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 .
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on January 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
The current application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/870,102 filed July 3, 2019. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a tamper evident label having indicia including a composite K factor of said sprinkler unit” in lines 14-15. The Provisional Application does not appear to disclose a label having indicia including a composite K factor of said sprinkler unit. The currently claimed invention is not entitled to the benefit of priority to the Provisional Application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (figure 1) in the reply filed on January 12, 2022 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-12, 16, 18, 31, 32, 37 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 “a tamper evident label having indicia” in line 14. The claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the function of determining evidence of tampering. The structure recited in the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function recited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, 16, 18, 31, 32, 37 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage et al. (2016/0175632) in view of MacDonald, III et al. (6,123,154; cited in the IDS filed on July 15, 2020).
Regarding claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 37, Savage et al. disclose sprinkler unit comprising:
a sprinkler head 14 defining a discharge opening (outlet of sprinkler head 14);
an adapter (portion/element in bracket 28 in figure 1) extending from said sprinkler head, said adapter defining a bore in fluid communication with said discharge opening;
a flexible conduit 16 attached to said adapter (flexible conduit is not easily separable from the adapter because tools would be required) by at least one of welding, brazing, swaging, or crimping (MPEP 2113 Product by Process), said flexible conduit being in fluid communication with said bore of said adapter, said flexible conduit having an inlet end 18 attachable to a source of fire suppressing liquid;
a tamper evident label 34 (sleeve 34 is visibly evident of any changes/tampering to sleeve 34) having indicia (markings, paragraph 0014) including a composite K factor of said sprinkler unit (paragraph 0014), wherein
said composite K factor of said tamper evident label of said sprinkler unit accounts for pressure losses from said flexible conduit, said adapter, and said sprinkler head of said sprinkler unit (inherent, K factor inherently accounts for pressure losses from said flexible conduit, said adapter, and said sprinkler head) wherein
said sprinkler head has a K factor (K factor of the sprinkler unit alone), wherein said K factor of said sprinkler head is different than said composite K factor of said indicia of said tamper evident label of said sprinkler unit (pressure of the fluid to the sprinkler alone is different than the pressure to the sprinkler through the flexible conduit and adapter).
(in Savage et al., the flow rate discharged from the discharge opening inherently includes pressure losses from the flexible conduit, the adapter and the sprinkler head because the fluid must flow through the flexible conduit, the adapter and the sprinkler head because the fluid discharges through the discharge opening; additionally, the K factor defined as a ratio of said flow rate divided by a square root of a fluid pressure at said discharge opening inherently exists in Savage et al.; it is noted that the K factor defined as a ratio of said flow rate divided by a square root of a fluid pressure at said discharge opening is well known in the art as evidenced by Crabtree et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,464,766, that discloses, in col. 4, ll. 21-24, flow rate and discharge pressure are related by the formula: r=k√p, where r is the flow rate, p the discharge pressure and k the “k” factor; Crabtree et al. do not form the basis of this rejection; it is merely cited as evidence; normally, it is well understood in the art that pressure is defined by the pressure supplied to the sprinkler head, i.e., the pressure at the inlet; Crabtree et al. is evidence that k factor can also be defined by the pressure at the discharge opening, i.e., the discharge pressure).
Savage et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a deflector. Savage et al. disclose, in paragraph 0019, that the sprinkler 14 includes, but is not limited to, items such as sprinklers, heads, nozzles, emitters and the like.
MacDonald, III et al. disclose a sprinkler head 32 having a deflector 86 mounted on said sprinkler head in spaced relation to a discharge opening (opening closed by plug 82).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a deflector to the sprinkler ehad of Savage et al. as taught by MacDonald, III et al. to scatter the fluid over a wide area (MacDonald, III et al., col. 6, ll. 20-21).
Savage et al. further disclose said discharge opening has a diameter sized in relation to one or more characteristics of said flexible conduit to provide a desired flow rate (the K factor defined by a discharge pressure inherently is sized in relation to one or more characteristics of the flexible conduit because it takes into account the pressure low resulting from the flexible conduit).
Savage et al. further disclose said characteristics of said flexible conduit include a conduit length, a conduit inner diameter, a conduit inner surface roughness and combinations thereof (inherent because such characteristics all contribute to pressure loss).
