DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1 and 8-12 are currently pending.
Claims 2-7 and 13-16 are canceled.
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 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US 2013/0048822, (hereinafter, (Liu) in view of Anderson (US 4083410).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Re Clm 1: Liu discloses a fire sprinkler assembly (see Figs. 1, 5, and 6) comprising:
a flexible conduit (26);
an integral hub and bracket assembly comprising: a bracket hub (12 and 16) coupled to a bracket bar (36 and the other 36); and
an adjustable drop (14) integrally formed with the bracket hub (see Fig. 1), the adjustable drop defining a lengthwise axis oriented transverse to the bracket bar (see Fig. 1: note that integrally means a complete unit and formed means to make, accordingly, integrally formed means to make a complete unit and Liu discloses such), the flexible conduit coupled to the adjustable drop (see Fig. 1); and
a sprinkler head (28) extending from the adjustable drop;
wherein the adjustable drop comprises an outer casing (14),
wherein a height of the sprinkler head is adjustable (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the flexible conduit is directly coupled to the outer casing (see Fig. 1).
Liu fails to disclose an inner casing and a disclosed outer casing surrounding the inner casing, wherein a disclosed height of the disclosed sprinkler head is adjustable via rotation of the inner casing with respect to the disclosed outer casing, and the disclosed outer casing is fluidly coupled to the inner casing.
However, Anderson discloses a sprinkler head assembly, similar to that of Liu. Anderson also teaches (see Figs. 2 and 4) an inner casing (10) and an outer casing (9) surrounding the inner casing (see Figs. 2 and 4), wherein a height of the disclosed sprinkler head is adjustable via rotation (see Figs. 2 and 4, via the threads) of the inner casing with respect to the disclosed outer casing (see Figs. 2 and 4), and the disclosed outer casing is fluidly coupled to the inner casing (see Figs. 2 and 4). Where such would allow for additional adjustment(s) of the sprinkler head, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would yield the same predictable results of allowing a sprinkler head to be mounted, adjusted to a desired height, and form a leak free connection for a fire suppression system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Liu, to have had an inner casing and a disclosed outer casing surrounding the inner casing, wherein a disclosed height of the disclosed sprinkler head is adjustable via rotation of the inner casing with respect to the disclosed outer casing, and the disclosed outer casing is fluidly coupled to the inner casing, as taught by Anderson, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely modifying one casing arrangement with an alternative casing arrangement, for the purpose of allowing for additional adjustment(s) of the sprinkler head, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would yield the same predictable results of allowing a sprinkler head to be mounted, adjusted to a desired height, and form a leak free connection for a fire suppression system.
Re Clm 8: Liu as modified by Anderson above, discloses the limitations that the bracket hub comprises a primary support (38) and a secondary support rotatably connected to the primary support (via 62).
Re Clm 9: Liu as modified by Anderson above, discloses the limitations that a locking mechanism (the locking mechanism that contains 44) configured to selectively connect the primary support to the secondary support (see Figs. 1 and 2); and an adjustment mechanism (64) on the primary support configured to secure the adjustable drop within a hub opening (58) of the bracket hub (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Re Clm 10: Liu discloses a fire sprinkler assembly (see Figs. 1, 5, and 6) comprising:
a bracket bar (36 and the other 36);
a bracket hub (12 and 16) defining an arm (16) having an inverted U-shaped opening (16 being/has an inverted U-shape opening), the inverted U- shaped opening (see Fig. 1) configured to be lowered onto the bracket bar during assembly (see Fig. 1: the inverted U-shaped opening is made to or is capable of being lowered onto the bracket bar because it is free to move on 36 and the other 36, see [0021], and because 16 is in a shape that allows it to be lowered onto 36 and the other 36 and then carry the weight of the flexible hose, see [0020]);
a flexible conduit (26); and
an adjustable drop (14) coupled to the bracket hub and to the flexible conduit (see Fig. 1), wherein a lengthwise axis of the adjustable drop is oriented transverse to the bracket bar (see Fig. 1), and the adjustable drop has an length in a direction of the lengthwise axis (see Fig. 1); wherein, in the installed position, the U-shaped opening faces the direction in which the adjustable drop has the length (see Fig. 1).
Liu fails to disclose that the disclosed length is adjustable.
However, Anderson discloses a sprinkler head assembly, similar to that of Liu. Anderson also teaches (see Figs. 2 and 4) an inner casing (10) threaded to an outer casing (9) where such, via the threads, allows for the length to be adjustable. Where such would allow for additional adjustment(s) of the sprinkler head, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would yield the same predictable results of allowing a sprinkler head to be mounted, adjusted to a desired height, and form a leak free connection for a fire suppression system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Liu, to have had an adjustable length via an inner casing being threaded to an outer casing, as taught by Anderson, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely modifying one casing arrangement with an alternative casing arrangement, for the purpose of allowing for additional adjustment(s) of the sprinkler head, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would yield the same predictable results of allowing a sprinkler head to be mounted, adjusted to a desired height, and form a leak free connection for a fire suppression system.
Re Clm 11: Liu as modified by Anderson above, discloses the limitations that the adjustable drop comprises an inner casing (10) and an outer casing (9) surrounding the inner casing, the flexible conduit (Liu, 26) directly coupled to the outer casing (such as would be illustrated in Fig. 2 of Anderson).
Re Clm 12: Liu as modified by Anderson above, discloses the limitations that the inner casing comprises threading (Anderson, 12) and the outer casing comprises mating threading (Anderson, 13) for engagement with the threading of the inner casing, wherein the threading and mating threading permit rotation between the inner casing and the outer casing to adjust an axial height, along the lengthwise axis, of a sprinkler head (Liu, 28) coupled to a distal end of the inner casing (such as in Liu Fig. 1 and as illustrated in Anderson Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 4 in line 8 through page 5 the entire page, that Liu in view of Anderson does not disclose “an adjustable drop integrally formed with the bracket hub” and “a bracket hub defining an arm having an inverted U-shaped opening, the inverted U-shaped opening configured to be lowered onto the bracket bar during assembly” and “wherein, in the installed position, the U-shaped opening faces the direction in which the adjustable drop has the length”.
This is not persuasive.
The adjustable drop (14) is integrally formed with the bracket hub, as illustrated in Fig. 1, where integrally has been defined as meaning “a complete unit” and formed has been defined as meaning “to make”. Accordingly, integrally formed means to make a complete unit and Liu discloses an adjustable drop integrally formed with the bracket hub.
The bracket hub (12 and 16) defining an arm (16) having an inverted U-shaped opening (16 being/has an inverted U-shape opening as shown in Fig. 1). The inverted U-shaped opening (illustrated in Fig. 1) is made to or is capable of being lowered onto the bracket bar because it is free to move on 36 and the other 36, see [0021], and because 16 is in a shape that allows it to be lowered onto 36 and the other 36 and then carry the weight of the flexible hose, see [0020]. Additionally, the U-shaped opening faces the direction in which the adjustable drop has the length, as shown in Fig. 1.
All other claims not specifically argued will stand or fall with claim(s) from which it/they depend.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
04/01/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights