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 .
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 limitation “electronic control means” in claim 1 that use the word “means” (or “step”) is 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.
In light of the specification, the limitation “electronic control means” has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “one of first and second magnetometers” in paragraph 0064.
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 9 and 11 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 9 recites that the wind measurement is “adapted to instantaneously and continuously change said range angle.” The term “instantaneously” renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not establish a measurable temporal boundary for the required response. It is unclear whether “instantaneously” requires the range angle to change simultaneously with detection of a change in wind conditions, within a specified response time, or merely without a substantial delay. The claim provides no objective time interval or other criterion by which a person of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether a particular adjustment occurs “instantaneously.” Accordingly, the scope of the limitation depends on an unspecified and subjective understanding of what constitutes an instantaneous response. The term “continuously” is indefinite as well because the claim does not specify what is required for the range angle to be considered continuously changed. In particular, it is unclear whether “continuously” requires uninterrupted physical movement of the spout tube, uninterrupted electronic adjustment of the drive means, repeated adjustment at successive time intervals, or merely the capability of adjusting the range angle in response to changing wind conditions.
Claim 11 recites the term “excessive inclination”, which is a term of degree for which the claim does not provide an objective standard by which to determine the scope of the limitation. The claim does not specify an angular value, angular range, threshold, tolerance, or other criterion that distinguishes an “excessive” inclination from an inclination that is not excessive. Thus, it is unclear what degree of inclination must be detected before the claimed shut-off operation is performed.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drechsel (US 2004/0089735 A1) in view of Yang (CN 109122217).
With regard to claim 1, Drechsel discloses an impulse sprinkler (3) with an adjustment system for adjusting a range angle (a) of a jet (Fig. 4), wherein the impulse sprinkler (3) comprises; a spout tube (6) connected to a pressurized water supply line (2) for generating the jet; and a joint (13) adapted to allow the an inclination of the spout tube (6); wherein the adjustment system (10/12/13) comprises drive means (12) associated with said joint (13) to determine the inclination of the spout tube (Par. [0030])), and electronic control means (10) are provided which are selectively connected to said drive means (12 and claim 9) to allow a continuous change in the range angle (a); and wherein said drive means are a stepper drive (claim 4).
Drechsel is silent to disclose that said stepper drive adapted to drive a gear movable along a threaded member or a worm screw having a sliding axis coplanar to an axis of said spout tube.
Yang teaches a sprinkler comprising a drive means (Fig. 2) are a stepper drive (19) adapted to drive a gear (14) movable along a threaded member or a worm screw (8/15) having a sliding axis coplanar to an axis of said spout tube (11, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive means of the sprinkler of Drechsel, by incorporating the stepper drive, the gear and the worm screw (Fig. 3) as taught by Yang, since the modification is a simple substitution of one known drive means for another drive means to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 3, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel as modified by Yang discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Drechsel in view of Yang further discloses that said electronic control means (10) comprise at least one proximity sensor (“Hall sensors” in Drechsel’s sprinkler) configured to detect a position of said threaded member or said worm screw with respect to said drive means and to measure said range angle.
With regard to claim 4, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel as modified by Yang discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Drechsel in view of Yang further discloses that said electronic control means (10) comprise at least one first magnetometer and one second magnetometer (“a series of radially arranged Hall sensors” see Col. 5 line 22) positioned spaced apart respectively at said joint (13) and said spout tube (6), said first and said second magnetometers (“Hall sensors”) being configured to detect the a position of said spout tube (6) and measure said range angle (Fig. 10).
With regard to claim 10, since the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel in view of Yang discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel in view of Yang will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 10.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drechsel in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alsafar (US 11,504,733 B1).
With regard to claim 8, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel as modified by Yang discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, they do not disclose that said electronic control means comprise an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope configured to shut off a supply of the pressurized water to said spout tube when the latter spout tube tips over and/or has a-the range angle (a) different from the one set a preset range angle.
Alsafar teaches a spraying device comprising electronic control means (68) comprise an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope (Col. 5 line 24) configured to shut off a supply of the pressurized water to said spout tube when the latter spout tube tips over and/or has a-the range angle (a) different from the one set a preset range angle (Col. 5 lines 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprinkler of Drechsel, by incorporating the gyroscope as taught by Alsafar, for the benefit of improving navigational control (Col. 5 line 25).
With regard to claim 11, since the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel in view of Yang and Alsafar discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel in view of Yang and Alsafar will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 11.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drechsel (US 2004/0089735 A1) in view of Lozier (US 8,245,790 B2).
With regard to claim 1, Drechsel discloses an impulse sprinkler (3) with an adjustment system for adjusting a range angle (a) of a jet (Fig. 4), wherein the impulse sprinkler (3) comprises; a spout tube (6) connected to a pressurized water supply line (2) for generating the jet; and a joint (13) adapted to allow the an inclination of the spout tube (6); wherein the adjustment system (10/12/13) comprises drive means (12) associated with said joint (13) to determine the inclination of the spout tube (Par. [0030])), and electronic control means (10) are provided which are selectively connected to said drive means (12 and claim 9) to allow a continuous change in the range angle (a); and wherein said drive means are a stepper drive (claim 4).
Drechsel is silent to disclose that said stepper drive adapted to drive a gear movable along a threaded member or a worm screw having a sliding axis coplanar to an axis of said spout tube.
Lozier teaches a sprinkler comprising a drive means (Fig. 7) are a motor drive (57) adapted to drive a gear (56) movable along a threaded member or a worm screw (44, Fig. 7) having a sliding axis (rotational axis of 44) coplanar to an axis of said spout tube (23, Fig. 7 shows both axes are arranged on the same plane shown in Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive means of the sprinkler of Drechsel, by incorporating the drive, the gear and the worm screw (Fig. 7) as taught by Lozier, since the modification is a simple substitution of one known drive means for another drive means to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 3, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel as modified by Lozier discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lozier further discloses that said electronic control means comprise at least one proximity sensor configured to detect a position of said threaded member or said worm screw with respect to said drive means and to measure said range angle (Col. 5 lines 51-65).
With regard to claim 4, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel as modified by Loizer discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Drechsel in view of Loizer further discloses that said electronic control means comprise at least one first magnetometer and one second magnetometer (“hall effect sensors”) positioned spaced apart respectively at said joint and said spout tube, said first and said second magnetometers being configured to detect a position of said spout tube (6) and measure said range angle (Col. 5 lines 51-65).
With regard to claim 5, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel as modified by Lozier discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Drechsel in view of Lozier further discloses that said drive means (Fig. 7) comprise an encoder adapted to measure in real time a position of said gear along said threaded member or said worm screw (Fig. 8A).
With regard to claim 7, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel as modified by Lozier discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lozier further discloses that said electronic control means (Fig. 8A) comprise an electronic storage unit adapted to store a value of at least one the range angle which can be set by the a user or by an irrigation map (Col. 7 line 61- Col. 8 line 35).
With regard to claim 9, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel as modified by Lozier discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Drechsel further discloses that said electronic control means (10) are connected by wire or wi-fi to a device for measuring the providing a measurement of strength and direction of a wind, said measurement being adapted to instantaneously and continuously change said range angle (Col. 5 line 33 – Col. 6 line 15).
With regard to claim 10, since the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel in view of Lozier discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel in view of Lozier will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 10.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drechsel in view of Loizer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alsafar (US 11,504,733 B1).
With regard to claim 8, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel as modified by Lozier discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, they do not disclose that said electronic control means comprise an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope configured to shut off the a supply of the pressurized water to said spout tube when the latter spout tube tips over and/or has a-the range angle (a) different from the one set a preset range angle.
Alsafar teaches a spraying device comprising electronic control means (68) comprise an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope (Col. 5 line 24) configured to shut off a supply of the pressurized water to said spout tube when the latter spout tube tips over and/or has a-the range angle (a) different from the one set a preset range angle (Col. 5 lines 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprinkler of Drechsel, by incorporating the gyroscope as taught by Alsafar, for the benefit of improving navigational control (Col. 5 line 25).
With regard to claim 11, since the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel in view of Lozier and Alsafar discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the impulse sprinkler of Drechsel in view of Lozier and Alsafar will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
