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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 and 1/7/2026 have been entered.
Claims 4-7, 18-20, 22 are cancelled. Claims 8-17 are withdrawn.
Pending claims 1-3, 21, 23 are addressed below.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (JP2004357981A) in view of Walcome (US20180280744) and Rief (US5957508).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo discloses a coupling assembly (see annotated figure below), comprising:
a sprinkler (S) comprising:
a base (2) comprising a first flange (see annotation; portion 2 is a flange);
a deflector (4);
an inlet end defining a sprinkler thread (5, see annotation below) on a protrusion (see annotation below) contiguous with the base (protrusion and base 2 form one piece) and extending along an axis (see annotation) from the base in a direction away from deflector (4),
the first flange (at 2) having a greater diameter than the protrusion (see annotated protrusion and flange); and
a fitting (10) that extends from a first end (upper end) to a second end (lower end of 10; see annotation), the second end comprising a fitting thread (11, see annotation below), the inlet end of the sprinkler couples with the second end (couples via the threads) and the fitting thread couples with the sprinkler thread (see annotation), the first flange arranged to abut the second end (as shown in the annotated figure below), such that the first flange the fitting thread and the sprinkler thread limit over rotation of the sprinkler relative to the fitting (when upper surface of flange 2 touch bottom surface of the fitting, rotation is no longer possible).
PNG
media_image1.png
593
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 1 (Kubo)
Kubo does not teach arms that are contiguous with and integrally formed with the base and that space the deflector from the base; the first flange between the sprinkler thread and the arms;
an activation element between the arms; and the protrusion extending away from the arms.
However, Walcome discloses a comparable sprinkler structure (24; fig. 2) having arms (see annotation below) that are contiguous with and integrally formed with the base and that space the deflector from the base (88); an activation element (see annotation below) between the arms; and the protrusion extending away from the arms (see annotation below). This sprinkler structure with arms, activation element and deflector configuration is well known in the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
580
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 2 (Walcome)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Walcome to substitute Kubo’s main body 3 and deflector 4 with arms, activation element and deflector of Walcome’s structure, as claimed. In this sprinkler configuration, the first flange of Kubo would be between the sprinkler thread and the arms. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating fire protection of the targeted space when appropriate.
Further regarding claim 1, Kubo does not teach the base (2) comprising a second flange; the second flange having a greater diameter than the protrusion, the second flange between the first flange and the protrusion; a sprinkler seal engaged with the second flange, the sprinkler seal radially outward from the protrusion relative to the axis and radially inward from the first flange relative to the axis.
Rief teaches a comparable sealing assembly having a base 18 comprising a first flange 36 and a second flange 38; the second flange having a greater diameter than the protrusion (see annotation), the second flange 38 between the first flange 36 and the protrusion (see annotation); a seal 30 engaged with the second flange 38, the sprinkler seal 30 is radially outward from the protrusion (see annotation) relative to the axis (see annotation) and radially inward from the first flange 36 relative to the axis (see annotation).
PNG
media_image3.png
604
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 3 (Rief)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Rief to provide the base (2) comprising a second flange; the second flange having a greater diameter than the protrusion, the second flange between the first flange and the protrusion; a sprinkler seal engaged with the second flange, the sprinkler seal radially outward from the protrusion relative to the axis and radially inward from the first flange relative to the axis. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating a reliable, high pressure-tight seal with a simple sealing ring (Rief, column 2, lines 9-11).
Note: all references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the primary reference Kubo, unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 2, Kubo, as modified above, discloses the coupling assembly of claim 1, comprising:
the sprinkler thread (5; Kubo – fig. 1) on an outside surface of the protrusion (see Kubo – fig. 1), the protrusion extends into the second end (see annotated figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Kubo, as modified above, discloses the coupling assembly of claim 1, comprising:
a fitting seal (30; see Kubo – fig. 1) provided on an inner surface of the fitting.
Regarding claim 21, Kubo, as modified above, discloses the coupling assembly of claim 1, comprising:
the fitting comprises an inward protrusion (at 11) on which the fitting thread (11) is formed (see annotated fig. 1 above); and the fitting comprises an outer surface and a pipe protrusion (see annotated figure below) extending outward from the outer surface.
PNG
media_image4.png
432
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (JP2004357981A) in view of Walcome (US20180280744) and Rief (US5957508), further in view of Orr (US 20120186832).
Regarding claim 23, Kubo does not teach the sprinkler thread defines a terminal end of the sprinkler along the axis. Kubo, however, does show that the sprinkler threads 5 can be arranged in different positions, at lower end or upper end (see different thread positionings shown in figs. 1 and 7).
Orr discloses a comparable sprinkler having the sprinkler thread defines a terminal end of the sprinkler along the axis.
PNG
media_image5.png
432
507
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 4 (Orr)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubo to incorporate the teachings of Orr to relocate the sprinkler thread and the corresponding fitting thread to provide the sprinkler thread defines a terminal end of the sprinkler along the axis. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating the coupling connection between the sprinkler and fitting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection include teaching and/or combinations not specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752