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 February 21, 2023 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, as per specification paragraph [0049], reference number “320”, as shown in Fig. 3, is supposed to denote an “angle” which is defined “from a first end 324 of the wall 148 to a second end 328 of the wall 148 relative to the cover plate 144”. However, when viewing Fig. 3, the lead line for reference number “320” appears to be indicating a horizontal base portion of “wall 148”. Also, based on what is shown in Fig. 3, the lead line for reference number “324” seems to be indicating roughly the same location as the lead line for reference number “328”, which is confusing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference numbers “1016”, “1020” and “1024” (see Fig. 10) are not found in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0041] of the specification, reference number “228” is used to designate two different/distinct elements (i.e. “chamber 228” and “engagement member 228”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“activation element” in claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 12 and 20 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 12, on line 4, the reference to “the solder” is somewhat unclear. While claim 12 introduces “solder” on line 2 thereof, which appears to provide antecedent basis for “the solder” on line 4 of the claim, the claim also depends from independent claim 1, which also introduces “solder”, which is understood to be a separate and distinct solder element of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 20, on line 2, the introduction of “a wall...” is unclear. In light of the disclosure, the claimed “sprinkler” seems to include only one “wall” element. Claim 13, from which claim 20 directly depends, introduces this “wall” element. Thus, claim 20 can be interpreted whereby the claimed “sprinkler” includes two separate and distinct “wall” elements, which is not consistent with the disclosure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11 and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13-15, 18, 19 and 21-24 of copending Application No. 18/042,381 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims of the copending application include or render obvious the elements of the instant application claims, as follows:
As to claim 1, see copending application claims 1 and 11, which set forth a concealed sprinkler, comprising: a body (“body”) that defines an outlet (“outlet”); a seal (“seal”) that seals the outlet; an activation element (“activation element”) coupled with the seal, the activation element changes from a first state to a second state responsive to a fire condition to allow the seal to be displaced from the outlet; a housing (“housing”) that defines a chamber (“chamber”) around the activation element; a cover plate (“cover plate”) removably coupled with the housing; and a wall (“wall”) at least one of coupled with and extending from the cover plate to direct air flow to the activation element, the cover plate coupled with the housing using at least one of solder (see copending claims 5 and 15) and a coating such that a duration of time between decoupling of the cover plate from the housing responsive to the fire condition and changing of the activation element from the first state to the second state responsive to the fire condition is less than a threshold duration of time (since the structural elements and the interrelated details thereof for the instant application claim(s) is/are met by the claims of the copending application, and since this “threshold” is undefined in the instant application claims, any duration of time between the decoupling of the cover plate from the housing responsive to the fire condition with the device of the copending application claims, and the changing of the activation element from the first state to the second state responsive to the fire condition with the device of the copending application claims, would be less than an arbitrarily chosen threshold duration of time).
As to claim 2, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the copending application claims, as noted above with respect to claim 1, the “threshold duration of time” is undefined in claim 1 of the instant application. Thus, the device of the copending application claims need only be capable of performing so as to have the “duration of time” being less than ten seconds, which can be met by the copending application claims when the “fire condition” is of an extreme nature, such as a fire which develops rapidly and becomes extremely hot in a very short period of time.
As to claim 5, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the copending application claims, such is merely dependent on an “expected hazard to be protected using the concealed sprinkler”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from those of the copending application, which meets all of the structural limitations.
As to claim 6, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the copending application claims, such merely sets forth a design consideration regarding “an amount of the solder and a temperature rating of the solder” which are “selected”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from those of the copending application, which meets all of the structural limitations. It should also be noted that it was old and well known in the art of concealed, thermally-activated fire protection sprinkler assemblies which include a cover plate connected to such an assembly with solder (or the like), to design the assembly such that the solder connecting the cover plate to the assembly melts before thermal activation of the sprinkler.
As to claim 7, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the copending application claims, such merely sets forth a design consideration regarding “an amount of the coating and a temperature rating of the coating” which are “selected”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from those of the copending application, which meets all of the structural limitations. It should also be noted that it was old and well known in the art of concealed, thermally-activated fire protection sprinkler assemblies which include a cover plate connected to such an assembly with solder (or the like), to design the assembly such that the solder connecting the cover plate to the assembly melts before thermal activation of the sprinkler.
As to claim 8, based on the limitations regarding how the “wall” of the copending application claims “extends from the cover plate”, and in particular, regarding the “inner edge” limitations recited in copending application claims 1, 11, 21 and 22, this claim is met.
As to claim 9, see copending application claims 1 and 11.
As to claim 10, copending application claim 2 open-endedly recites that the wall comprises “at least one of... a fin”, which can encompass a plurality of fins; and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA 7 1977). Thus, with a plurality of fins, “channels” would be defined therebetween.
As to claim 11, see copending claims 9 and 13.
As to claim 13, see copending application claims 1 and 11, which set forth a sprinkler, comprising: a housing (“body”/”housing”) that defines an outlet (“outlet”) and a chamber (“chamber”); a seal (“seal”) that seals the outlet; an activation element (“activation element”) positioned in the chamber and coupled with the seal, the activation element changes from a first state to a second state responsive to a fire condition to allow the seal to be displaced from the outlet; a cover plate (“cover plate”) removably coupled with the housing; and a wall (“wall”) at least one of coupled with and extending from the cover plate to direct air flow to the activation element, the cover plate coupled with the housing such that a duration of time between decoupling of the cover plate from the housing responsive to the fire condition and changing of the activation element from the first state to the second state responsive to the fire condition is less than a threshold duration of time (since the structural elements and the interrelated details thereof for the instant application claim(s) is/are met by the claims of the copending application, and since this “threshold” is undefined in the instant application claims, any duration of time between the decoupling of the cover plate from the housing responsive to the fire condition with the device of the copending application claims, and the changing of the activation element from the first state to the second state responsive to the fire condition with the device of the copending application claims, would be less than an arbitrarily chosen threshold duration of time).
As to claim 14, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the copending application claims, as noted above with respect to claim 13, the “threshold duration of time” is undefined in claim 13 of the instant application. Thus, the device of the copending application claims need only be capable of performing so as to have the “duration of time” being less than ten seconds, which can be met by the copending application claims when the “fire condition” is of an extreme nature, such as a fire which develops rapidly and becomes extremely hot in a very short period of time.
As to claim 15, see copending claims 5 and 15 (e.g., “solder”).
As to claim 16, see copending claims 5 and 15 (e.g. “solder”). Also, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the copending application claims, such merely sets forth a design consideration regarding “at least one of an amount or a temperature rating of the a least one of the coating and the solder” which are “selected”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from those of the copending application, which meets all of the structural limitations. It should also be noted that it was old and well known in the art of concealed, thermally-activated fire protection sprinkler assemblies which include a cover plate connected to such an assembly with solder (or the like), to design the assembly such that the solder connecting the cover plate to the assembly melts before thermal activation of the sprinkler.
As to claim 17, see copending claims 5 and 15 (e.g. “solder”). Also, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the copending application claims, such is merely dependent on an “expected hazard to be protected using the sprinkler”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from those of the copending application, which meets all of the structural limitations.
As to claim 18, copending application claim 2 open-endedly recites that the wall comprises “at least one of... a fin”, which can encompass a plurality of fins; and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA 7 1977). Thus, with a plurality of fins, “channels” would be defined therebetween.
As to claim 19, see copending claims 9 and 13.
As to claim 20, based on the limitations regarding how the “wall” of the copending application claims “extends from the cover plate”, and in particular, regarding the “inner edge” limitations recited in copending application claims 1, 11, 21 and 22, this claim is met.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 3 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13-15, 18, 19 and 21-24 of copending Application No. 18/042,381, in view of Anderson, USPN 4,014,388.
As to claim 3, the copending application claims do not expressly recite a temperature rating of the “at least one of the coating and the solder”; and thus, the recited temperature rating range is not stated in the copending application claims. Anderson shows a concealed, thermally-activated fire protection sprinkler device (see Figs. 1-4) having a similar design, function and effect as that of the copending application claims, and Anderson expressly discloses that the corresponding “at least one of the coating and the solder” (23a) has an exemplary temperature rating which meets the recited range (see column 2, line 67, through column 3, line 1), thus providing the advantage of allowing the heat from a fire to melt the material which attaches the corresponding cover plate (22) to the sprinkler assembly before the corresponding thermally responsive activation element (8) of the sprinkler is activated (see column 4, lines 23-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the sprinkler of the copending application claims to have the temperature rating of the “at least one of the coating and the solder” within the range recited in claim 3, as taught by Anderson, thus having a provision which allows for the heat from a fire to melt the material which attaches the cover plate to the sprinkler assembly before the activation element is activated.
As to claim 4, the copending application claims do not expressly recite a temperature rating of the “at least one of the coating and the solder”, nor do they recite that the temperature rating is “less than a temperature rating of the activation element by at most 10 degrees Fahrenheit”. Anderson shows a concealed, thermally-activated fire protection sprinkler device (see Figs. 1-4) having a similar design, function and effect as that of the copending application claims, and Anderson expressly discloses that the corresponding “at least one of the coating and the solder” (23a) has a temperature rating which is less than that of the corresponding thermally responsive activation element (8), thus providing the advantage of allowing the heat from a fire to melt the material which attaches the corresponding cover plate (22) to the sprinkler assembly before the corresponding thermally responsive activation element of the sprinkler is activated, which thus provides rapid detachment of the cover plate and early activation of the sprinkler (see column 4, lines 23-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the sprinkler of the copending application claims to have the temperature rating of the “at least one of the coating and the solder” being less than a temperature rating of the activation element, as taught by Anderson, thus having a provision which allows for the heat from a fire to melt the material which attaches the cover plate to the sprinkler assembly before the activation element is activated, which thus provides rapid detachment of the cover plate and early activation of the sprinkler. As to the recitation that the difference in the temperature rating is “at most 10 degrees Fahrenheit”, while such is not expressly taught by Anderson, it is clear that the temperature rating difference is a result effective variable which is expressly contemplated by Anderson, an optimum value of which, one having ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of determining through routine experimentation and engineering expedience, particularly since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson, USPN 4,014,388.
As to claim 1, Anderson shows a concealed sprinkler (see Figs. 1-4), comprising: a body (1) that defines an outlet (2); a seal (11, 12) that seals the outlet; an activation element (8) coupled with the seal, the activation element changes from a first state to a second state responsive to a fire condition to allow the seal to be displaced from the outlet (see column 3, lines 13-18); a housing (21, 31) that defines a chamber (20) around the activation element; a cover plate (22) removably coupled with the housing; and a wall (32) at least one of coupled with and extending from the cover plate to direct air flow to the activation element (based on the construction and arrangement of elements “32”, as shown in Fig. 1, an amount of air can flow between each “32” portion, and/or above each “32” portion, and up towards activation element “8”), the cover plate coupled with the housing using at least one of solder (23a; see column 2, line 67, through column 3, line 1) and a coating (a coating material is alternatively disclosed in at least column 4, lines 23-29) such that a duration of time between decoupling of the cover plate from the housing responsive to the fire condition and changing of the activation element from the first state to the second state responsive to the fire condition is less than a threshold duration of time (since the structural elements and the interrelated details thereof are met by Anderson, and since this “threshold” is undefined in the claim, any duration of time between the decoupling of the cover plate from the housing responsive to a fire condition with the device of Anderson, and the changing of the activation element from the first state to the second state responsive to the fire condition, would be less than an arbitrarily chosen threshold duration of time). It should also be noted, Anderson expressly discloses that when a fire occurs, the sprinkler is designed such that the material coupling the cover plate to the housing will first melt, and then “subsequently” the activation element will change to the second state, essentially with both events happening rapidly in succession (see: column 3, lines 7-18; and, column 4, lines 29-36).
As to claim 2, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the disclosure of Anderson, as noted above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, the “threshold duration of time” is undefined in the claim. Thus, the device of Anderson need only be capable of performing so as to have the “duration of time” be less than ten seconds, which can at least be met by the Anderson device when the “fire condition” is of an extreme nature, such as a fire which develops very rapidly and becomes extremely hot in a very short period of time. It is also again noted, Anderson expressly discloses that when a fire occurs, the sprinkler is designed such that the material coupling the cover plate to the housing will first melt, and then “subsequently” the activation element will change to the second state, essentially with both events happening rapidly in succession (see again: column 3, lines 7-18; and, column 4, lines 29-36).
As to claim 3, Anderson expressly discloses at least one of the coating and the solder having an exemplary temperature rating greater than or equal to 135 degrees Fahrenheit and less than or equal to 165 degrees Fahrenheit (see column 2, line 67, through column 3, line 1).
