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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on June 24, 2025 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Drawings
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because, as set forth on pages 1-2 of the specification, and on lines 3-7 of page 5 of the specification, only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such limitations is/are:
“shield ring pressing means” in claim 1.
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 1-5 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 claim 1, on line 7, the introduction of “a ceiling member” is unclear. Is the “ceiling member” introduced on line 7 one and the same as the “ceiling member” introduced on lines 2-3 of claim 1, or are they different/distinct elements? Also, if the “ceiling member” elements discussed above are different/distinct elements, to which of those elements does “the ceiling member” (recited on lines 8 and 15) refer?
Regarding claim 3, on line 5, the introduction of “an outer circumferential surface of the headnipple” is unclear. Is the “outer circumferential surface of the headnipple” introduced in claim 3 one and the same as that introduced on line 10 of claim 1, and referred to on line 2 of claim 2?
Regarding claim 5, on lines 2-3, the recitation, “the lower surface in contact with the shield ring” lacks clear antecedent basis. Also, it is unclear as to exactly what defines this “lower surface”? Is this “lower surface” defined by the “ring flange”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung, US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0113872.
As to claim 1, Jung shows a dustproof sprinkler (see Figs. 5A-5C) comprising: a headnipple (160) having a first end (upstream end of 160) connected to a water supply source (clearly implied) above a ceiling member (110), and a second end (lowermost end portion of 160) fitting into the ceiling member through a through hole (as defined though the central portion of 123, which passes through 110); a head (170) removably mounted on the second end of the headnipple (see Figs. 5A and 5B), which sprays extinguishing water supplied through the headnipple from the water supply source; a headnipple support (123), coupled to extend outwardly from an outer surface of the headnipple, and removably fixed to the ceiling member, thereby securing the headnipple to the ceiling member; a shield ring (combination of 125, 126 and 127), formed to have an outer diameter larger than an inner diameter of the through hole (see Figs. 5A and 5C), which is fitted to an outer circumferential surface of the headnipple at a position above the through hole (see again, Figs. 5A and 5C) so as to block the top of a gap that occurs between the through hole and the headnipple when the headnipple is inserted into the through hole; and a shield ring pressing means (inclusive of 128) for pressing the shield ring to seal the top of the gap when the headnipple support is fixed on top of the ceiling member.
As to claim 2, Jung shows the dustproof sprinkler of claim 1, and wherein the shield ring pressing means is liftably mounted on the outer circumferential surface of the headnipple, so that the distance to the top of the gap can be adjusted to the thickness of the shield ring (function clearly met with the structure shown by Jung, as applied to claim 1 above).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung.
As to claim 3, Jung shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 2, and further, Jung shows the dustproof sprinkler wherein the shield ring pressing means comprises: a ring flange (128) having a female threaded hole (as shown in each of Figs. 5A and 5C, the innermost portion of 128, where 128 is in contact with 160, includes female threads) in its center. However, Jung is silent as to such female threads as having been created by being “machined” into the hole. Also, while it is entirely possible, if not implied, that an outer circumferential surface of the headnipple of Jung includes a male threaded portion which is designed to engage with the female threaded portion of the ring flange, such is not clearly shown in the drawings of Jung, and Jung does not expressly describe such a feature.
As to the “machined” recitation, it is noted that such is merely a “product-by-process” limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or an obvious variant from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case, it was old and well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for female threads on an inner circumferential surface of an element to be produced using a machining process. Thus, the claimed device is clearly either the same as or an obvious variant from the prior art device of Jung.
As to the recitations regarding inclusion of a male threaded portion removably screwed into the female threaded hole for mounting the ring flange raisably to an outer circumferential surface of the headnipple, while it appears that a similarly functioning threaded connection (at M3) is included with the Jung device for this purpose, it would certainly be well within the ordinary skill of one in the art to also include a mating male threaded portion on an outer circumferential surface of the headnipple for engaging with the female threaded portion of the ring flange, if such is not already implicitly included, thereby providing a mating thread for the already included female threaded portion of the ring flange, which would at least provide the advantage of redundancy with respect to positively connecting and adjusting (as necessary) the fastening unit of Jung.
As to claim 5, Jung, as modified above, shows the dustproof sprinkler of claim 3, and wherein the ring flange is inclined in the form of a shroud so that a lower surface of the ring flange (the inner-lower surface of 128) which is in contact with the shield ring (at 127) is upwardly inclined the closer it is to the female threaded hole (see Figs. 5A and 5C).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon, Foreign Patent Publication No. KR-200439435-Y1, in view of Kim et al., Foreign Patent Publication No. KR-102279572-B1.
