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 3, 5-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are original. Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled. Claims 1, 9, 13 and 22 are amended. Claims 21 is as previously. Claims 9-20 remain withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-22 are currently pending and claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 21-22 have been considered below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment on 01/09/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following.
Existing 35 USC § 112(b) rejections
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, 3, 5-8 and 21-22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the outer surface having a same outer radius outward from each of the chamber surface and the first engagement member” in lines 9-10 of claim 1. It is unclear as to how the outer surface, chamber surface, and first engagement member can have the same outer radius, which is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “a line segment extending from the center of a circle or sphere to the circumference or bounding surface” because the outer surface, chamber surface, and first engagement member appear to be at different distances from the centerline of the axis of the claimed invention with respect to Figure 2B and Figure 10. The examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood by the examiner with respect to Figure 2B and Figure 10.
Claims 3, 5-8, and 21-22 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 3, 5-8, and 21-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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, 3, 5-7, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stempo (US 10,478,650) in view of Rief (US 10,478,650).
Regarding claim 1, Stempo discloses a sprinkler system (Fig. 1-3, all structural elements; Col. 3: Ln. 31-33), comprising:
a fitting (Fig. 3, {14, 16, 68} & Fig. 2, {60}), comprising:
a hose (Fig. 1-3, 16); and
at least one adapter (Fig. 2, 60 & Fig. 3, 68) coupled with the hose, the at least one adapter comprising an internal passageway extending from a first end (Fig. 2, End Facing 14) to a second end (Fig. 2, End Facing 60) along an axis (Fig. 2, Central axis of 64 and 10), the at least one adapter comprising an outer surface (Fig. 3, Outer surface of 68), the internal passageway (Fig. 3, 66) comprising a first engagement member (Fig. 4, 72) between the first end and the second end and;
a sprinkler comprising a body (Fig. 3, 14), at least one flange (Fig. 3, Flange below 74 and above 14) extending from the body, and a second engagement member (Fig. 3, 74) extending from the at least one flange.
Stempo does not teach the at least one adaptor comprising a gasket chamber between the first end and the second end, the gasket chamber comprises a chamber surface that faces the axis and is radially outward from the axis relative to the first engagement member, the outer surface having a same outer radius outward from each of the chamber surface and the first engagement member; and a gasket in the gasket chamber, the gasket has a central opening fluidly coupled with the internal passageway.
However, Rief teaches a prior art comparable adaptor (Figure, 16) comprising an internal passageway (Figure, 20) extending from a first end (Annotated Figure) to a second end (Annotated Figure) along an axis (Annotated Figure), the at least one adapter comprising an outer surface (Annotated Figure), the internal passageway comprising a first engagement member (Annotated Figure) between the first end and the second end and a gasket chamber (Annotated Figure) between the first end and the second end, the gasket chamber comprises a chamber surface (Annotated Figure) that faces the axis and is radially outward from the axis relative to the first engagement member, the outer surface having a same outer radius outward from each of the chamber surface and the first engagement member (Rief shows the outer surface having a same outer radius outward from each of the chamber surface and the first engagement member in the same was as depicted in Fig. 2B and Fig. 10 of the applicants specification.);
a device (Figure, 12) comprising a body (Annotated Figure), at least one flange (Annotated Figure) extending from the body, and a second engagement (Annotated Figure) member extending from the at least one flange; and
a gasket (Figure, 30) in the gasket chamber, the gasket has a central opening (Figure, area where arrow of item 28 is pointing) fluidly coupled with the internal passageway (Col. 2: Ln. 3-11; Col. 2: Ln. 50-53; The gasket seals the device to the adaptor and is thus are fluidly coupled and in fluidic communication with each other.).
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 (at least one adapter comprising an internal passageway extending from a first end to a second end along an axis, the at least one adapter comprising an outer surface, the internal passageway comprising a first engagement member between the first end and the second end and a gasket chamber between the first end and the second end, the gasket chamber comprises a chamber surface that faces the axis and is radially outward from the axis relative to the first engagement member, the outer surface having a same outer radius outward from each of the chamber surface and the first engagement member; a sprinkler comprising a body, at least one flange extending from the body, and a second engagement member extending from the at least one flange; and a gasket in the gasket chamber, the gasket has a central opening fluidly coupled with the internal passageway.) as taught by Rief, into the connection between the adaptor and the sprinkler system disclosed by Stempo 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.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
981
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Stempo in view of Rief teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Stempo further discloses the system further comprising a bracket (Fig. 1, 28) to fix a position of the hose relative to a building structure (Col. 6: Ln 14-20).
Regarding claim 5, Stempo in view of Rief teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Stempo further discloses the system further comprising:
the at least one adapter comprises a first adapter (Fig. 2, 60) defining an inlet end of the fitting and a second adapter (Fig. 2, 68) defining an outlet end of the fitting opposite the inlet end.
Regarding claim 6, Stempo in view of Rief teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Stempo further discloses the system comprising: the hose comprises (Fig. 2, 16) a resilient material (Col. 5: Ln 62-64; The flexible conduit comprises a stainless steel hose, and stainless steel is a resilient material because it is capable of withstanding shock without permanent deformation or rupture.)
Regarding claim 7, Stempo in view of Rief teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Stempo further discloses the system further comprising: the hose (Fig. 2, 16) comprises a grooved outer surface (Fig. 2 shows the hose with a grooved outer surface.).
Regarding claim 21, Stempo in view of Rief teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Rief further teaches the system comprising:
the at least one adapter (Figure, 16) comprises an end wall (Annotated Figure of claim 1) forming a portion of the gasket chamber and arranged to contact the at least one flange.
Regarding claim 22, Stempo in view of Rief teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1.
Rief further teaches the system comprising:
the at least one adapter (Figure, 16) comprises a step (Annotated Figure of claim 1) at the second end extending further radially outward from the axis relative to the first engagement member.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Rief and Meyer (5,609,211).
Regarding claim 8, Stempo in view of Rief teaches the sprinkler system of claim 1, but does not teach the sprinkler comprising at least one frame arm extending from the body in a direction opposite the at least one flange; a deflector attached to the at least one frame arm; a seal positioned in an opening of the body fluidly coupled with the at least one adapter; and a thermal activation element 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.
However, Meyer teaches a prior art comparable sprinkler (Fig. 1, 10) comprising
at least one frame arm (Fig. 3, 22 & 24) extending from a body (Fig. 1, 12) in a direction opposite at least one flange;
a deflector (Fig. 1 & 3, 40) attached to the at least one frame arm;
a seal positioned in an opening of the body (Fig. 4, 18) fluidly coupled with at least one adapter (Col. 4: Ln. 39-44 – “a pipe supporting and supplying water”); and
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).
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 (at least one frame arm extending from the body in a direction opposite the at least one flange; a deflector attached to the at least one frame arm; a seal positioned in an opening of the body fluidly coupled with the at least one adapter; and a thermal activation element 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.) as taught by Meyer, into the sprinkler taught by Stempo in view of Rief to provide the quickest response times possible to activate the sprinklers as quickly as possible after the beginning of a fire (Col. 11: Ln. 67 to Col. 12: Ln. 2) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire.
Conclusion
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 January 24, 2026
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752