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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 18, and 21 amended. Claims 2-17, and 19-20 are as previously presented. Therefore, claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 03/23/2026 have been entered.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (5,609,211) in view of Rief (US 5,957,508) and Powers (US 5,553,902).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer discloses a sprinkler system (Col. : Ln. 39-44), comprising:
a sprinkler (Fig. 1, 10) comprising:
a body (Fig. 1, 12) having an inlet end (Fig. 1 & 3, 14) and an opening (Fig. 1 & 3, 16) along an axis (Fig. 1, A);
a first flange (Fig. 1, 38) extending radially outward from the body and positioned between the inlet end and the opening; and
a sprinkler thread (Fig. 1, 36).
Meyer does not disclose, a second flange extending radially outward from the body, the first flange is further radially outward than the second flange; the sprinkler thread positioned between the second flange and the inlet end; and a gasket receiver between the second flange and the inlet end, the gasket receiver facing outward from the axis, the second flange between the gasket receiver and the first flange; a fitting comprising an inner wall defining a fitting thread that couples with the sprinkler thread, an inner wall edge extending radially outward from the inner wall, and an end wall extending from the inner wall edge to an outer edge, the inner wall edge is further radially outward than the second flange and further radially inward than the first flange; and a gasket that is received between the gasket receiver, the second flange, the end wall, and the inner wall edge to seal the sprinkler with the fitting, the gasket to contact the gasket receiver.
However, Rief teaches a prior art comparable sealing device (Figure, all structural features) comprising:
a body (Figure, 12) having an inlet end (Annotated Figure) and an opening (Annotated Figure) along an axis (Figure, centerline),
a first flange (Annotated Figure) extending radially outward from the body and positioned between the inlet end and the opening (Figure),
a second flange (Annotated Figure) extending radially outward from the body, the first flange is further radially outward than the second flange; a sprinkler thread (Annotated Figure) positioned between the second flange and the inlet end; and
a gasket receiver (Annotated Figure) between the second flange and the inlet end, the gasket receiver facing outward from the axis (Annotated Figure, The gasket receiver faces 30 outward from the axis.), the second flange between the gasket receiver and the first flange (Annotated Figure);
a fitting (Figure, 16) comprising an inner wall defining a fitting thread that couples with the sprinkler thread, an inner wall edge (Annotated Figure) extending radially outward from the inner wall, and an end wall (Annotated Figure) extending from the inner wall edge to an outer edge (Figure, 32), the inner wall edge is further radially outward than the second flange and further radially inward than the first flange; and
a gasket (Figure, 30) that is received between the gasket receiver, the second flange, the end wall, and the inner wall edge to seal the sprinkler with the fitting (Col. 2: Ln. 10-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a body having an inlet end and an opening, a first flange extending radially outward from the body and positioned between the inlet end and the opening, a second flange extending radially outward from the body, the first flange is further radially outward than the second flange; a sprinkler thread positioned between the second flange and the inlet end; and a gasket receiver between the second flange and the inlet end, the gasket receiver facing outward from the axis, the second flange between the gasket receiver and the first flange; a fitting comprising an inner wall defining a fitting thread that couples with the sprinkler thread, an inner wall edge extending radially outward from the inner wall, and an end wall extending from the inner wall edge to an outer edge, the inner wall edge is further radially outward than the second flange and further radially inward than the first flange; and a gasket that is received between the gasket receiver, the second flange, the end wall, and the inner wall edge to seal the sprinkler with the fitting.) as taught by Rief, into the system disclosed by Meyer to provide a reliable, high pressure-tight seal is produced with a simple sealing ring (Col. 2: Ln. 10-11) and yielding the predictable result of fluidly coupling sprinkler to a fitting.
Meyer in view of Rief does not teach the gasket to contact the gasket receiver.
However, Powers teaches a prior art comparable coupling (Fig. 1, 10) comprising a gasket to contact a gasket receiver (Fig. 1, 46; Col. 1: Ln. 66 to Col. 2: Ln. 3).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the piping assembly disclosed by Rief upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the coupling taught by Powers that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention, namely the gasket to contact the gasket receiver, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely fluidically sealing the first fitting to the second fitting with the benefit of provide a coupling which compresses the gasket to form a seal in both the horizontal and vertical directions and has a high resistance to leaking and the like (Powers – Col. 1: Ln. 66 to Col. 2: Ln. 3).