As to claim 1, Moon shows a dustproof sprinkler (see Figs. 2 or 4) comprising: a headnipple (11 or 110) having a first end (upstream end of 11 or 110) connected to a water supply source (clearly implied) above a ceiling member (20 or 200), and a second end (lowermost end portion of 11 or 110) fitting into the ceiling member through a through hole (21 or 210); a head (14 or 140) removably mounted on the second end of the headnipple, which sprays extinguishing water supplied through the headnipple from the water supply source; a shield ring (15 or 150), formed to have an outer diameter larger than an inner diameter of the through hole, which is fitted to an outer circumferential surface of the headnipple at a position above the through hole so as to block the top of a gap that occurs between the through hole and the headnipple when the headnipple is inserted into the through hole; and a shield ring pressing means (inclusive of 13 or 130) for pressing the shield ring to seal the top of the gap.
However, Moon does not show or expressly describe inclusion of a headnipple support, coupled to extend outwardly from an outer surface of the headnipple, and removably fixed to the ceiling member, thereby securing the headnipple to the ceiling member.
Kim shows a dustproof sprinkler assembly (see Figs. 3-5) having a similar design, function and effect as compared to that of Moon, wherein the assembly of Kim also comprises: a corresponding headnipple (20) having a first end connected to a water supply source (1, 2, 3) above a corresponding ceiling member (40), and a second end (lowermost end portion of 20) fitting into the ceiling member through a corresponding through hole (51); a head (4) removably mounted on the second end of the headnipple, which sprays extinguishing water supplied through the headnipple from the water supply source; and a corresponding shield ring (30), formed to have an outer diameter larger than an inner diameter of the through hole (see Fig. 7), which is fitted to an outer circumferential surface of the headnipple at a position above the through hole so as to block the top of a gap that occurs between the through hole and the headnipple when the headnipple is inserted into the through hole. Also, based on the type of ceiling structure through which the assembly of Kim is intended to extend, Kim further shows a headnipple support (100), coupled to extend outwardly from an outer surface of the headnipple, and removably fixed to the ceiling member, thereby securing the headnipple to the ceiling member, such that the gap between the through hole and the headnipple is sealed at the top of the gap when the headnipple support is fixed on top of the ceiling member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when the dustproof sprinkler of Moon is intended to be installed through the type of ceiling structure shown by Kim, to include a headnipple support, coupled to extend outwardly from an outer surface of the headnipple, and removably fixed to the ceiling member, thereby securing the headnipple to the ceiling member, as taught by Kim, thereby allowing a user to adapt the dustproof sprinkler of Moon to the type of known ceiling structure shown by Kim, thus expanding installation possibilities of the dustproof sprinkler of Moon to other known ceiling structures.
As to claim 2, modified Moon shows the dustproof sprinkler of claim 1, and wherein the shield ring pressing means is liftably mounted on the outer circumferential surface of the headnipple (see again, Figs. 2 and 4 of Moon), so that the distance to the top of the gap can be adjusted to the thickness of the shield ring (function clearly met with the structure shown by modified Moon, as applied to claim 1 above).
As to claim 3, modified Moon shows the dustproof sprinkler of claim 2, and wherein the shield ring pressing means comprises: a ring flange (13 or 130) having a female threaded hole (see Figs. 2 and 4 of Moon) in its center; and a male threaded portion removably screwed into the female threaded hole (see again, Figs. 2 and 4 of Moon), for mounting the ring flange raisably to an outer circumferential surface of the headnipple. However, Moon is silent as to such female threads as having been created by being “machined” into the hole, although such is merely a “product-by-process” limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or an obvious variant from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113). In the instant case, it was old and well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for female threads on an inner circumferential surface of an element to be produced using a machining process. Thus, the claimed device is clearly either the same as or an obvious variant from the prior art device of modified Moon.
As to claim 4, modified Moon shows the dustproof sprinkler of claim 3, however it is unclear whether or not the headnipple of Moon comprises a ring groove concavely formed on the periphery of the male threaded portion for fitting and binding the shield ring.
It should be noted that it was old and well known in the art to form a groove in the outer circumferential surface of a cylindrical element where a ring element which forms a seal is intended to be located. Such is well known for at least the purpose of positively seating the ring element in the desired location on the cylindrical element so that the ring element remains in place when the sealing arrangement is affected. Indeed, the corresponding shield ring (30), shown by Kim (see Fig. 4 of Kim) and discussed above, is seated in a ring groove (22) concavely formed on the outer circumferential surface of the corresponding headnipple (20) for at least that purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprinkler assembly of (modified) Moon, whereby the headnipple comprises a ring groove, as taught by Kim, concavely formed on the periphery of the male threaded portion shown by Moon, for fitting and binding the shield ring, thus providing a feature which at least facilitates a positive seating of the shield ring in the desired location on the headnipple, so that the ring element remains in place when the sealing arrangement is affected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Silva et al. and Szentimrey et al., and Foreign Patent Publications to Shim, Kim et al. and Im, are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
