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 desired wetted area comprises a circular area minus a circular segment and minus a sector as recited in claim 9 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 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 1-18 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 two transitional phases (“including” in line 2 and “comprising” in line 4. See MPEP 2111.03) rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “sprinkler,” in line 1 is or is not a positively recited limitation since so many elements/limitations of the “sprinkler” are listed in lines 1-4. Clarification is respectfully requested. For the purpose of examination, the limitation of the “sprinkler” and it associated elements/limitations listed in lines 1-4 are considered as non-positively recited limitations due to the term “for,” in line 1, indicating the capability of the sprinkler nozzle to be installed in the “sprinkler.”
The term “deficit” in line 6 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deficit” 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 maximum amount of water, or the lack of water needed to meet the claim limitation is not known. The method of measuring such inadequacy or insufficiency is not provided in the original disclosure. Clarification is respectfully requested. Alternatively, the limitation "…to supplement a deficit of water from the plurality of sprinklers…" in line 6 appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect.
The terms “shaped to apply water a distance beyond the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system” in lines 2-3 of claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “shaped to apply water a distance beyond the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system” 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 exact size, shape, location or geometry of the nozzle opening to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to claim 14.
The term “desired” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired” 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 “wished-for or longed-for” size, shape or geometry of the area to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested. Similar rejection applies to the term “target” in claims 7 and 15.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the desired wetted area comprises a circular area minus a circular segment and minus a sector" in lines 3-4. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 further define the shape of the “desired wetted area.” However, the term “to” in line 2 of claim 9 clearly indicated that the “desired wetted area” is not a positively recited limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Same rejection applies to claim 17.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites “a sprinkler nozzle according to claim 14.” However, the “sprinkler nozzle” in claim 14 is only one element of the center pivot irrigation system of claim 13. It is unclear if the rest of the center pivot irrigation system of claim 13 are needed in claim 15. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sesser (US4676438).
With respect to claim 1, Sesser discloses a sprinkler nozzle (106, 112 and internal wall of 92 of 58) for a sprinkler (58) positioned at a distal end of a center pivot irrigation system (Figs. 1-3 and “pivot move systems.” Col. 3, line 25), the center pivot irrigation system including a pivot pipe (14) rotatably coupled with a center pivot and a plurality of sprinklers (26 and 58) mounted along the pivot pipe, the sprinkler nozzle being cooperable with a deflector plate (132) of the sprinkler and comprising a nozzle opening (three arched openings in between 112. Fig. 7) that is configured to (capable of) distribute water back under the pivot pipe to (capable of) supplement a deficit of water from the plurality of sprinklers mounted along the pivot pipe.
With respect to claim 2, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle opening (three arched openings in between 112. Fig. 7) spans an arc greater than 180 degrees.
With respect to claim 3, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 2, wherein the nozzle opening spans an arc less than 360 degrees (360 degrees minus the thickness of three ribs 112. Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 4, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 1, wherein a portion of nozzle opening is blocked (by the thickness of three ribs 112. Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 5, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 4, wherein the portion of the nozzle opening that is blocked is skewed (no aligned) relative to the pivot pipe.
With respect to claim 6, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle opening is shaped to apply water a distance beyond the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system (since the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system is designed to move over the field or around the pivot, thus, it is reasonable to assume that the water delivered by the nozzle opening is shaped to apply water a distance beyond the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system) and configured to (capable of) match an application rate of the plurality of sprinklers along the pivot pipe.
With respect to claim 7, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 6, wherein a combination of water distribution from the plurality of sprinklers including the sprinkler positioned at the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system equals a target distribution rate up to a distance past the distal end (since the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system is designed to move over the field or around the pivot, thus, it is reasonable to assume that the plurality of sprinklers including the sprinkler positioned at the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system equals a target distribution rate up to a distance past the distal end).
With respect to claim 8, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle opening is part-toroidal shaped (Fig. 7) and partially blocked (by the thickness of three ribs 112) or skewed (not aligned) to (capable of) control water flow to portions of the deflector plate according to a desired wetted area, and wherein the nozzle opening is shaped corresponding to the desired wetted area.