Annotated Future(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
948
1305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Meyer further discloses the sprinkler is an early suppression fast response (ESFR) sprinkler (Ab. – “A low pressure, fast response sprinkler of the early suppression type”; Ti. – “Low Pressure, Early Suppression Fast Response Sprinklers”).
Regarding claim 4, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Rief further teaches the fitting is at least one of machined and molded as a unitary structure (The figure shows the fitting as unitary structure.; At least one of machined and molded is the process in which the fitting (product) is made and this claim limitation which is a product-by-process claim limitation. Therefore, as long as the fitting is a unitary structure, as claimed, it meets the limitation of the claim, see MPEP 2113.).
Regarding claim 5, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Rief further teaches comprising: the first flange (Annotated Figure of Claim 1) is positioned to contact the outer edge of the fitting (Figure, 32), and the second flange (Annotated Figure of Claim 1) is positioned to contact the gasket (Figure, 42).
Regarding claim 7, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Rief further teaches the gasket receiver extends radially outward less than the second flange and receives the gasket (Figure); And a height of the second flange (Annotated Figure of Claim 1) and a height of the gasket is less than or equal to a height of the gasket (Annotated Figure of Claim 1).
Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the claimed invention with the exception of specific dimensions for the height of the second flange and the height of the gasket. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the height of the second flange and the height of the gasket is less than or equal to a maximum threshold defined by a height of the gasket since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the height of the second flange and the height of the gasket is less than or equal to a maximum threshold defined by a height of the gasket since, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0043). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Rief further teaches a height of the second flange (Annotated Figure of Claim 1) is less than or equal a height of the gasket (Annotated Figure of Claim 1).
Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the claimed invention with the exception of specific dimensions for the height of the second flange and the height of the gasket. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the height of the second flange is less than or equal to forty percent of the height of the gasket for the height of the second flange and the height of the gasket since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the height of the second flange is less than or equal to forty percent of the height of the gasket (Para. 0047), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Meyer further teaches, the fitting thread comprises threading that defines a thread pitch (Annotated Figure of Claim 1), and a height of the gasket (Annotated Figure of Claim 1).
Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the claimed invention with the exception of specific dimensions for the fitting thread and the gasket. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the thread pitch corresponds to a minimum threshold defined by the height of the gasket for the fitting thread and the gasket since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the thread pitch corresponds to a minimum threshold defined by the height of the gasket, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0043). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Rief further teaches the fitting thread comprises threading that defines a thread pitch (Annotated Figure of Claim 1), a height of the gasket (Annotated Figure of Claim 1).
Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the claimed invention with the exception of specific dimensions for the threading and the gasket. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the thread pitch corresponds to fifteen percent of the height of the gasket for the (insert part claimed) since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the thread pitch corresponds to fifteen percent of the height of the gasket (Para. 0046), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the gasket is sized to be sealed by rotation of the sprinkler between the sprinkler thread and the fitting thread (Rief – Col. 2: Ln. 34-36; Rief – Col. 3: Ln. 17-19).
Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the claimed invention except for the gasket is sized to be sealed by rotation of the sprinkler between one hundred eighty degrees and three hundred sixty degrees of engagement between the sprinkler thread and the fitting thread. 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 include the gasket is sized to be sealed by rotation of the sprinkler between one hundred eighty degrees and three hundred sixty degrees of engagement between the sprinkler thread and the fitting thread, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the gasket is sized to be sealed by rotation of the sprinkler between one hundred eighty degrees and three hundred sixty degrees of engagement between the sprinkler thread and the fitting thread, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0045). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1,
Meyer further discloses the sprinkler connected to a pipe that receives fluid to output through the sprinkler (Col. 4: Ln. 39-44).
Rief further teaches and further teaches the sprinkler system comprising: the fitting is integrally formed with a pipe (Col. 2: Ln. 34-37; The fitting is a pipe.).
Regarding claim 21, Meyer discloses a sprinkler (Fig. 1, 10), comprising:
a body (Fig. 1, 12) having an inlet end (Fig. 1 & 3, 14) and an opening (Fig. 1 & 3, 16) along an axis (Fig. 1, A) ;
a first flange (Fig. 1, 38) extending radially outward from the body and positioned between the inlet end and the opening;
a thread (Fig. 1, 36);
at least one frame arm (Fig. 3, 22 & 24) extending from the body;
a deflector (Fig. 1 & 3, 40) attached to the at least one frame arm;
a seal (Fig. 4, 18) positioned in a seal opening of the body fluidly coupled with the inlet end;
a thermal activation element (Fig. 1, 28) in contact with the seal, the thermal activation element changes state responsive to a fire condition to allow the seal to be moved out of the opening by fluid flowing through the body (Col. 4: Ln. 60 to Col. 5: Ln. 10); and
Meyer does not disclose a second flange extending radially outward from the body less than the first flange; the thread positioned between the second flange and the inlet end; a gasket receiver between the second flange and the thread, the gasket receiver facing outward from the axis, the second flange between the gasket receiver and the first flange; a gasket positioned on the second flange and in contact the gasket receiver.
However, Rief teaches a prior art comparable sealing device (Figure, all structural features) comprising:
a body (Figure, 12) having an inlet end (Annotated Figure) and an opening (Annotated Figure of claim 1) along an axis (Figure, Centerline),
a first flange (Annotated Figure) extending radially outward from the body and positioned between the inlet end and the opening (Figure),
a second flange (Annotated Figure) extending radially outward from the body less than the first flange;
a thread (Annotated Figure) positioned between the second flange and the inlet end;
a gasket receiver (Annotated Figure) between the second flange and the thread, the gasket receiver facing outward from the axis (Annotated Figure, The gasket receiver faces 30 outward from the axis.), the second flange between the gasket receiver and the first flange (Annotated Figure); and
a gasket (Figure, 30) positioned on the second flange and the gasket receiver (The gasket is positioned on the second flange and the gasket receiver the same way as Fig. 2B of the applicant’s specification.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a body having an inlet end and an opening, a first flange extending radially outward from the body and positioned between the inlet end and the opening, a second flange extending radially outward from the body less than the first flange; a thread positioned between the second flange and the inlet end; a gasket receiver between the second flange and the thread, the second flange between the gasket receiver and the first flange; and a gasket positioned on the second flange and the gasket receiver.) as taught by Rief, into the system disclosed by Meyer to provide a reliable, high pressure-tight seal is produced with a simple sealing ring (Col. 2: Ln. 10-11) and yielding the predictable result of fluidly coupling sprinkler to a water supply.
Meyer in view of Rief does not teach the gasket in contact with the gasket receiver.
However, Powers teaches a prior art comparable coupling (Fig. 1, 10) comprising a gasket to in contact a gasket receiver (Fig. 1, 46).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the piping assembly disclosed by Rief upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the coupling taught by Powers that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention, namely the gasket in contact with the gasket receiver, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely fluidically sealing the first fitting to the second fitting with the benefit of provide a coupling which compresses the gasket to form a seal in both the horizontal and vertical directions and has a high resistance to leaking and the like (Powers – Col. 1: Ln. 66 to Col. 2: Ln. 3).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image2.png
944
961
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Rief, Powers, and Wolin (US 11,578,827).
Regarding claim 3, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1, but does not disclose the system comprising: the fitting is made of a weldable metal.
However, Wolin teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Fire Protection Sprinkler”) comprising a fitting (Fig. 1, 106) is made of a weldable metal (Col. 1: Ln. 61-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a fitting made of a weldable material taught by Wolin into the fitting of Meyer in view of Rief and Powers by known methods (machining) because in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (connecting the fitting to the sprinkler), the results of the combination were predictable (connecting the fitting to the sprinkler), and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that a fitting made of weldable material would allow the fitting to be welded to a supply pipe as an alternate connection method also taught by Wolin (Col. 1: ln. 56- Col. 2: Ln. 2).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Rief, Powers and Jensen (US 1,941,174).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1, but does not teach the sprinkler system comprising: the gasket comprises a wall defining an outer surface and an inner surface, the outer surface defining an insert portion around a center of the wall, the insert portion having a thickness less than a thickness of a remainder of the wall defined by the insert portion.
However, Jenson teaches a prior art comparable fitting (Fig. 1, all structural elements) comprising a gasket (Fig. 1, 20) comprises a wall (Annotated Fig. 1) defining an outer surface (Annotated Fig. 1) and an inner surface (Annotated Fig. 1), the outer surface defining an insert portion (Annotated Fig. 1) around a center of the wall (Annotated Fig. 1), the insert portion having a thickness
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a gasket comprises a wall defining an outer surface and an inner surface, the outer surface defining an insert portion around a center of the wall, the insert portion having a thickness less than a thickness of a remainder of the wall defined by the insert portion) as taught by Jensen, into the system taught by Meyer in view of Rief and Powers to prevent undue distortion such as would tend to dislodge said gasket from its retaining groove (Pg. 2 – Col. 1, Ln. 16-18) and yielding the predictable result of sealing the sprinkler to the fitting.
However, Meyer in view of Rief, Powers, and Jensen teaches the claimed invention with the exception of specific dimensions for the gasket. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the insert portion having a thickness less than a thickness of a remainder of the wall defined by the insert portion for the gasket since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the insert portion having a thickness less than a thickness of a remainder of the wall defined by the insert portion (Para. 0053), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image3.png
768
1117
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1, but does not teach the sprinkler system comprising: the gasket comprises at least one extension that extends radially inward from an inner surface of the gasket to form an interference fit with the sprinkler.
However, Jenson teaches a prior art comparable fitting (Fig. 1, all structural elements) comprising a gasket (Fig. 1, 20) comprises at least one extension (Annotated Fig. 1) that extends radially inward from an inner surface (Annotated Fig. 1) of the gasket to form an interference fit with a device (Fig. 1, 16; Pg. 2 – Col. 1: Ln. 14-18; When the at least one extension is compressed during the installation of the sprinkler it forms an interference fit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (comprises at least one extension that extends radially inward from an inner surface of the gasket to form an interference fit with a device) as taught by Jensen, into the system taught by Meyer in view of Rief and Powers to prevent undue distortion such as would tend to dislodge said gasket from its retaining groove (Pg. 2: Col. 1, Ln. 16-18) and yielding the predictable result of sealing the sprinkler to the fitting.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Rief, Powers, and Spears (US 5,109,929).
Regarding claim 11 , Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the system comprising: the sprinkler thread and the fitting thread each comprise straight thread.
However, Spears teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, 10) comprising a sprinkler thread (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3, 20) and a fitting thread (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3, 30) each comprise straight thread (Col. 2: Ln. 45-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (the sprinkler thread and the fitting thread each comprise straight thread) as taught by Spears, into the system taught by Meyer in view of Rief and Powers to reduce a wedging force that can be exerted by tapered threads onto the fitting that can stress and crack the fitting (Col. 2: Ln 47-51) and yielding the predictable result of the sprinkler coupling to the fitting.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Rief, Powers, and Pressnell (US 11,701,533).
Regarding claim 14, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches sprinkler system of claim 1, but does not teach the system comprising: an extension that extends from the end wall to contact the gasket, the extension defines a void radially outward from the extension and between the extension and the end wall.
However, Pressnell teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1 & 3, all structural elements) comprising an extension (Annotated Fig. 3) that extends from an end wall (Annotated Fig. 3) to contact a gasket (Fig. 3, 26), the extension defines a void (Annotated Fig. 3) radially outward from the extension and between the extension and the end wall.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (an extension that extends from the end wall to contact the gasket, the extension defines a void radially outward from the extension and between the extension and the end wall) as taught by Pressnell, into the system taught by Meyer in view of Rief and Powers to provide a first volume in which the gasket is completely housed in an unloaded state of the gasket, and a void for the displaced portion of the gasket in a loaded state (Col. 2: Ln. 49-53), and yielding the predictable result of fluidically coupling the sprinkler to the fitting.
Annotated Figure(s) (Claims 14-15)
PNG
media_image4.png
1039
1076
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1, but does not teach the system comprising: an extension that extends from the second flange to contact the gasket.
However, Pressnell teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1 & 3, all structural elements) comprising an extension (Annotated Fig. 3) that extends from a second flange (Annotated Fig. 3) to contact a gasket (Fig. 3, 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (an extension that extends from the second flange to contact the gasket) as taught by Pressnell, into the system taught by Meyer in view of Rief and Powers to provide a first volume in which the gasket is completely housed in an unloaded state of the gasket, and a void for the displaced portion of the gasket in a loaded state (Col. 2: Ln. 49-53), and yielding the predictable result of fluidically coupling the sprinkler to the fitting.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Rief, Powers, and Clements (US 4,139,223).
Regarding claim 17, Meyer in view of Rief and Powers teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1, but does not teach the system comprising: the gasket has a hardness greater than or equal to 50 and less than or equal to 60 durometers.
