of wire meshes, and an exit platen. Nelson ‘786 teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (entire structure, Fig. 1, Col. 1, Ln. 10-15, Col. 5, Ln. 49-56) comprising a laminar flow nozzle (10, Fig. 1, Col. 1, Ln. 34-39), the laminar flow nozzle (10, Fig. 1) includes a plurality of tubules (annotated in Fig. 1), a stacked series of wire meshes (40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, shown in Fig. 1) and an exit platen (30, Figs. 1-2) defining a plurality of exit holes (32, 36, Figs. 1-2).
Carpenter, Nelson, Heaney, Younis, and Nelson ‘786 are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flow-controlling sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the laminar flow nozzle taught in Nelson ‘786’s device to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson, Heaney, and Younis above in claim 13, to have the laminar flow nozzle includes a plurality of tubules, a stacked series of wire meshes, and an exit platen defining a plurality of exit holes. Doing so produces a stream that reduces turbulence and splash (Nelson ‘786, Col. 1, Ln. 34-39).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 14-24.
Regarding claim 17, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses the device of claim 6 above. However, Nelson does not teach each user-defined application zone in one embodiment. In the embodiments of Figs. 14-24, Nelson further teaches each user-defined application zone (80, Fig. 20) of the multiple user-defined application zones is defined by:
(i) a user using a user interface to wirelessly communicate adjustments to an angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle and to a sprinkler head water jet throw distance (user uses user interface which wirelessly communicates with the controller of the sprinkler to adjust the angle of the nozzle and the flow to the farthest reach of the area to be sprinkled, Col. 40, Ln. 36-52), wherein in response to the adjustments the microcontroller varies the angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle and varies the position of the motorized variable valve (controller processes data to adjust the sprinkler to desired position set by the user, Col. 40, Ln. 52 to Col. 41, Ln. 3);
(ii) repeating procedure (i) until the sprinkler head angular position and water jet throw distance are confirmed by the user via the user interface (user can repeat steps until user activates the “SET” feature on the user interface, Col. 40, Ln. 36-59), whereupon the angular position of the sprinkler head nozzle and a pressure measured by the pressure sensor are memorized by a web server in association with a first corner of the application zone (data collected by the device can be stored in memory, and the third embodiment can implement certain optional features from the other embodiments, such as the pressure sensor in the second embodiment, Col. 30, Ln. 6-9, Col. 40, Ln. 59 to Col. 41, Ln. 8);
(iii) repeating procedures (i) and (ii) in respect of at least two additional corners of the application zone (user can set the same procedures above for other locations and sprinklers in the area, and the third embodiment can implement certain optional features from the other embodiments, shown in Fig. 13A, Col. 40, Ln. 59 to Col. 41, Ln. 8), whereby a closed geometric area can be determined representing the user-defined application zone (user defines desired sprinkling program for the area through the user interface, Col. 40, Ln. 36-59);
(iv) computing an irrigation path for irrigating the geometric area representing the application zone based on the memorized angular positions and pressures and storing the path at the web server (user can record a path using dimensions and shapes of the areas to be irrigated using GPS that can be transferred to a handheld user device to plan an irrigation regimen, Col. 45, Ln. 50-63).
Carpenter, Nelson, and Heaney are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the motorized variable valve taught in Nelson’s device in the embodiment of Figs. 14-24, to Carpenter’s device, as modified by Nelson, embodiment of Figs. 11-13, and Heaney above in claim 1, to have the device comprising a user-defined application zone. Doing so is beneficial when large complex areas need to be irrigated and gives the user more control over the area to be irrigated (Nelson, Col. 45, Ln. 48-63).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiebe (US 20160158783 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses the device of claim 1 above. Nelson further teaches the microcontroller (450, Fig. 11) is configured to periodically poll a web server to determine whether to irrigate or not (sprinkler control unit has signal communication with the remote programming unit 470 and the user uses the remote programming unit to control when to spray over an area, Col. 31, Ln. 8-27);
wherein the web server (i) triggers the device to irrigate (Col. 31, Ln. 8-27), and (ii) communicates the irrigation path to the microcontroller (Col. 45, Ln. 50-63).
However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses all features of the present invention except for the device dynamically computes the irrigation path for the first user-defined application zone based at least in part on local weather data obtained by the web server. Wiebe teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (entire structure, Fig. 6) dynamically computes the irrigation path for the first user-defined application zone based on at least in part local weather data obtained by the web server (Paragraph 0031-0032, 0069, 0101, Claim 9).
Carpenter, Nelson, Heaney, and Wiebe are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the device taught by Wiebe the device taught by Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney above in claim 1, to have the device dynamically computes the irrigation path for the first user-defined application zone based on at least in part local weather data obtained by the web server. Doing so allows the system to adapt based on real-time weather changes to prevent overwatering in a specific area (Wiebe, Paragraphs 0031-0032).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 20140115765 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) and Heaney (US 20200284374 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612), embodiment of Figs. 14-24, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Moeller (US 20200315111 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, teaches the device of claim 17 above. However, Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney, discloses all features of the present invention except for control data communicated by the web server to the lawn or garden maintenance device includes data for control of the injector. Moeller teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (200, Fig. 2) comprising control data communicated by the web server to the lawn or garden maintenance device includes data for control of the injector (Paragraph 0028, Claim 17).
Carpenter, Nelson, Heaney, and Moeller are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the device taught by Moeller, to the device taught by Carpenter, as modified by Nelson and Heaney above in claim 17, to have control data communicated by the web server to the lawn or garden maintenance device includes data for control of the solution injection means. Doing so notifies the user on how much liquid is being injected (Moeller, Paragraph 0028, Claim 17).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US Patent 9,179,612) in view of Heaney (US 20200284374 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Nelson discloses a lawn or garden maintenance device (400, Fig. 11), comprising:
a housing (406, Fig. 11);
a water supply coupling (418, Fig. 11, Col. 29, Ln. 35-39) provided on the housing (406, water connector 418 is attached on a surface of the housing 406, shown in Fig. 11);
a sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, Fig. 11) rotatably mounted in the housing (406, sprinkler head 408 moves rotationally with respect to the sprinkler 400 and sprinkler housing 406, shown in Fig. 11, Col. 54, Ln. 34-37), the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, Fig. 11) being configured to deliver a fluid as a water jet (interpreting water jet as a usually forceful stream of fluid discharge from a narrow opening or a nozzle, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a stream of water is discharged from a narrow discharge nozzle 410 and pressure is applied to the water which would create a water jet, stream is not explicitly shown in Fig. 11, but is shown in Fig. 5A, and Nelson states that sprinkler 400 has many of the same or similar components as sprinkler 102, shown in Figs. 5A, 11, Col. 9, Ln. 5-22, Col. 29, Ln. 25-46);
a drive mechanism (422, 424, 426, Fig. 11) mounted in the housing (406, shown in Fig. 11) and operatively connected to the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, shown in Fig. 11),
a main water line conduit (414, 420, Fig. 11) disposed in the housing (406, shown in Fig. 11) for fluidly connecting the water supply coupling (418, Fig. 11) and the sprinkler head nozzle (408, 410, shown in Fig. 11); and
a microcontroller (450, Fig. 11) operatively coupled to the drive mechanism (422, 424, 426, shown in Fig. 11, Col. 30, Ln. 15-46), wherein the microcontroller (450, Fig. 11) is configured to communicate wirelessly with a remote interface device (470, Fig. 11, Col. 30, Ln. 53-64) to set multiple user-defined application zones (user can set up a flow program for particular sprinklers, which have specific application zones, of an overall sprinkler system, Col. 31, Ln. 15-28).
However, Nelson does not disclose the microcontroller is configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first user-defined application zone of the multiple user-defined application zones, the first irrigation path comprising a plurality of concentric arcs within the first user-defined application zone, and control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially direct the water jet along each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs as claimed. Heaney teaches a lawn or garden maintenance device (10 in Fig. 1, entire structure in Fig. 2) comprising the microcontroller (32, Fig. 1) is configured to generate a first irrigation path for a first user-defined application zone of the multiple user-defined application zones, the first irrigation path comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs within the first user-defined application zone (the sprinkler system delivers a sprinkler pattern as a series of curves, or concentric arcs, to a specific location or predefined area, which includes a first application zone, in a reproducible manner, and there may be multiple specific locations, Paragraphs 0006, 0043, 0053), and control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially direct the water jet along each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs (a user can describe a series of points and curves that combine into a predefined area or watering pattern, in which multiple arbitrarily shaped patterns can be achieved, and speed, duration, direction, and all functions related to control of the sprinkler system are controlled by algorithms running on the MCU 32 that can repeat the user-defined patterns including a series of concentric arcs 24 as the sprinkler sweeps across each arc in sequence, and the specific location/arc can be controlled using different angles and pressures, shown in Figs. 4-4A, Paragraphs 0006-0007, 0042-0043, 0045, 0052). Heaney’s microcontroller would be combined to Nelson’s microcontroller to allow Nelson’s microcontroller to generate a first irrigation path for a first application zone of the multiple user-defined application zones, the first irrigation path comprising a plurality of concentric watering arcs within the first application zone, and control the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially direct the water jet along each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs.
Nelson and Heaney are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of irrigation sprayers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the microcontroller taught in Heaney’s device to Nelson’s device, to have the motivation to provide a sprinkler system that is able to deliver a small footprint of water to a specific location in a reproducible manner (Heaney, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 22, Nelson, as modified by Heaney, discloses the device of claim 21. Nelson further discloses a motorized variable valve (572, 574, Fig. 12) disposed in the main water line conduit (414, 420, 564, 511, 514, Figs. 11-12) configured to adjust a rate of fluid flow in the main water line conduit (valve allows the flow to be variably adjusted, and the flow control valve 572 and the flow control valve positioner 574 operates similarly to flow control valve 172 and flow control valve positioner 174 of Fig. 3, which can be operated using a motor, Col. 12, Ln. 21-30, Col. 31, Ln. 46-58). Heaney further teaches to vary a jet throw distance from the sprinkler head nozzle to permit the sprinkler head nozzle to sequentially direct the water jet along each arc of the plurality of concentric arcs (speed, duration, direction, and all functions related to control of the sprinkler system are controlled by algorithms running on the MCU 32 that can repeat the user-defined patterns including a series of concentric arcs 24 as the sprinkler sweeps across each arc in sequence, and the specific location/arc and distance of the water sprayed from the nozzle can be controlled using different angles and pressures, shown in Figs. 4-4A, Paragraphs 0006-0007, 0042-0043, 0045, 0052).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 17-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 lawn or garden maintenance device: Debro, Varanasi, Magnusson, Millar, Klinefelter, Liu, Ayers, Miller, Younis, Yuan, Jariyasunant, Chaplinsky, Fuller, DeStefano, Kaplan, Miller, Sibert, Buck, Collins, Pleasants, Cervola, Freyvogel, McMillan, Kah, Jr., Iggulden, Miller, Overbey, McCarty, Funseth, Zhao, and Russell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 /ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752