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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the misting device comprising… a plurality of misting devices (more than one of itself) as recited in line 5 of claims 1, 12 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “misting devices” in line 5 of claims 1, 12 and 20, where the “devices” is the placeholder and “misting” is the functional language.
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.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each pair of said plurality of water carrying connecting rods,” in line 9, should read --each pair of water carrying connecting rods of said plurality of water carrying connecting rods.-- Same and similar objection applies to all pending claims.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “interconnected with at least one of said plurality of misting devices,” in line 10, should read --interconnected with at least one misting device of said plurality of misting devices.-- Same and similar objection applies to all pending claims.
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 1-20 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.
Line 5 of claim 1 recites “a plurality of misting devices.” The limitation rendering the claim indefinite because the “misting device,” in line 1, is the preamble of the claimed invention, it is unclear how a “misting device” comprising more than one “misting devices (of itself)?” Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to all pending claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each pair of said plurality of water carrying connecting rods" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to claims 12 and 20.
In claim 2, lines 1-2, the recitation “a first water carrying connecting rod” appears to be a double inclusion of a “connecting rod” of the “plurality of water carrying connecting rods” recited in line 4 of claim 1. It is unclear if one additional “connecting rod” is needed in addition to the “plurality of water carrying connecting rods” recited in line 4 of claim 1 or the “first water carrying connecting rod” is simply a “connecting rod” of the “plurality of water carrying connecting rods?” Clarification is respectfully requested. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the “first water carrying connecting rod” is simply a “connecting rod” of the “plurality of water carrying connecting rods” recited in line 4 of claim 1. Same rejection applies to all pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maples (US20080011878).
With respect to claim 1, Maples discloses a misting device (Figs. 1-30) to (capable of) spray mist of water over an outdoor area comprising: a first telescoping bar (leftmost 12 and 22 in Fig. 20); a second telescoping bar (rightmost 12 and 22 in Fig. 20); a plurality of water carrying connecting rods (22, 30, 50, 52, 54); a plurality of misting devices (62); and a water hose (50, 52, 54); wherein said first telescoping bar having a first base (leftmost 12 in Fig. 20); wherein said second telescoping bar having a second base (rightmost 12 in Fig. 20); wherein each pair of said plurality of water carrying connecting rods (rods 22 with 12 attached) interconnected with at least one of said plurality of misting devices; wherein said plurality of water carrying connecting rods and said plurality of misting devices interconnected between said first telescoping bar and said second telescoping bar; and further wherein said water hose connected to said plurality of water carrying connecting rods for transporting water to said water carrying connecting rods and said plurality of misting devices.
With respect to claim 2, Maples discloses the misting device to spray mist of water over an outdoor area of claim 1, wherein a first water carrying connecting rod (top left 30 in Fig. 20) selectively attached to one of said first telescoping bar and said second telescoping bar.
With respect to claim 3, Maples discloses the misting device to spray mist of water over an outdoor area of claim 2, wherein a second water carrying connecting rod (top right 30 in Fig. 20) selectively attached to another one of said first telescoping bar and said second telescoping bar.
With respect to claim 4, Maples discloses the misting device to spray mist of water over an outdoor area of claim 1, wherein said plurality of misting devices selectively rotatable for adjusting a mist spray direction from said plurality of misting devices (Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 5, Maples discloses the misting device to spray mist of water over an outdoor area of claim 4, wherein said first telescoping bar having a first telescoping knob (20 at the leftmost 12 and 22 in Figs. 9 and 20) for (capable of) selecting a height of said first telescoping bar.
With respect to claim 6, Maples discloses the misting device to spray mist of water over an outdoor area of claim 5, wherein said second telescoping bar having a second telescoping knob (20 at the rightmost 12 and 22 in Figs. 9 and 20) for (capable of) selecting a height of said second telescoping bar.
With respect to claim 7, Maples discloses the misting device to spray mist of water over an outdoor area of claim 6, wherein each of said plurality of misting devices having a hollow body and opposing open ends (Figs. 1-15).
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.
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) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maples in view of Tyler (US 2077725).
With respect to claim 8, Maples discloses the misting device to spray mist of water over an outdoor area of claim 7, except for wherein each of said plurality of misting devices having a rotatable spray head for adjusting a mist spray density from each of said plurality of misting devices.
However, Tyler teaches a misting device (Figs. 1-6) having a rotatable spray head (30) for adjusting a mist spray density (Figs. 4 and 5) from each of said plurality of misting devices (three shown in Fig. 1).
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 rotatable spray head for adjusting a mist spray density, as taught by Tyler, to Maples’ misting device, in order to provide adjustability of the mist spray density (page 1, left column, lines 11-40 and Figs. 4 and 5).
With respect to claim 9, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Tyler further teaches wherein each of said plurality of misting devices manually rotatable (via adjusting screws 50 or thread at 32).
With respect to claim 10, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Tyler further teaches wherein said rotatable spray head is manually rotatable (via adjusting screws 50 or thread at 32).
With respect to claim 11, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Tyler further teaches wherein said rotatable spray head having a filter (screen 25) for prohibiting debris from entering said plurality of misting devices (page 1, right column, lines 28-31).
With respect to claim 12, Maples discloses a misting device (Figs. 1-30) to (capable of) spray mist of water over an outdoor area comprising: a first telescoping bar (leftmost 12 and 22 in Fig. 20); a second telescoping bar (rightmost 12 and 22 in Fig. 20); a plurality of water carrying connecting rods (22, 30, 50, 52, 54); a plurality of misting devices (62); and a water hose (50, 52, 54); wherein said first telescoping bar having a first base (leftmost 12 in Fig. 20); wherein said second telescoping bar having a second base (rightmost 12 in Fig. 20); wherein each pair of said plurality of water carrying connecting rods (rods 22 with 12 attached) interconnected with at least one of said plurality of misting devices; wherein said plurality of water carrying connecting rods and said plurality of misting devices interconnected between said first telescoping bar and said second telescoping bar; wherein said water hose connected to said plurality of water carrying connecting rods for transporting water to said water carrying connecting rods and said plurality of misting devices.
Maples fails to disclose wherein each of said plurality of misting devices having a rotatable spray head for adjusting a mist spray density from each of said plurality of misting devices.
However, Tyler teaches a misting device (Figs. 1-6) having a rotatable spray head (30) for adjusting a mist spray density (Figs. 4 and 5) from each of said plurality of misting devices (three shown in Fig. 1).
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 rotatable spray head for adjusting a mist spray density, as taught by Tyler, to Maples’ misting device, in order to provide adjustability of the mist spray density (page 1, left column, lines 11-40 and Figs. 4 and 5).
With respect to claim 13, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Maples further discloses wherein a first water carrying connecting rod (top left 30 in Fig. 20) selectively attached to one of said first telescoping bar and said second telescoping bar.
With respect to claim 14, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Maples further discloses wherein a second water carrying connecting rod (top right 30 in Fig. 20) selectively attached to another one of said first telescoping bar and said second telescoping bar.
With respect to claim 15, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Maples further discloses wherein said plurality of misting devices selectively rotatable for adjusting a mist spray direction from said plurality of misting devices (Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 16, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Maples further discloses wherein said first telescoping bar having a first telescoping knob (20 at the leftmost 12 and 22 in Figs. 9 and 20) for (capable of) selecting a height of said first telescoping bar.
With respect to claim 17, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Maples further discloses wherein said second telescoping bar having a second telescoping knob (20 at the rightmost 12 and 22 in Figs. 9 and 20) for (capable of) selecting a height of said second telescoping bar.
With respect to claim 18, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Maples further discloses wherein each of said plurality of misting devices having a hollow body and opposing open ends (Figs. 1-15).
With respect to claim 19, Maples’ misting device modified by Tyler’s rotatable spray head, Tyler further teaches wherein each of said plurality of misting devices manually rotatable (via adjusting screws 50 or thread at 32).
With respect to claim 20, Maples discloses a misting device (Figs. 1-30) to (capable of) spray mist of water over an outdoor area comprising: a first telescoping bar (leftmost 12 and 22 in Fig. 20); a second telescoping bar (rightmost 12 and 22 in Fig. 20); a plurality of water carrying connecting rods (22, 30, 50, 52, 54); a plurality of misting devices (62); and a water hose (50, 52, 54); wherein said first telescoping bar having a first base (leftmost 12 in Fig. 20); wherein said second telescoping bar having a second base (rightmost 12 in Fig. 20); wherein each pair of said plurality of water carrying connecting rods (rods 22 with 12 attached) interconnected with at least one of said plurality of misting devices; wherein said plurality of water carrying connecting rods and said plurality of misting devices interconnected between said first telescoping bar and said second telescoping bar; wherein said water hose connected to said plurality of water carrying connecting rods for transporting water to said water carrying connecting rods and said plurality of misting devices; wherein said plurality of misting devices selectively rotatable for adjusting a mist spray direction from said plurality of misting devices (Fig. 14).
Maples fails to disclose wherein each of said plurality of misting devices having a rotatable spray head for adjusting a mist spray density from each of said plurality of misting devices and further wherein each of said plurality of misting devices manually rotatable.
However, Tyler teaches a misting device (Figs. 1-6) having a rotatable spray head (30) for adjusting a mist spray density (Figs. 4 and 5) from each of said plurality of misting devices (three shown in Fig. 1), wherein said rotatable spray head is manually rotatable (via adjusting screws 50 or thread at 32).
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 rotatable spray head for adjusting a mist spray density, as taught by Tyler, to Maples’ misting device, in order to provide adjustability of the mist spray density (page 1, left column, lines 11-40 and Figs. 4 and 5).
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 misting device: Bothezat, Wantanabe et al., Banta, Steiner, Siria et al., Coleman, Tsimerman and Jones et al.
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 February 17, 2026