As to claim 5, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the Anderson disclosure, such is merely dependent on an “expected hazard to be protected using the concealed sprinkler”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from that of Anderson, which meets all of the structural limitations.
As to claim 6, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the Anderson disclosure, such merely sets forth a design consideration regarding “an amount of the solder and a temperature rating of the solder” which are “selected”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from that of Anderson, which meets all of the structural limitations. It should also again be noted, Anderson expressly discloses that when a fire occurs, the sprinkler is designed such that the material coupling the cover plate with the housing will first melt, and then “subsequently” the activation element will change to the second state, essentially with both events happening rapidly in succession (see: column 3, lines 7-18; and, column 4, lines 29-36). It should further be noted that claim 6 is only further limiting a stipulation regarding the use of “solder”, which is recited in claim 1 as one of two options for coupling the cover plate with the housing, with both options being disclosed by Anderson (see the discussion with respect to the anticipation of claim 1 by Anderson, above). Thus, when only the “coating” option is applied to claim 1, claim 6 has no meaning in a patentable sense.
As to claim 7, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the Anderson disclosure, such merely sets forth a design consideration regarding “an amount of the coating and a temperature rating of the coating” which are “selected”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from that of Anderson, which meets all of the structural limitations. It should also again be noted, Anderson expressly discloses that when a fire occurs, the sprinkler is designed such that the material coupling the cover plate with the housing will first melt, and then “subsequently” the activation element will change to the second state, essentially with both events happening rapidly in succession (see: column 3, lines 7-18; and, column 4, lines 29-36). It should further be noted that claim 7 is only further limiting a stipulation regarding the use of a “coating”, which is recited in claim 1 as one of two options for coupling the cover plate with the housing, with both options being disclosed by Anderson (see the discussion with respect to the anticipation of claim 1 by Anderson, above). Thus, when only the “solder” option is applied to claim 1, claim 7 has no meaning in a patentable sense.
As to claim 8, with the “wall” of Anderson being made up of the elements “32”, as shown in Fig. 1, with each of wall elements “32” being shown to essentially ramp slightly upwardly in a radially-inward direction, then the wall of Anderson is shown whereby it decreases in diameter in a direction away from the cover plate.
As to claim 9, the cover plate of Anderson is shown to define a gap from the cover plate to at least one of the housing and a ceiling structure (36) in which the housing is installed (see Fig. 2).
As to claim 10, the wall of Anderson is shown to comprise a plurality of fins (32) defining channels on a wall surface (a channel is defined between each pair of “fins 32”, where air may flow towards the activation element; and a channel is defined on the upper surface of each “fin 32”, where air may flow towards the activation element) of the wall to direct air flow towards the activation element.
As to claim 11, the housing of Anderson comprises a sprinkler cup (21), and the cover plate and wall are formed as an assembly removably coupled with the sprinkler cup (see Fig. 1).
As to claim 13, Anderson shows a sprinkler (see Figs. 1-4), comprising: a housing (1, 21, 31) that defines an outlet (2) and a chamber (20); a seal (11, 12) that seals the outlet; an activation element (8) positioned in the chamber and coupled with the seal, the activation element changes from a first state to a second state responsive to a fire condition to allow the seal to be displaced from the outlet (see column 3, lines 13-18); a cover plate (22) removably coupled with the housing; and a wall (32) at least one of coupled with and extending from the cover plate to direct air flow to the activation element (based on the construction and arrangement of elements “32”, as shown in Fig. 1, an amount of air can flow between each “32” portion, and/or above each “32” portion, and up towards activation element “8”), the cover plate coupled with the housing (see: column 2, line 67, through column 3, line 1; and see: column 4, lines 23-29) such that a duration of time between decoupling of the cover plate from the housing responsive to the fire condition and changing of the activation element from the first state to the second state responsive to the fire condition is less than a threshold duration of time (since the structural elements and the interrelated details thereof are met by Anderson, and since this “threshold” is undefined in the claim, any duration of time between the decoupling of the cover plate from the housing responsive to a fire condition with the device of Anderson, and the changing of the activation element from the first state to the second state responsive to the fire condition, would be less than an arbitrarily chosen threshold duration of time). It should also be noted, Anderson expressly discloses that when a fire occurs, the sprinkler is designed such that the material coupling the cover plate to the housing will first melt, and then “subsequently” the activation element will change to the second state, essentially with both events happening rapidly in succession (see: column 3, lines 7-18; and, column 4, lines 29-36).
As to claim 14, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the disclosure of Anderson, as noted above with respect to the rejection of claim 13, the “threshold duration of time” is undefined in the claim. Thus, the device of Anderson need only be capable of performing so as to have the “duration of time” be less than ten seconds, which can at least be met by the Anderson device when the “fire condition” is of an extreme nature, such as a fire which develops very rapidly and becomes extremely hot in a very short period of time. It is also again noted, Anderson expressly discloses that when a fire occurs, the sprinkler is designed such that the material coupling the cover plate to the housing will first melt, and then “subsequently” the activation element will change to the second state, essentially with both events happening rapidly in succession (see again: column 3, lines 7-18; and, column 4, lines 29-36).
As to claim 15, Anderson discloses that the cover plate is coupled with the housing using at least of one a coating (a coating material is alternatively disclosed in at least column 4, lines 23-29) and solder (23a; see column 2, line 67, through column 3, line 1).
As to claim 16, Anderson discloses that the cover plate is coupled with the housing using at least one of a coating (a coating material is alternatively disclosed in at least column 4, lines 23-29) and solder (23a; see column 2, line 67, through column 3, line 1). Also, regarding the recitation, “at least one of an amount or a temperature rating of the at least one of the coating and the solder is selected to cause the cover plate to decouple from the housing prior to activation of the activation element within the threshold duration of time”, while the recited stipulation is not expressly stated in the Anderson disclosure, such merely sets forth a design consideration regarding “at least one of an amount or a temperature rating of the at least one of the coating and solder” which are “selected”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from that of Anderson, which meets all of the structural limitations. It should also again be noted, Anderson expressly discloses that when a fire occurs, the sprinkler is designed such that the material coupling the cover plate with the housing will first melt, and then “subsequently” the activation element will change to the second state, essentially with both events happening rapidly in succession (see: column 3, lines 7-18; and, column 4, lines 29-36).
As to claim 17, Anderson discloses that the cover plate is coupled to the housing using a material (see again: column 2, line 67, through column 3, line 1; and, see again: column 4, lines 23-29). Also, regarding the recitation, “such that the threshold duration of time corresponding to an expected hazard to be protected using the sprinkler”, such is merely dependent on an undefined “expected hazard”, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from that of Anderson, which meets all of the structural limitations.
As to claim 18, the wall of Anderson is shown to comprise a plurality of fins (32) defining channels on a wall surface (a channel is defined between each pair of “fins 32”, where air may flow towards the activation element; and a channel is defined on the upper surface of each “fin 32”, where air may flow towards the activation element) of the wall to direct air flow towards the activation element.
As to claim 19, the cover plate and the wall of Anderson are formed as an assembly removably coupled with the housing (the cover plate and wall are formed as an assembly which is removably coupled with portion “21” of the housing; see Fig. 1).
As to claim 20, the cover plate of Anderson is coupled with the wall, and the wall decreases in diameter in a direction away from the cover plate (with the “wall” of Anderson being made up of the elements “32”, as shown in Fig. 1, with each of wall elements “32” being shown to essentially ramp slightly upwardly in a radially-inward direction, then the wall of Anderson is shown whereby it decreases in diameter in a direction away from the cover plate).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson.
As to claim 4, Anderson shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, and further, Anderson discloses that at least one of the coating and the solder has a temperature rating that is less than a temperature rating of the activation element (see: column 3, lines 7-18; and, column 4, lines 29-36). However, Anderson is silent as to the difference between the temperature ratings being by “at most 10 degrees Fahrenheit”.
As to this recitation, based on the cited disclosure of Anderson as applied to claim 4 above, it is clear that the temperature rating difference is a result effective variable which is expressly contemplated by Anderson, an optimum value of which, one having ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of determining through routine experimentation and engineering expedience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the sprinkler of Anderson, whereby the different between the temperature ratings is at most 10 degrees Fahrenheit, thereby providing the rapid, successive cover plate detachment and sprinkler activation, as expressly desired by Anderson, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents to Polan, Ohta et al., Ponte and Jensen, and US Patent Application Publications to Koiwa, Sato, Rekeny, Chen, Vaneerden et al., Ringer et al., Ohkoshi and Tow, 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
Prosecution Insights