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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed November 14, 2025 is hereby acknowledged. Independent claim 1 was amended, and “new” claims 7-13 were added. Thus, claims 1-13 are pending in the application, and are addressed below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The term “collar”, as recited in claim 10, is not found in the specification.
The term “C-shaped ledge”, as recited in claim 11, is not found in the specification.
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:
“latching mechanism” in claim 2.
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 § 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, 2, 4-7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blasing et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0256844.
As to claim 1, Blasing (see Figs. 1-5) shows and describes nonobstructive protective housing for a fire sprinkler head, comprising: a first case half (5; or “5” plus “1”) having apertures (13; see “alternative embodiment” shown in Fig. 5) formed therein and having a first hinge component (whichever portion of “hinge 7” is connected to “5”) formed at a margin of the first case half; and a second case half (6; or “6” plus “2”, when the housing is in the closed position, as described in paragraph [0024]) having apertures (13; see again, “alternative embodiment” shown in Fig. 5) formed therein and a second hinge component (whichever portion of “hinge 7” is connected to “6”) formed at a margin of the second case half; wherein the first hinge component and the second hinge component are coupled together to form a hinge (7); wherein the first case half and the second case half are movable between an open position (see Fig. 2) and a closed position (see Fig. 5), and wherein the housing defines a longitudinal axis and the hinge extends along a transverse axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 2-5); and wherein the apertures are positioned circumferentially around the housing at a location proximal to the hinge (see Fig. 5).
As to claim 2, Blasing shows the nonobstructive protective housing of claim 1, and wherein the first case half comprises a first component (1; and/or the portion of “10” secured to “1”, when the housing is in the closed position) of a latching mechanism and the second case half comprises a second component (the un-numbered flange on the neck portion of “6”; and/or “2”, when the housing is in the closed position; and/or the portion of “10” secured to “2”, when the housing is in the closed position) of the latching mechanism.
As to claim 4, Blasing shows the nonobstructive protective housing of claim 1, and wherein the first case half and the second case half each define a flange (any one or more of the matching protrusion formations on the interior portions of “1” and “2”, when the housing is in the closed position) operative to accommodate at least one pipe (4) at a joint (see Fig. 4) selected from the group consisting of an elbow joint, a straight section, and a T-joint.
As to claim 5, Blasing shows the nonobstructive protective housing of claim 4, and wherein at least one of the first case half and the second case half fasten to the at least one pipe (see again, Fig. 4).
As to claim 6, the device of Blasing, as applied above to claim 1, is expressly designed for use in a method of non-obstructively protecting a fire sprinkler head, comprising: providing the nonobstructive protective housing of claim 1; and fastening the nonobstructive protective housing around the fire sprinkler head such that the apertures accommodate a flow of water from the fire sprinkler head (see Fig. 5; and see paragraph [0027]).
As to claim 7, Blasing shows the nonobstructive protective housing of claim 1, and wherein the first case half and the second case half are each configured to accommodate a straight section of pipe (see again, Figs. 1-5).
As to claim 10, Blasing shows the nonobstructive protective housing of claim 1, and wherein the first case half and the second case half together define a collar (the neck portion of each of “5” and “6” together define a collar element in the closed position of the housing) at a distal end, relative to the hinge, configured to conform to a pipe (4).
As to claim 13, Blasing shows the nonobstructive protective housing of claim 1, and wherein the first hinge component extends along a diametric edge of the first case half and the second hinge component extends along a diametric edge of the second case half (see Figs. 2-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blasing et al., in view of DeVaney, US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0267453.
As to claim 3, Blasing shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, Blasing does not show or expressly describe the housing, wherein the first case half and the second case half each define a notch configured to accommodate a neck of the fire sprinkler head in the closed position.
DeVaney (see Fig. 6) shows a nonobstructive protective housing (50) for a fire sprinkler head (10) having a similar design, function and effect as compared to that of Blasing; and DeVaney teaches including a notch (@ 60; see Fig. 6) defined on each of the corresponding first case half (52a) and second case half (52b), with the notches combining to create a means configured to reliably accommodate/fit around and secure the protective housing to a neck of the corresponding sprinkler head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Blasing, to include a notch on each of the first case half and the second case half, as taught by DeVaney, thus including a provision that reliably accommodates/fits around and secures the protective housing to a neck of a sprinkler head upon which the housing is installed, which would assist with properly centering the sprinkler head within the housing, and result in an increased stability of the housing, when installed over the sprinkler head.
As to claim 11, Blasing shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, Blasing does not show or expressly describe the housing, wherein the first case half and the second case half each define a C-shaped ledge extending radially inward at a junction between a region configured to encompass the fire sprinkler head and a region configured to accommodate a pipe.
DeVaney (see Fig. 6) shows a nonobstructive protective housing (50) for a fire sprinkler head (10) having a similar design, function and effect as compared to that of Blasing; and DeVaney teaches including a C-shaped ledge (lowermost portion of the structure defining “60” on each of “52a” and “52b”, as shown in Fig. 6) extending radially inward (this applied portion extends radially inward, relative to the longitudinally-extending circumferential walls of each of “52a” and “52b”) at a junction between a region configured to encompass the fire sprinkler head (the lower region within “50”, when the housing is in the closed position around the sprinkler head) and a region configured to accommodate a pipe (the uppermost region of the structure defining “60”, which is expressly designed for accommodating at least a portion of pipe “18”, as shown in Fig. 6 and described in paragraph [0018]), with the C-shaped ledges combining to create a means configured to reliably accommodate/fit around and secure the protective housing to a neck of the corresponding sprinkler head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Blasing, to include C-shaped ledges extending radially inward at a junction between a region configured to encompass the fire sprinkler head and a region configured to accommodate a pipe, on each of the first case half and the second case half, as taught by DeVaney, thus including a provision that reliably accommodates/fits around and secures the protective housing to a neck of a sprinkler head upon which the housing is installed, which would assist with properly centering the sprinkler head within the housing, and result in an increased stability of the housing, when installed over the sprinkler head.
As to claim 12, Blasing shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 2, and further, the latching mechanism of Blasing is shown to be positioned distal from the hinge (see Figs. 2-5). However, the latching mechanism of Blasing is not shown to comprise a snap latch and a snap latch receiver.
DeVaney (see Fig. 6) shows a nonobstructive protective housing (50) for a fire sprinkler head (10) having a similar design, function and effect as compared to that of Blasing; and DeVaney teaches inclusion of a latching mechanism which reliably secures together a corresponding first case half (52a) and second case half (52b) of the housing when the housing is in a closed position, with the latching mechanism including a snap latch (56) on the first case half and a snap latch receiver (un-numbered, but clearly shown element on “52b” which engages with “56” in the closed position of the housing; see Figs. 5, 6 and 8) on the second case half. One having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the snap latch mechanism shown by DeVaney, if adapted to replace the latching mechanism of Blasing, would function at least equally as well as the latching mechanism shown by Blasing for the intended latching purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the latching mechanism of Blasing with the equally-effective latching mechanism taught by DeVaney, thus providing a reliable alternative for latching the first and second case halves together in the closed position.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blasing et al., in view of Hunsberger, US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0290508.
As to claims 8 and 9, Blasing shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, while Blasing shows and describes the case halves of the housing being configured to accommodate a straight section of pipe, Blasing is silent as to the case halves of the housing being alternatively configured to accommodate a pipe at an elbow joint or to accommodate pipes at a T-joint.
It should first be noted, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the most common pipe configurations of fire sprinkler systems which currently exist, as well as which existed long before the filing date of the instant application, are: straight, elbow and t-joint configurations. In fact, such is expressly concurred by Applicant on lines 12-13 on page 4 of the instant application specification. Hunsberger (see Figs. 1-11) shows a nonobstructive protective housing for a fire sprinkler head (36), and Hunsberger teaches the concept of adapting the housing so as to be configured to accommodate each of the aforementioned three most common pipe configurations. More specifically, Hunsberger shows the protective housing being configured to accommodate a straight section of pipe (see Figs. 9-11), and being configured to accommodate a pipe at an elbow joint (see Figs. 5-8), and being configured to accommodate pipes at a T-joint (see Figs. 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective housing of Blasing, whereby the case halves of the housing are alternatively configured to accommodate a pipe at an elbow joint, and to accommodate pipes at a T-joint, as conceptually taught by Hunsberger, thereby expanding the usability of the protective housing to all three of the most common pipe configurations of known fire sprinkler systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed November 14, 2025, with respect to claim 1, 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.
It should be noted, regarding Applicant’s assertion on page 8 of the aforementioned “Remarks” portion that the prior art to DeVaney does not disclose a C-shaped ledge feature (as required by new dependent claim 11), this Office does not agree. First, as a matter of form, and as set forth in paragraph 3 of the instant Office action, the claim term “C-shaped ledge” does not find clear antecedent basis support in the originally-filed specification. Regardless, when viewing Fig. 6 of DeVaney, it is absolutely reasonable to call the portion of the structure defining “opening 60”, as applied in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in paragraph 10 of the instant Office action, “a C-shaped ledge”. Also, as to Applicant’s characterization of the DeVaney device as being “specifically designed for ceiling-mounted sprinklers”, the device of DeVaney is clearly shown and described as being designed to directly attach to at least one fluid supply pipe configuration “18” (see paragraph [0018] of DeVaney). Also, it should be noted that the vast majority of known fire sprinkler systems comprise pipe configurations that are one of either immediately above or immediately below a ceiling surface, or at least proximate to a ceiling region of a protected space. Thus, in that regard, the device of the instant application can also reasonably be characterized as being “for ceiling-mounted applications”, in the same manner as that of DeVaney.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents to Boyce, Danton and Walker, and US Patent Application Publications to Macomber and Watson et al., are cited as of interest.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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