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 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, 6, 7 and 12-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, it is unclear what is meant by the term “is within a threshold of 30.8.” Does the claim mean that the k factor is 30.8, or does it mean that the K factor is 30.8 plus or minus a certain amount? If so, it is unclear what that amount is.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for depending from rejected claims 1 and 12
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), 1, 7, 12, 14-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (2007/0221389) in view of Rogers et al. (2006/0113092)
Regarding claims 1, Ballard shows a sprinkler, comprising: a body (12) defining a bore (14) extending from an inlet (the upstream end of 12) to an outlet (the outlet is being considered the downstream most end of the smallest inner diameter section of 12), the bore comprises a first portion extending from the inlet (the largest inner diameter portion of 12), a second portion extending from the first portion to the outlet (the smallest inner diameter portion of 12), and a step between the first portion and the second portion (fig 2), the first portion has a first inner diameter that is constant from the inlet to the step (fig 2), the second portion has a second inner diameter that is constant from the step to the outlet (fig 2) and a ratio of a first length of the first portion to a second length of the second portion is greater than or equal to 1:1 (this is clearly shown in figure 2)
Ballard fails to disclose a ratio of the first inner diameter to the second inner diameter is greater than 1:1 and less than or equal to 1.1:1.
The examiner notes that the applicant has not provided any specific criticality in the claimed ratio or claimed inner diameter.
Rogers et al. teaches a sprinkler that has a first inlet diameter of 0.6 inches [0032] and a second diameter at the outlet of 0.68 inches ([0032] using the angle of 4 degrees and the length of 0.8 inches gets you an outlet diameter of 0.68 inches., which makes the ratio 1.1:1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the ratio of the first inner diameter to the second inner diameter greater than 1:1 and less than or equal to 1.1:1, in order to provide a specific fluid velocity in the second part of the sprinkler under a predetermined flow rate.
The examiner notes that since the above combination includes all the structure of the claimed invention, and is identical in structure to the disclose invention, in the use of the sprinkler, the sprinkler will have a K-factor of 30.8 , the K-factor defined in units of gallons per minute [gpm]/(pounds per square inch [psi])1/2. [0051],
Regarding claim 7, a seal (34) positioned in the outlet; at least one frame arm (28) extending from the body; a deflector (24) coupled with the at least one frame arm; and a thermal activation element (48) between the seal and the deflector.
Regarding claim 19, Ballard as modified above shows all aspects of claim 19 ad described in the rejection of claim 1 including includes a seal (34) positioned in the outlet; at least one frame arm (28) extending from the body; a deflector (24) coupled with the at least one frame arm; and a thermal activation element (48) between the seal and the deflector.
Regarding claim 20, the sprinkler of Ballard as modified above includes all structure of the claimed and disclosed sprinkler. Therefore, the sprinkler of Ballard as modified above is fully capable of receiving fluid having a pressure and outputting the fluid at a flow rate, at least one of (1) the pressure is less than or equal to 27 psi and the flow rate is greater than or equal to 160 gallons per minute, (2) the pressure is less than or equal to 33 psi and the flow rate is greater than or equal to 177 gpm, and (3) the pressure is less than or equal to 65 psi and the flow rate is greater than or equal to 248 gpm.
Regarding claim 12, Ballard as modified above shows all the features of claim 12 as described above in the rejection of claim 1 including shows a sprinkler system, comprising: one or more pipes (18) coupled with a fluid supply (20)
But fails to show that the fluid supply provides fluid at a pressure greater than or equal to 5 psi and less than or equal to 200 psi
However, it is well known that most fire sprinkler systems operate at a pressure range of 30-50 psi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to have the fluid supply provide fluid at a pressure range of 30-50 psi, in order to effectively extinguish fires.
Claim(s) 12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (2007/0221389) in view of Rogers et al. (2006/0113092), further in view of Golinveaux (2022/0401774)
Regarding claims 12, Ballard shows a sprinkler system (fig 1), comprising: one or more pipes (18) coupled with a fluid supply (20) and a sprinkler (10), comprising: a body (12) defining a bore (14) extending from an inlet (the upstream end of 12) to an outlet (the outlet is being considered the downstream most end of the smallest inner diameter section of 12), the bore comprises a first portion extending from the inlet (the largest inner diameter portion of 12), a second portion extending from the first portion to the outlet (the smallest inner diameter portion of 12), and a step between the first portion and the second portion (fig 2), the first portion has a first inner diameter that is constant from the inlet to the step (fig 2), the second portion has a second inner diameter that is constant from the step to the outlet (fig 2) and a ratio of a first length of the first portion to a second length of the second portion is greater than or equal to 1:1 (this is clearly shown in figure 2)
Ballard fails to disclose a ratio of the first inner diameter to the second inner diameter is greater than 1:1 and less than or equal to 1.1:1.
The examiner notes that the applicant has not provided any specific criticality in the claimed ratio or claimed inner diameter.
Rogers et al. teaches a sprinkler that has a first inlet diameter of 0.6 inches [0032] and a second diameter at the outlet of 0.68 inches ([0032] using the angle of 4 degrees and the length of 0.8 inches gets you an outlet diameter of 0.68 inches., which makes the ratio 1.1:1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the ratio of the first inner diameter to the second inner diameter greater than 1:1 and less than or equal to 1.1:1, in order to provide a specific fluid velocity in the second part of the sprinkler under a predetermined flow rate.
The examiner notes that since the above combination includes all the structure of the claimed invention, and is identical in structure to the disclose invention, in the use of the sprinkler, the sprinkler will have a K-factor of 30.8 , the K-factor defined in units of gallons per minute [gpm]/(pounds per square inch [psi])1/2. [0051],
The above combination fails to show that the fluid supply provides fluid at a pressure greater than or equal to 5 psi and less than or equal to 200 psi
However, Golinveaux teaches a fluid supply that provides fluid at the claimed pressure range ([0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to have the fluid supply provide fluid at a pressure greater than or equal to 5 psi and less than or equal to 200 psi, in order to effectively extinguish fires.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Ballard as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 12, but fails to disclose the sprinkler is positioned below a ceiling of a storage commodity, the ceiling having a height greater than or equal to 40 feet and less than or equal to 50 feet.
However Golinveaux teaches a sprinkler system where the sprinkler is positioned below a ceiling of a storage commodity (fig 2), the ceiling having a height greater than or equal to 40 feet and less than or equal to 50 feet. (claim 50)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to have the sprinkler is positioned below a ceiling of a storage commodity, the ceiling having a height greater than or equal to 40 feet and less than or equal to 50 feet in order to put out a fire in a stored commodity.
Regarding claim 15, The examiner notes that the sprinkler of Ballard as modified above is fully capable of receiving fluid having a pressure and outputting the fluid at a flow rate, at least one of (1) the pressure is less than or equal to 27 psi and the flow rate is greater than or equal to 160 gallons per minute, (2) the pressure is less than or equal to 33 psi and the flow rate is greater than or equal to 177 gpm, and (3) the pressure is less than or equal to 65 psi and the flow rate is greater than or equal to 248 gpm.
Ballard as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 12, but fails to disclose the sprinkler is an early suppression fast response (ESFR) sprinkler
Golinveaux teaches the sprinkler is an early suppression fast response (ESFR) sprinkler [0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use a ESFR sprinkler in order to suppress the fire quickly.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (2007/0221389) as modified Rogers et al. (2006/0113092), further in view of Almeida et al. (2016/0023029).
Regarding claims 6, Ballard as modified above, shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claims 1 and 12, including a thread extending along an outer surface of the bore (fig 5a) but fails to disclose that the thread is at least one of (1) a national pipe tapered thread (NPT) defining a nominal size of 1 inch or 1.25 inches and (2) an ISO-7-R1 thread.
However, Almeida et al. teaches a sprinkler with an outer thread that is a national pipe tapered thread (NPT) defining a nominal size of 1 inch or 1.25 inches [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the outer thread a national pipe tapered thread (NPT) defining a nominal size of 1 inch or 1.25 inches, in order to make the sprinkler easily attachable to a pipe fitting of the same tread pitch.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (2007/0221389) as modified Rogers et al. (2006/0113092) and Golinveaux (2022/0401774) above, further in view of Almeida et al. (2016/0023029).
Regarding claims 13, Ballard as modified above, shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claims 1 and 12, including a thread extending along an outer surface of the bore (fig 5a) but fails to disclose that the thread is at least one of (1) a national pipe tapered thread (NPT) defining a nominal size of 1 inch or 1.25 inches and (2) an ISO-7-R1 thread.
However, Almeida et al. teaches a sprinkler with an outer thread that is a national pipe tapered thread (NPT) defining a nominal size of 1 inch or 1.25 inches [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the outer thread a national pipe tapered thread (NPT) defining a nominal size of 1 inch or 1.25 inches, in order to make the sprinkler easily attachable to a pipe fitting of the same tread pitch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
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 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 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 4/2/26