However, Clements teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Pipe Coupler”; Fig. 1, 10) comprising a gasket (Fig. 1, 22) that has a hardness greater than or equal to 50 and less than or equal to 60 durometers (Col. 1: Ln. 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a gasket that has a hardness greater than or equal to 50 and less than or equal to 60 durometers) as taught by Clements, into the system taught by Meyer in view of Rief and Powers to provide a gasket that is tough and resilient (Col. 1: Ln. 41-44) and yielding the predictable result of fluidically connecting the fitting to the sprinkler.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rief (US 5,957,508) in view of Powers (US 5,553,902)
Regarding claim 18, Rief discloses a piping assembly (Figure, all structural elements) of a sprinkler system, comprising:
a first fitting (Figure, 12) comprising:
a body (Annotated Figure) having an inlet end (Annotated Figure) and an opening (Annotated Figure), along an axis (Figure, Centerline).
a first flange (Annotated Figure) extending radially outward from the body and positioned between the inlet end and the opening,
a second flange (Annotated Figure) extending radially outward from the body less than the first flange;
a first thread (Annotated Figure) positioned between the second flange and the inlet end; and
a gasket receiver between the second flange and the inlet end, the gasket receiver facing outward from the axis (Annotated Figure, The gasket receiver faces 30 outward from the axis.), the second flange between the gasket receiver and the first flange; and
a second fitting (Figure, 16) comprising:
an inner wall (Annotated Figure) defining a second thread (Annotated Figure) that couples with the first thread, an inner wall edge (Annotated Figure) extending radially outward from the inner wall, and an end wall (Annotated Figure) extending from the inner wall edge to an outer edge, the inner wall edge is further radially outward than the second flange and further radially inward than the first flange; and
a gasket (Figure, 30) on the second flange, the gasket sized to be positioned between the gasket receiver, the second flange, the inner wall edge, and the end wall (Col. 2: Ln. 10-11).
Rief does not disclose the gasket to contact the gasket receiver.
However, Powers teaches a prior art comparable coupling (Fig. 1, 10) comprising a gasket to contact a gasket receiver (Fig. 1, 46).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the piping assembly disclosed by Rief upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the coupling taught by Powers that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention, namely the gasket to contact the gasket receiver, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely fluidically sealing the first fitting to the second fitting with the benefit of provide a coupling which compresses the gasket to form a seal in both the horizontal and vertical directions and has a high resistance to leaking and the like (Powers – Col. 1: Ln. 66 to Col. 2: Ln. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Rief in view of Powers teaches the piping assembly of claim 18.
Rief further discloses the assembly comprising: the first fitting is at least one of a pipe outlet (Col. 2: Ln. 34-37; The second fitting is a pipe.).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image5.png
950
1078
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rief in view of Powers and Bean (US 2020/0096138).
Regarding claim 20, Rief in view of powers teaches the piping assembly of claim 18, but does not teach the second fitting comprises a third thread on an opposite end of the second fitting from the second thread, the third thread comprising at least one of an interference thread and a national pipe thread (NPT).
However, Bean teaches a prior art comparable second fitting (Fig. 3A, 102) which comprises a third thread (Fig. 3A, 108) on an opposite end of the second fitting from a second thread (Fig. 3A, 104a), the third thread comprising a national pipe thread (NPT) (Para. 0039 – “the second threaded portion 108 is tapered for sealing (e.g., may have national pipe taper (NPT) threads)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a third thread on an opposite end of the second fitting from a second thread, the third thread comprising a national pipe thread (NPT)) as taught by Bean, into the assembly disclosed by Rief to provide a fluidic connection when torqued (Para. 0039) and yielding the predictable result of fluidically coupling the second fitting to a supply pipe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the arguments claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for claim 18, on pages 7-8 the applicant argues that Rief does not disclose the above recited elements of claim 18, the examiner respectfully disagrees as outlined in the above office action with the exception of the limitation “the gasket to contact the gasket receiver” which is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to the arguments claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 1 and 21, on pages 8 the applicant argues that Meyer and Rief do not teach or suggest the above recited elements of claim 18, the examiner respectfully disagrees as outlined in the above office action with the exception of the limitation “the gasket to contact the gasket receiver” (claim 1) and “the gasket in contact with the gasket receiver” which is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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 (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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 27, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights