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
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, species i, figures 1-5 in the reply filed on 9/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 9 and 14-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/15/26
The examiner notes that the applicant has included claim 21 as a generic claim. The examiner notes that claim 21 requires “the clamp overlying an entire length of the depression in a direction along the longitudinal extension of the base,” which is directed to figures non-elected without travers. Claim 21 is withdrawn.
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) 1-3, 5, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Segev (3,843,059).
Regarding claim 1, Segev shows A sprinkler irrigation stand (fig 1) comprising: a base (1) having an upper surface and a lower surface which is configured to rest on a ground surface (fig 1, 2), the upper surface having a depression (where pipe 3 rests in 5) that extends along a longitudinal extension of the base, the lower surface having a base width (W1) measured in a lateral extension of the base which is orthogonal to the longitudinal extension (fig 1); and a clamp (9) coupled to a first lateral side of the base at a first mating region (6, fig 2), the clamp comprising a clamp passage (12) configured to slidably receive a lower portion of a sprinkler (fig 2); wherein: in the non-deployed state (clamp is off), the clamp is not attached to an opposing second lateral side of the base (the clamp is off so it’s not attached); in the deployed state, the clamp is attached to the opposing second lateral side of the base at a second mating region (7) and the clamp passage directly overlies the depression (fig 2); and the stand has a stand height (H1) measured from the lower surface of the base to a top of the clamp; when in the deployed state (fig 2).
Regarding claim 2, wherein at least in an imaginary plane orthogonal to the base's longitudinal extension and passing through the first and second mating regions, the clamp in its deployed state has a low profile above the base while bridging between the first and second lateral sides of base (fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the low profile is characterized by the clamp following a generally elliptical path (fig 2, a circle is an ellipse) between the first and second mating regions with a major axis of such an imaginary ellipse being defined by an imaginary straight line passing through the first and second mating regions (fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the depression comprises a generally cylindrical imaginary surface that has an axis extending in the longitudinal direction (fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 7, the first and second mating regions (6, 7) are located in cavities formed in the base 9fig 2); and each cavity comprises opposing walls that are located on opposing longitudinal sides of an end portion of the clamp (fig 2).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the stand height (H1) is less than the base width (W1) (fig 2).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev (3,843,059).
Regarding claim 12, Segev shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, including a figure (fig 2) that appears to show; wherein the stand height (H1) is less than 0.7 times the base width (W1), but does to expressly teach that the stand height (H1) is less than 0.7 times the base width (W1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Segev so that the stand height (H1) is less than 0.7 times the base width (W1), since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently then the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Segev would not operate differently with the stand height (H1) is less than 0.7 times the base width (W1),. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Segev shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1 including an irrigation pipe (4) having spaced apart pipe sections thereof resting on the depression of the sprinkler stand, the pipe section having a pipe outlet (2); and a sprinkler (14) coupled to the pipe outlet; wherein: the clamp is in the deployed state with the sprinkler protruding through the clamp passage of said clamp (fig 1, 2)
But fails to disclose a plurality of spaced apart sprinkler stands each having a sprinkler.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add additional sprinklers to the pipe 4 and have them spaced apart from each other in order to distribute water over a larger area.
Regarding claim 6, Segev shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 5, including at least in an imaginary plane orthogonal to the base's longitudinal extension and passing through the first and second mating regions: a diameter of the cylindrical imaginary surface (D) and a height (H) of the clamp above a lowest portion of the depression satisfies the relationship D ≤ H. (fig 2)
But fails to disclose H≤ D+G, where G is defined as a gap being equal to about 20% of D.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Segev so that H≤ D+G, where G is defined as a gap being equal to about 20% of D, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently then the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Segev would not operate differently with H≤ D+G, where G is defined as a gap being equal to about 20% of D. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the limitation.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev (3,843,059) in view of Hennon (2007/0295867)
Regarding claim 10, Segev shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the clamp is pivotally coupled to the first lateral side of the base.
Hennon teaches a hose clamp where the clamp (30) is pivotally coupled to the first lateral side of the base (6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the clap pivotally coupled to the first lateral side of the base instead of clipped, in order to make it harder to lose the clamp.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the low profile is characterized by the clamp following a path of varying curvature on its route between its first and second mating regions (fig 1), starting at a first curvature (the curved part around pivot 9) at the first mating region, a second curvature (31) over the depression, and a third curvature (near 40) proximate the second mating region, the first and third curvatures being greater than the second curvature (fig 1) .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thomas (3,848,838) and Van Doren (1,964,097).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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 (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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 9/24/2026
Prosecution Insights