Savage et al. further disclose said discharge opening has a diameter sized in relation to one or more characteristics of said adapter to provide a desired flow rate (similar reasons as applied to the flexible conduit).
Savage et al. further disclose said characteristics of said adapter include an adapter length, an adapter inner diameter, an adapter inner surface roughness and combinations thereof (similar reasons as applied to the flexible conduit).
Savage et al. further disclose a nozzle integrally formed with said sprinkler head, said nozzle including said discharge opening and having an intake in fluid communication with said adapter.
Savage et al. further disclose said inlet end of said flexible conduit comprises a flow conditioning device including a venturi or an orifice (orifice of inlet end 18).
Savage et al. further disclose said sprinkler head is integrally formed with said adapter (sprinkler head and adapter are integrated together).
Savage et al. further disclose said sprinkler head and said adapter are cast (product by process; MPEP 2113) as a unitary piece (the sprinkler head and the adapter make up a unit).
Savage et al. further disclose wherein said sprinkler head is attached to said adapter by welding, brazing, swaging or crimping (product by process; MPEP 2113).
Savage et al. further disclose said flexible conduit comprises a corrugated hose.
Savage et al. further disclose said sprinkler head does not include a wrench boss (no wrench boss shown in figures).
Regarding claim 11, Savage et al. in view of MacDonald, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of welding, brazing, swaging and crimping. Welding a well known technique for connecting/assembling two elements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have welded the sprinkler head and the adapter in the device of Savage et al. in view of MacDonald, III et al. to ease manufacturing and assembly. Additionally, as indicated above, welding, brazing, swaging and crimping are processes. Claim 11 is directed to an apparatus. Claim 11 is a Product-by-Process claim. Product-by-Pprocess claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 16, Savage et al. in view of MacDonald, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a tamper evident label between said sprinkler head and a portion of said adapter. A tamper evident label, such as a simple permanent sticker overlying a joint, is well known the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a tamper evident label in Savage et al. in view of MacDonald, III et al. to improve/ensure security.
Regarding claim 18, Savage et al. in view of MacDonald, III et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a tamper evident label extends between a portion of said flexible conduit and a portion of said adapter. A tamper evident label, such as a simple permanent sticker overlying a joint, is well known the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a tamper evident label in Savage et al. in view of MacDonald, III et al. to improve/ensure security.
Regarding claim 31, Savage et al. in view of MacDonald, III et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the diameter of the discharge opening being greater than 0.455 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the discharge opening greater than 0.455 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 32, Savage et al. in view of MacDonald, III et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the assigned composite K factor being 5.6 and the flexible conduit being 48 inches to 72 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a K factor of 5.6 and made the flexible conduit 4 inches to 72 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite, and does not recited a term equivalent to, “determining evidence of tampering.” Claim 1 recites “a taper evident label.” Presumably, not all labels are taper evident. Therefore, claim 1 fails to recite structure to accomplish the function of “taper evident.”
Regarding Applicant’s argument in pages 8-9, Applicant argues the specification. Although the claims are read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be imported into the claims.
Applicant argues that flexible conduit 16 is not part of the sprinkler 14. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with claimed invention. Applicant appears to be reading the prior art differently from that of the Office Action.
Applicant argues that Savage does not disclose marking indicative of an assembly K factor, i.e., a composite K factor. Applicant does not raise any new issue. As indicated in the previous response, the K factor of Savage is inherently a composite K factor because the pressure provided to the sprinkler is a result of the flexible conduit, adapter and sprinkler head. The pressure provided to the sprinkler can only be a result of the initial pressure minus frictional and head loss from the pressure/pump source to the sprinkler.
Regarding Applicant’s argument to MacDonald, MacDonald is not being relied on for the teachings of a tamper evident label having indicia including a composite K factor of said sprinkler unit.
Claim 1 recites “a tamper evident label having a composite K factor of said sprinkler unit.” It is noted that “tamper evident” and “K factor” have nothing to do with each other. The “label” only needs to be able to indicate the two characteristics. K factor is a design characteristic of the sprinkler and is unable to indicate “tamper evident.” K factor also does not indicate the actual function of the sprinkler because the flow rates and pressure are design parameters and not actual functioning parameters provided to the sprinkler. Likewise, “tamper evident” cannot indicate a K factor. “Tamper evident” and “K factor” are mutually exclusive characteristics of the label.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 on (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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK