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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 17 February 2026; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained 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 (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 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polan (US 2013/0319696) in view of Cutting et al. (US 10,213,636).
Regarding claim 1, Polan discloses a sprinkler (100), comprising:
a fitting (30) comprising,
a fitting body (30) that comprises an inlet (21) that connects with at least one pipe (par. 16), an opening (12) and a chamber (fig. 2 – space in which element 11 is disposed), the opening between the inlet and the chamber (fig. 2);
an element (11) in the chamber (fig. 2), the element on an axis through the inlet, the opening, and the chamber (fig. 2), the element to break based on receipt of at least one of a mechanical force, electrical energy, and heat (par. 27);
a seal (13) on the axis and between the chamber and the opening (fig. 2), the seal has a closed state in which the element is engaged with the seal such that the seal seals the opening (fig. 2) and an open state in which the seal does not seal the opening to allow fluid flow from the at least one pipe through the chamber and the opening (par. 42);
at least one tube (3) connected with the fitting (fig. 1), the at least one tube is flexible (par. 13);
a fluid distribution device (2) connected with the at least one tube (fig. 1), the at least one tube between the seal and the fluid distribution device (fig. 1); and
an actuator (5/53/56) coupled with the fitting (fig. 1), the actuator to receive a detection signal indicative of a trigger condition (par. 40 – “a temperature rise above a predetermined limit associated with the bulb 56 will cause the bulb 56 to rupture”); and cause the element to break (par. 41) to cause the seal to change from the closed state to the open state to allow the fluid flow through the opening responsive to receipt of the detection signal (par. 42).
Polan does not disclose the actuator to receive an electrical detection signal indicative of a trigger condition from a detector.
Cutting discloses a sprinkler (col. 1, ln. 20-22), comprising:
a fitting (10) that connects with at least one pipe (col. 4, ln. 5-6), the fitting defines an opening (figs. 2A, 2B – opening of 15) and a chamber (46), the fitting comprises an element (68), the element to break based on receipt of at least one of a mechanical force, electrical energy, and heat (col. 7, ln. 41-46);
a seal (30) between the chamber and the opening (fig. 2A), the seal has a closed state in which the element is engaged with the seal such that the seal seals the opening (fig. 2A) and an open state in which the seal does not seal the opening to allow fluid flow from the at least one pipe through the chamber and the opening (fig. 2B);
at least one tube connected with the fitting downstream from the at least one pipe (col. 6, ln. 29-32; fig. 2A);
a fluid distribution device connected with the at least one tube (col. 3, ln. 54-56), the at least one tube between the seal and the fluid distribution device (col. 6, ln. 29-32); and
an actuator (200) coupled with the fitting (fig. 4), the actuator to receive an electrical detection signal indicative of a trigger condition from a detector (206); and cause the element to break to cause the seal to change from the closed state to the open state to allow the fluid flow through the opening responsive to receipt of the detection signal (col. 8, ln. 63-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sprinkler of Polan such that the actuator receives an electrical detection signal indicative of a trigger condition from a detector, as taught by Cutting. This was known to allow activation of the sprinkler remotely and from a centralized monitoring location (Cutting: col. 8, ln. 67—col. 9, ln. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a biasing element (8a/8b) coupled with the fitting (fig. 2), the biasing element applies a force against the seal to hold the seal in the closed state (par. 21, 23).
Regarding claim 3, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the at least one tube includes a flexible hose (par. 15).
Regarding claim 8, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 1, and further comprising: the fluid distribution device includes at least one of a sprinkler (42) and a nozzle.
Regarding claim 9, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 1, and further comprising: the fluid distribution device is open between an inlet and an outlet (par. 40 – in the activated position).
Regarding claim 10, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 1, and further comprising: the fitting includes a fitting body (30) that defines the chamber around the seal (fig. 2) and a fitting adapter (41/6) outward from the fitting body (fig. 1, 2), the fitting adapter connects with the at least one tube (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 1, and comprising: the at least one tube has at least one of air and nitrogen while the seal is in the closed state (par. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 1, and Cutting further teaches the element comprises a thermal element in contact with the seal, the thermal element (68) comprises electrical traces that receive an electrical signal corresponding to the detection signal and breaks responsive to heating by the electrical signal to change the seal from the closed state to the open state (col. 8, ln. 59—col. 9, ln. 3 – when the detector senses “heating” it sends an electrical signal to the actuator and the actuator breaks the element 68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the sprinkler of Polan such that the thermal element comprises electrical traces that receive an electrical signal corresponding to the detection signal and breaks responsive to heating by the electrical signal to change the seal from the closed state to the open state, as also taught by Cutting. This was known to allow manual activation of the sprinkler remotely and from a centralized monitoring location (Cutting: col. 8, ln. 67—col. 9, ln. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Polan discloses a sprinkler system (100), comprising:
a fitting that a fitting body (30) that comprises an inlet (21) that connects with at least one pipe (par. 16), the fitting body defines an opening (12) and a chamber in an interior of the fitting body (fig. 2 – space in which element 11 is disposed), the opening between the inlet and the chamber (fig. 2),
the fitting comprises an element (11) in the chamber (fig. 2), the element on an axis through the inlet, the opening, and the chamber (fig. 2), the element to break based on receipt of at least one of a mechanical force, electrical energy, and heat (par. 27),
the fitting includes a seal (13) on the axis and between the chamber and the opening (fig. 2), the seal has a closed state in which the element is in contact with the seal such that the seal seals the opening (fig. 2) and an open state in which the seal does not seal the opening to allow fluid flow from the at least one pipe through the chamber and the opening (par. 42);
at least one tube (3) that connects with the fitting (fig. 1), the at least one tube is flexible (par. 13);
at least one fluid distribution device (2) connects with the at least one tube (fig. 1), the at least one tube between the seal and the fluid distribution device (fig. 1);
a detector (56) that monitors at least one parameter of an environment around the fitting (par. 40) and outputs a detection signal responsive to the at least one parameter satisfying a trigger condition (par. 42 – “axial support for the inlet sealing cap assembly 13 is removed”); and
an actuator (5/10/53) that receives the detection signal and causes the element to break to cause the seal to change from the closed state to the open state to allow the fluid flow through the opening responsive to receipt of the detection signal (par. 42).
Polan does not disclose that the detection signal is electronic.
Cutting teaches the sprinkler system described regarding claim 1; and, in particular, that the detection signal is electronic (col. 8, ln. 63—col. 9, ln. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sprinkler of Polan such that the detection signal is electronic, as taught by Cutting. This was known to allow activation of the sprinkler remotely and from a centralized monitoring location (Cutting: col. 8, ln. 67—col. 9, ln. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler system described regarding claim 13, and Cutting further teaches comprising: a fire control panel (202) that outputs an alert responsive to the detector detecting the trigger condition (col. 8, ln. 63—col. 9, ln. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sprinkler of Polan to further comprise a fire control panel that outputs an alert responsive to the detector detecting the trigger condition, as also taught by Cutting. This was known to allow manual activation of the sprinkler remotely and from a centralized monitoring location (Cutting: col. 8, ln. 67—col. 9, ln. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler system described regarding claim 13, and further comprising: the detector comprises a temperature sensor (par. 42 - a temperature rise above a predetermined limit associated with the bulb 56).
Regarding claim 16, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler system described regarding claim 13, and Cutting further teaches comprising: the detector is spaced from the at least one fluid distribution device (fig. 4) and outputs the detection signal as an electrical signal using a wired electrical connection with the actuator (col. 8, ln. 63—col. 9, ln. 3; fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sprinkler of Polan such that the detector is spaced from the at least one fluid distribution device and outputs the detection signal as an electrical signal using a wired electrical connection with the actuator, as taught by Cutting. This was known to allow manual activation of the sprinkler remotely and from a centralized monitoring location (Cutting: col. 8, ln. 67—col. 9, ln. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 13, and further that the at least one tube includes a flexible hose (par. 15).
Regarding claim 18, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler system described regarding claim 13, and further comprising: the at least one fluid distribution device includes at least one of a sprinkler (42) and a nozzle that is open between an inlet and an outlet.
Regarding claim 19, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler system described regarding claim 13, and further comprising: the at least one tube has at least one of air and nitrogen while the seal is in the closed state (par. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler system described regarding claim 13, and further that the at least one tube includes a rigid portion (4/6) having a stiffness greater than a threshold stiffness (figs. 1, 2 – inherent, these elements are rigid), and a flexible portion (3) having a stiffness less than the threshold stiffness (par. 15 – this element is flexible).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polan, in view of Cutting, and further in view of Magnone et al. (US 2017/0120090).
Regarding claim 4, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the seal includes a hinge that is pivotably coupled with an end wall of the fitting that defines the opening; and the actuator is coupled with a piston that applies a force to hold the hinge against the end wall, the actuator causes the piston to retract responsive to receipt of the detection signal to allow the hinge to pivot to allow the fluid flow through the opening.
Magnone teaches a sprinkler (810) comprising a seal (830) that has a closed state in which the seal seals the opening (fig. 18 – shown with solid lines) and an open state in which the seal does not seal the opening to allow fluid flow from the at least one pipe through the opening (fig. 18 – shown with greyed lines), the seal including a hinge (825) that is pivotably coupled with an end wall of the fitting that defines the opening (fig. 18); and the actuator is coupled with a piston (842) that applies a force to hold the hinge against the end wall (fig. 18), the actuator causes the piston to retract responsive to receiving the detection signal to allow the hinge to pivot to allow the fluid flow through the opening (par. 157, 158).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sprinkler of Polan in view of Cutting to use the seal having a hinge that is pivotably coupled with an end wall of the fitting that defines the opening; and the actuator is coupled with a piston that applies a force to hold the hinge against the end wall, the actuator causes the piston to retract responsive to receipt of the detection signal to allow the hinge to pivot to allow the fluid flow through the opening, as taught by Magnone, since such a sealing arrangement can be returned to the closed state after being actuated.
Regarding claim 5, Polan in view of Cutting discloses the sprinkler described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising: a hinge that extends from a frame arm of the fitting towards the opening to apply a force against the seal; and a piston coupled with the actuator that faces the hinge, the actuator causes the piston to move the hinge responsive to receipt of the detection signal to move the hinge away from the seal.
Magnone teaches a sprinkler (810, see fig. 18B) comprising a seal (830) that has a closed state in which the seal seals the opening (fig. 18 – shown with solid lines) and an open state in which the seal does not seal the opening to allow fluid flow from the at least one pipe through the opening (fig. 18 – shown with greyed lines), the seal including a hinge (825’) that extends from a frame arm (812a) of the fitting towards the opening (fig. 18B) to apply a force against the seal; and a piston (842) coupled with the actuator that faces the hinge (fig. 18B), the actuator causes the piston to move the hinge responsive to receiving the detection signal to move the hinge away from the seal (par. 160; fig. 18B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sprinkler of Polan in view of Cutting to use the seal having a hinge that extends from a frame arm of the fitting towards the opening to apply a force against the seal; and a piston coupled with the actuator that faces the hinge, the actuator causes the piston to move the hinge responsive to receipt of the detection signal to move the hinge away from the seal, as taught by Magnone, since such a sealing arrangement can be returned to the closed state after being actuated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights