DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 50-51, 53-65, and 67-69 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 5 November 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “skew portion” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 50-51, 54-59, 61-65, 67, and 69 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spears (US 2010/0259042) in view of Notkin (US 4,717,076), Spears (US 5,109,929) and Pieczykolan (US 4,630,682).
Regarding claim 50, Spears ‘042 discloses a sprinkler assembly (par. 1; fig. 1), comprising:
a receiver (14), comprising an inner surface extending from a proximal end (fig. 4 - left end) to a distal end (fig. 4 - right end) about a longitudinal axis (fig. 4); the inner surface protruding inwardly between the proximal end and the distal end to form a shoulder (interpreted to be the radially-inwardly protruding feature) between the proximal end and the distal end (fig. 4), a stop surface facing the distal end (fig. 4), the inner surface forming a skew portion that is skewed to the longitudinal axis between the stop surface and the distal end (see annotated figure); an external receiver surface (fig. 4); a rounded edge at the distal end of the inner surface (fig. 4); a first thread (22) extending along a portion of the inner surface between the stop surface and the distal end (fig. 4); and
a sprinkler (12) comprising an internal surface to fluidly couple with the receiver (fig. 4); an external surface having a second thread (24, see fig. 4) to engage with the first thread to couple the sprinkler with the receiver (fig. 6), the stop surface to limit movement of the sprinkler in a direction towards the proximal end relative to the receiver caused by rotation of the first thread with the second thread (figs. 4-6 - the sprinkler will be stopped from rotating inwardly by the stop surface), a groove (26) formed in the inner surface of the receiver between the stop surface and the distal end (fig. 4), the groove facing the longitudinal axis (fig. 4); and
a seal (16) to be positioned in the groove between the inner surface of the receiver and the external surface of the sprinkler (fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Spears ‘042 does not disclose that the inner surface tapers inwardly between the proximal end and the distal end to form the shoulder, or that the external receiver surface has a greatest diameter around the distal end of the inner surface, or a chamfer at the distal end of the inner surface, or that the first thread is straight thread, or that the internal surface comprises a tapering portion narrowing in a direction from an inlet of the internal surface to an outlet of the internal surface.
Regarding the chamfer, Notkin teaches that both chamfers and rounded edges (i.e., “fillets”) are known alternatives and substitutes for transitioning between surfaces (col. 4, ln. 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rounded edge of Spears ‘042 to make it chamfered since both a rounded edge and a chamfer were known configurations for eliminating a sharp edge. This would reduce the likelihood of damaging the seal during assembly of the joint.
Spears ‘929, as indicated by the citations herein and the annotated figure below, teaches a sprinkler assembly (fig. 1), comprising:
a receiver (16), comprising an inner surface extending from a proximal end (26) to a distal end (24, see figs. 2, 3) about a longitudinal axis, the inner surface tapering inwardly between the proximal end and the distal end to form a shoulder between the proximal end and the distal end (figs. 2, 3), the shoulder having a stop surface facing the distal end (fig. 3); an external receiver surface having a greatest diameter around the distal end of the inner surface (figs. 1-3); a first thread (30) extending along a portion of the inner surface between the stop surface and the distal end (figs. 2, 3), the first thread is straight pipe thread (col. 4, ln. 65 - col. 5, ln. 5); and,
a sprinkler (12/20) comprising an internal surface to fluidly couple with the receiver (figs. 1, 3); an external surface (fig. 3) having a second thread (48) to engage with the first thread to couple the sprinkler with the receiver (figs. 1, 3), the stop surface to limit movement of the sprinkler in a direction towards the proximal end relative to the receiver caused by rotation of the first thread with the second thread (fig. 3 - the sprinkler will be stopped from rotating inwardly by the stop surface).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the receiver of Spears ‘042 such that the inner surface tapers inwardly between the proximal end and the distal end to form the shoulder, as taught by Spears ‘929, since it was known that such a configuration reduces stress upon the fitting by counteracting an expansion force exerted by the sprinkler on the receiver (Spears - col. 5, ln. 11-20). Further, it would have been obvious to have modified the external surface of Spears ‘042 such that greatest diameter is around the distal end of the inner surface, as also taught by Spears ‘929, since this would allow a sprinkler having a greater diameter internal surface to be fluidly coupled thereto. Finally, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified the receiver of Spears ‘042 to comprise straight pipe threads for the first thread, as also taught by Spears ‘929, since this was known to result in little to no wedging force (Spears - col. 4, ln. 65 - col. 5, ln. 5).
Pieczykolan teaches a sprinkler comprising an internal surface (18) comprising a tapering portion (col. 2, ln. 15) narrowing in a direction from an inlet (fig. 3 – at upper end) of the internal surface to an outlet (fig. 3 – at lower end) of the internal surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the sprinkler of Spears ‘042 to further comprise a tapering portion narrowing in a direction from an inlet of the internal surface to an outlet of the internal surface, as taught by Pieczykolan, since this was known to increase the flow velocity of the water and produce a focus stream at the outlet.
Regarding claim 51, Spears ‘042, in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan, discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and further comprising a sealing surface of the external surface to face the groove (interpreted to be the surface in contact with the seal).
Regarding claim 54, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and further comprising the chamfer is outward from the longitudinal axis relative to the firs thread (fig. 4 ).
Regarding claim 55, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and further comprising an inner diameter of the shoulder is less than an inner diameter of the first thread (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 56, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and further comprising the inner surface does not increase in inner diameter between the proximal end and the shoulder (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 57, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and further comprising the inner surface has a constant diameter from the proximal end to the tapering, see fig. 4 of Spears ‘042 and as shown in the annotated figures below.
Regarding claim 58, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and Spears further teaches comprising: a conical portion of the inner surface forms the tapering of the inner surface (figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 59, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and further comprising: the seal comprises a gasket (par. 14).
Regarding claim 61, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and Spears ‘929 further teaches comprising: the inner surface tapers between the proximal end and the shoulder (figs. 3 – unlabeled, interpreted to be the chamfer at the bottom of the inner surface at the proximal end).
Regarding claim 62, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and Spears ‘929 further teaches comprising the second thread is straight pipe thread (col. 4, ln. 65 - col. 5, ln. 5).
Again, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified the receiver of Spears ‘042 to comprise straight pipe threads for the second thread, as also taught by Spears ‘929, since this was known to result in little to no wedging force (Spears - col. 4, ln. 65 - col. 5, ln. 5).
Regarding claim 63, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and further comprising: the sprinkler is a concealed sprinkler (figs. 4-6 - a portion of the sprinkler is “concealed” within the receiver).
Regarding claim 64, Spears ‘042 discloses a sprinkler assembly (par. 1; fig. 1), comprising:
a receiver (14), comprising an internal passageway extending from a proximal end (fig. 4 - left end) to a distal end (fig. 4 - right end) about a longitudinal axis (fig. 4); the internal passageway protruding inwardly between the proximal end and the distal end to form a shoulder (interpreted to be the radially-inwardly protruding feature) between the proximal end and the distal end (fig. 4), the shoulder having a stop surface facing the distal end (fig. 4); an external receiver surface (fig. 4); a rounded edge at the distal end of the inner surface (fig. 4); a first thread (22) extending along the internal passageway between the stop surface and the distal end (fig. 4), the internal passageway forming a skew portion that is skewed to the longitudinal axis between the stop surface and the distal end (see annotated figure); and
a sprinkler (12) comprising an internal surface to fluidly couple with the receiver (fig. 4); an external surface having a second thread (24, see fig. 4) to engage with the first thread to couple the sprinkler with the receiver (fig. 6), the stop surface to limit movement of the sprinkler in a direction towards the proximal end relative to the receiver caused by rotation of the first thread with the second thread (figs. 4-6 - the sprinkler will be stopped from rotating inwardly by the stop surface), a groove (26) formed in the internal passageway of the receiver between the shoulder and the distal end (fig. 4), the groove facing the longitudinal axis (fig. 4); and
a seal (16) to be positioned in the groove between the internal passageway of the receiver and the external surface of the sprinkler (fig. 4).
Spears ‘042 does not disclose that the inner surface tapers inwardly between the proximal end and the distal end to form the shoulder, or that the external receiver surface has a greatest diameter around the distal end of the inner surface, or a chamfer at the distal end of the inner surface, or that the first thread is straight thread, or that the internal surface comprises a tapering portion narrowing in a direction from an inlet of the internal surface to an outlet of the internal surface.
Regarding the chamfer, Notkin teaches that both a chamfer and a rounded edge (i.e., “fillets”) are known alternatives and substitutes for transitioning between surfaces (col. 4, ln. 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rounded edge of Spears ‘042 to make it chamfered since both a rounded edge and a chamfer were known configurations for eliminating a sharp edge. This would reduce the likelihood of damaging the seal during assembly of the joint.
Spears ‘929 teaches sprinkler fitting (16), comprising: an internal passageway (22) extending about a longitudinal axis from a proximal end (26) to a distal end (24, see fig. 1), the internal passageway tapering between the proximal end and the distal end to form a shoulder (figs. 2, 3), the shoulder having a stop surface facing the distal end (figs. 2, 3); an external receiver surface having a greatest diameter around the distal end of the inner surface (figs. 1-3); and a first thread (30) extending along the inner surface between the stop surface and the distal end (figs. 2, 3), the first thread is straight pipe thread (col. 4, ln. 65 - col. 5, ln. 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the receiver of Spears ‘042 such that the internal passageway tapers inwardly between the proximal end and the distal end to form the shoulder, as taught by Spears ‘929, since it was known that such a configuration reduces stress upon the fitting by counteracting an expansion force exerted by the sprinkler on the receiver (Spears - col. 5, ln. 11-20). Further, it would have been obvious to have modified the external surface of Spears ‘042 such that greatest diameter is around the distal end of the inner surface, as also taught by Spears ‘929, since this would allow a sprinkler having a greater diameter internal surface to be fluidly coupled thereto. Finally, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified the receiver of Spears ‘042 to comprise straight pipe threads for the first thread, as also taught by Spears ‘929, since this was known to result in little to no wedging force (Spears - col. 4, ln. 65 - col. 5, ln. 5).
Pieczykolan teaches a sprinkler comprising an internal surface (18) comprising a tapering portion (col. 2, ln. 15) narrowing in a direction from an inlet (fig. 3 – at upper end) of the internal surface to an outlet (fig. 3 – at lower end) of the internal surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the sprinkler of Spears ‘042 to further comprise a tapering portion narrowing in a direction from an inlet of the internal surface to an outlet of the internal surface, as taught by Pieczykolan, since this was known to increase the flow velocity of the water and produce a focus stream at the outlet.
Regarding claim 65, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 64, and further comprising the sprinkler comprises a frame (12) forming the internal surface and the external surface (figs. 4-6), the frame coupled with a deflector (par. 14 – a deflector is a well-known part of a “sprinkler head”).
Regarding claim 67, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 64, and further comprising the internal passageway does not increase in inner diameter between the proximal end and the shoulder; and an inner diameter of the shoulder is less than an inner diameter of the first thread (figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 69, Spears ‘042 in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 64, and Spears ‘929 further teaches comprising the second thread is straight pipe thread (col. 4, ln. 65 - col. 5, ln. 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified the receiver of Spears ‘042 to comprise straight pipe threads for the second thread, as also taught by Spears ‘929, since this was known to result in little to no wedging force (Spears - col. 4, ln. 65 - col. 5, ln. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
279
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Spears ‘929
Claims 53, 60, and 68 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spears ‘042, in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan, and further in view of Hechler, IV (US 3,768,777).
Regarding claim 53, Spears ‘042, in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan, discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 51, but not the sealing surface having an axial length greater than an axial length of the groove.
Hechler, as indicated by the citations herein and the annotated figure below, teaches a sprinkler assembly (fig. 1), comprising:
a receiver (32), comprising an inner surface extending from a proximal end (fig. 4 - left end) to a distal end (fig. 4 - right end) about a longitudinal axis (fig. 4); a stop surface facing the distal end (fig. 4); a first thread (52) extending along a portion of the inner surface between the stop surface and the distal end (fig. 4); and
a sprinkler (30) comprising an internal surface to fluidly couple with the receiver (fig. 4); an external surface having a second thread (50, see fig. 4) to engage with the first thread to couple the sprinkler with the receiver (fig. 3), the stop surface to limit movement of the sprinkler in a direction towards the proximal end relative to the receiver caused by rotation of the first thread with the second thread (fig. 4 - the sprinkler will be stopped from rotating inwardly by the stop surface), a groove (46) formed in the external surface of the sprinkler (fig. 4); and
a seal (48) to be positioned in the groove between the inner surface of the receiver and the external surface of the sprinkler (fig. 4), a sealing surface to face the groove, the sealing surface positioned between the first thread and the distal end of the receiver and having an axial length greater than an axial length of the groove (fig. 4 – interpreted to be the portion of the inner surface in contact with the seal), as shown in the annotated figure of Hechler below.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the sprinkler of Spears ‘042, in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan, to arrange the sealing surface between the first thread and the distal end of the receiver, as taught by Hechler. Both Spears ‘042 and Hechler teach that it is known that a sealing surface arranged between the stop surface and the first thread and a sealing surface arranged between the first thread and the distal end of the receiver are functional equivalents for forming a fluid seal between the sprinkler head and the receiver. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted sealing surface arranged between the first thread and the distal end of the receiver taught by Hechler for sealing surface arranged between the stop surface and the first thread taught by Spears ‘042 because both elements were known equivalents for forming a fluid seal between the sprinkler head and the receiver. This substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of forming a fluid seal between the sprinkler head and the receiver. Further, arranging the sealing surface between the first thread and the distal end would allow the seal to be formed almost immediately when the sprinkler head is inserted into the receiver and maintained until nearly the moment when the sprinkler head is removed from the receiver.
Regarding claim 60, Spears ‘042, in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, Pieczykolan, and Hechler discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 50, and Hechler further teaches the receiver comprises an elbow (figs. 2, 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the sprinkler of Spears ‘042, in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan, so that the receiver comprises an elbow, as taught by Hechler, since this was a known way of arranging the sprinkler head orthogonal to the supply pipe.
Regarding claim 68, Spears ‘042, in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, Pieczykolan, and Hechler discloses the sprinkler assembly described regarding claim 64, and Hechler further teaches the receiver comprises an elbow (figs. 2, 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the sprinkler of Spears ‘042, in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan, so that the receiver comprises an elbow, as taught by Hechler, since this was a known way of arranging the sprinkler head orthogonal to the supply pipe.
PNG
media_image3.png
342
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Hechler
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added limitation to the “skew portion” have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of the prior art being used in the current rejection. Therefore, Spears ‘042, in view of Notkin, Spears ‘929, and Pieczykolan is interpreted to render obvious each and every limitation of amended claims 50 and 64, as explained in the rejection above.
Regarding applicant's argument that it would not have been obvious to modify Spears ‘042 to have straight pipe threads, as taught by Spears ‘929, it is noted that Spears ‘042 includes a gasket for forming the liquid seal between the receiver and the sprinkler (par. 24), not the threads. Spears ‘042 does not explicitly state that the threads must form a liquid-tight seal; therefore, the proposed modification does not make the invention of Spears unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. However, if the threads must form a fluid-tight seal, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize how to maintain a leak tight connection with the proposed modification by using thread sealer (e.g., teflon tape, pipe dope).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the “chamfer” 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.
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is taken from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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