With respect to claim 9, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle opening is shaped to (capable of) control water flow to (top and rim) portions of the deflector plate according to a desired wetted area (donut shape wetted area as the center pivot irrigation system is moving around the pivot), and wherein the desired wetted area comprises a circular area (the donut shape wetted area) minus a circular segment (outer lines of the donut shape wetted area) and minus a sector (sector outside of the donut shape wetted area. Same configuration as the Applicants’ invention).
With respect to claim 10, Sesser discloses sprinkler nozzle according to claim 9, wherein the circular segment is positioned on one side of the circular area, and wherein the sector is positioned on a diametric opposite side of the circular area (same configuration as the Applicants’ invention).
With respect to claim 11, Sesser discloses sprinkler nozzle according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle opening is non-round (at ribs 112).
With respect to claim 12, Sesser discloses a sprinkler (Figs. 1-14) comprising: a main body (88) connectable to a source of water under pressure; the sprinkler nozzle of claim 1 secured to the main body; and a deflector plate (132) positioned facing the sprinkler nozzle downstream of the sprinkler nozzle.
With respect to claim 13, Sesser discloses a center pivot irrigation system (Figs. 1-3 and “pivot move systems.” Col. 3, line 25) comprising: a center pivot (not shown); a pivot pipe (14) rotatably coupled with the center pivot; and a plurality of sprinklers (26 and 58) installed along a length of the pivot pipe, wherein the sprinkler of claim 12 is positioned adjacent a distal end of the pivot pipe.
With respect to claim 14, Sesser discloses the center pivot irrigation system to claim 13, wherein the nozzle opening is shaped to apply water a distance beyond the distal end of the pivot pipe (since the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system is designed to move over the field or around the pivot, thus, it is reasonable to assume that the water delivered by the nozzle opening is shaped to apply water a distance beyond the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system) and configured to (capable of) match an application rate of the plurality of sprinklers along the pivot pipe.
With respect to claim 15, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 14, wherein a combination of water distribution from the plurality of sprinklers including the sprinkler positioned at the distal end of the pivot pipe equals a target distribution rate up to a distance past the distal end (since the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system is designed to move over the field or around the pivot, thus, it is reasonable to assume that the plurality of sprinklers including the sprinkler positioned at the distal end of the center pivot irrigation system equals a target distribution rate up to a distance past the distal end).
With respect to claim 16, Sesser discloses a sprinkler nozzle (106, 112 and internal wall of 92 of 58) for a sprinkler (58) positioned at a distal end of a center pivot irrigation system (Figs. 1-3 and “pivot move systems.” Col. 3, line 25), the center pivot irrigation system including a pivot pipe rotatably coupled with a center pivot (14) rotatably coupled with a center pivot and a plurality of sprinklers (26 and 58) mounted along the pivot pipe, the sprinkler nozzle being cooperable with a deflector plate (132) of the sprinkler and comprising a nozzle opening (three arched openings in between 112. Fig. 7) shaped to (capable of) control water flow to (top and rim) portions of the deflector plate according to a desired wetted area, wherein the desired wetted area comprises a circular area (the donut shape wetted area) minus a circular segment (outer lines of the donut shape wetted area) and minus a sector (sector outside of the donut shape wetted area. Same configuration as the Applicants’ invention).
With respect to claim 17, Sesser discloses the sprinkler nozzle according to claim 16, wherein the circular segment is positioned on one side of the circular area, and wherein the sector is positioned on a diametric opposite side of the circular area (same configuration as the Applicants’ invention).
With respect to claim 18, Sesser discloses sprinkler nozzle according to claim 16, wherein the nozzle opening is non-round (at ribs 112).
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 sprinkler nozzle: Maienknecht, Ingram, Houston, Tibbals, Jr., Gebhardt, Nelson, Clements,von Lutzow, Vikre, Gruber et al., Ulcinhazska et al., Meyer and Nattel.
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 July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights