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 .
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
Species A: fig 1a-1d, a sprinkler nozzle with a bullet shaped agitator located within.
Species B: fig 2a-2e, a sprinkler nozzle with a temperature sensitive element located at the nozzle designed to release upon temperature increasing past a threshold.
Species C: Fig 3a-3d, an upright sprinkler nozzle with tines turning towards the shroud element.
Species D: fig 4a-4d, an upright sprinkler nozzle with a temperature sensitive element located at the nozzle designed to release upon temperature increasing past a threshold.
The species are independent or distinct because of the differences in operation and arrangement of the sprinkler nozzles. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: There is mutually exclusive subject matter as set forth in the species selection above, furthermore, it would be necessary to search for the elected invention in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the mutually exclusive subject matter of the other inventions. Consequently, the inventions require a different field of search, different search classes and/or employing different search strategies and search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Steve Warner on 10/03/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A, claims 1-6, 11-21, 23, and 24. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7-10, 22, and 25-39, withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims contain the words about or generally, but are not being 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, as the specification defines these terms in par. 0044.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 1-3, 6, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larah (3795368) in view of Monte (4328868).
Regarding claim 1, Larah discloses a foam-water fire sprinkler comprising: a nozzle (10, fig 2) defining a nozzle passage (14, fig 2) having a nozzle inlet (top of passage, fig 2) and a nozzle outlet (16, fig 2), the nozzle passage receiving a foam-water solution (col 2, lines 63-68) therein through the nozzle inlet; a shroud body (20, fig 2) defining a shroud passage (34, fig 2) having a shroud inlet (22, fig 1) and a shroud outlet (24, fig 1), the shroud passage receiving the foam-water solution from the nozzle passage through the shroud inlet; an agitator (32, fig 2) positioned within the shroud passage, the agitator having a rounded agitator portion (the agitator is a sphere), the foam-water solution impinging on the agitator at the rounded agitator portion to aspirate the foam-water solution with air to generate foam (col 3, lines 37-49), and a deflector (26, 40, fig 1) that deflects the foam-water solution and the foam to generate a spray pattern of the foam-water solution and the foam at a coverage area (this would be a natural consequence of the foam being sprayed).
Larah does not disclose a straight agitator portion that extends from the rounded agitator portion and a portion of the foam-water solution separating from the agitator at the straight agitator portion.
Monte discloses using a bullet shaped agitator (26, fig 1) for a fire suppressant nozzle (12, fig 1), wherein the front end is rounded (col 3, lines 32-37) and the back end is straight (downstream of 34, fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the agitator disclosed by Larah by using a bullet shape where the back end is straight based on the teachings of Monte. Doing so would create a more uniform mix of mass flow without jetting (col 4, lines 23-30), as suggested by Monte.
Regarding claim 2, Larah does not disclose wherein the agitator includes a tip defined by the rounded agitator portion, and the agitator is positioned within the shroud passage at an agitator axial distance defined from the nozzle outlet to the tip of the agitator, and the agitator axial distance being in a range of 0.625 inches to 1.2 inches (15 millimeters to 30 millimeters).
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Larah teaches that moving the agitator relative to the foam nozzle impacts the performance of the foam generation (col 4, lines 45-55). Therefore, an ordinary skill worker would recognize that the length of the nozzle to the agitator is a result-effective variable that controls the quality of foam released from the nozzle. Thus, the claimed distance from nozzle to agitator being in a range of 0.625 to 1.2 inches is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. range of distances between the nozzle and agitator, were disclosed in the prior art by Larah, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the shroud between the nozzle and the agitator to have a length of between 0.625 and 1.2 inches, in order to achieve the highest expansion ratio of foam. It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Larah as modified by Monte discloses wherein the straight agitator portion extends from the rounded agitator portion to an axial end of the agitator (downstream end, fig 1, Monte), the axial end being generally planar and defining sharp edges of the agitator, the sharp edges causing the portion of foam-water solution to separate from the agitator and flow towards the deflector (this represents intended use of the agitator, the agitator is the same shape as that claimed by the applicant and thus it would operate in the same manner).
Regarding claim 6, Larah discloses wherein the deflector includes a plurality of tines (40, fig 1) and a plurality of slots (gaps between 40, fig 1) defined between the plurality of tines, the plurality of tines being angled away from the shroud outlet.
Regarding claim 11, Larah discloses wherein the shroud body has a converging tapered shroud portion (30a, 30e, 30c, fig 2) and a straight shroud portion (30d, fig 2), the converging tapered shroud portion tapering from the shroud inlet to the straight shroud portion, and the straight shroud portion extends substantially axially from the converging tapered shroud portion to the shroud outlet.
Regarding claim 12, Larah as modified by Monte discloses wherein the agitator is positioned within the shroud passage such that the straight agitator portion extends from the converging tapered shroud portion to the straight shroud portion (col 4, lines 45-55, the agitator is positioned partially in the throat which is the converging tapered portion, when combined with Monte, the rounded agitator portion would start in the converging portion and then would become the straight portion within the throat, meaning the straight portion would extend to the straight shroud portion).
Regarding claim 13, Larah as modified by Monte discloses wherein the straight agitator portion is axially aligned with a smallest shroud passage diameter of the shroud passage defined by the converging tapered shroud portion (col 4, lines 45-55, Larah, the agitator may be located partially in the throat, which is the smallest passage diameter, the bullet of monte extends upstream from the supports, thus, when combined with Larah, the bullet will extend from the top part of the straight portion into the throat).
Regarding claim 14, Larah as modified by Monte discloses wherein the rounded agitator portion is positioned entirely within the converging tapered shroud portion (col 4, lines 45-55, the splitter may be disposed within the throat which is the located within the converging tapered shroud portion, once the modification with Monte is made, the front edge forms the rounded portion, this means that locating the agitator within the throat would place the rounded portion within the tapered shroud portion).
Regarding claim 15, Larah discloses wherein the shroud body includes a transition shroud portion (30c, fig 2) that defines a radial step between the converging tapered shroud portion and the straight shroud portion.
Regarding claim 16, Larah discloses wherein a shroud passage diameter of the shroud passage is defined by the converging tapered shroud portion, the straight shroud portion, and the transition shroud portion, and the shroud passage diameter decreases from the shroud inlet along the converging tapered shroud portion to the straight shroud portion (30e to 30B, fig 2), the shroud passage diameter increases at the transition shroud portion (30c, fig 2), and the shroud passage diameter remains generally constant along the straight shroud portion from the transition shroud portion to the shroud outlet (30d, fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, Larah discloses wherein the deflector has a deflector diameter that is greater than the shroud passage diameter at the straight shroud portion (40, fig 2 extends past the inside of the shroud at 30d, fig 2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larah as modified by Monte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ancone (9717936).
Regarding claim 4, Larah does not disclose wherein the deflector is positioned at a deflector axial distance from the shroud outlet, the deflector axial distance being in a range of 1.1 inches to 2.0 inches (28 millimeters to 51 millimeters).
Ancone teaches a sprinkler nozzle with a deflector being an axial distance from the shroud outlet (y1, fig 5a), the deflector axial distance being in a range of 1.1 inches to 2.0 inches (1.25 in, col 10, lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance between the shroud to the deflector disclosed by Larah to have length between 1.1-2.0 inches based on the teachings of Ancone. Doing so would allow for the nozzle to have a preferred K-factor of 14 (col 10, lines 10-15), as suggested by Ancone.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larah as modified by Monte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer (5829684).
Regarding claim 5, Larah doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the deflector includes a planar deflector portion and an angled deflector portion, the angled deflector portion being angled from the planar deflector portion at an angle in a range of 15 degrees to 25 degrees.
Fishcer teaches a pendant sprinkler (20, fig 1) with a deflector (30, fig 6) wherein the deflector has an angled portion (38, fig 6) wherein the angled deflector portion is in a range of 15 to 25 degrees (18 degrees, col 2, lines 50-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deflector angle disclosed by Larah by having the angle be between 15-25 degrees based on the teachings of Fishcer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a moderate angle would balance the spread of foam with providing enough density to extinguish fires.
Claims 18-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larah (3795368) in view of Monte (4328868), Ancone, and Fishcer.
Regarding claim 18, Larah as modified by Monte, Ancone, and Fishcer discloses a foam-water fire sprinkler comprising: a nozzle defining a nozzle passage having a nozzle inlet and a nozzle outlet, the nozzle passage receiving a foam-water solution therein through the nozzle inlet; a shroud body defining a shroud passage having a shroud inlet and a shroud outlet, the shroud passage receiving the foam-water solution from the nozzle passage through the shroud inlet, and the shroud body comprising: a converging tapered shroud portion that tapers inward from the shroud inlet such that a shroud passage diameter of the shroud passage decreases from the shroud inlet along the converging tapered shroud portion; a straight shroud portion that extends substantially axially from the converging tapered shroud portion to the shroud outlet, wherein the shroud passage diameter remains generally constant along the straight shroud portion to the shroud outlet; and a transition shroud portion that defines a radial step between the converging tapered shroud portion and the straight shroud portion, wherein the shroud passage diameter increases at the transition shroud portion between the converging tapered shroud portion and the straight shroud portion; an agitator positioned within the shroud passage, the agitator comprising: a rounded agitator portion; a straight agitator portion that extends from the rounded agitator portion, wherein the agitator is positioned within the shroud passage such that the straight agitator portion is axially aligned with a smallest shroud passage diameter of the shroud passage (see claim 13 above) defined by the converging tapered shroud portion; a tip defined by the rounded agitator portion, wherein the agitator is positioned within the shroud passage at an agitator axial distance defined from the nozzle outlet to the tip of the agitator, and an axial end that is generally planar and defines sharp edges of the agitator, wherein the foam-water solution impinges on the agitator at the rounded agitator portion to aspirate the foam-water solution with air to generate foam, and the sharp edges causing a portion of the foam-water solution to separate from the agitator; and a deflector that deflects the foam-water solution and the foam to generate a spray pattern of the foam-water solution and the foam at a coverage area (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the deflector is positioned at a deflector axial distance from the shroud outlet, the deflector axial distance being in a range of 1.1 inches to 2.0 inches (28 millimeters to 51 millimeters) (see rejection of claim 4 above).
Larah does not explicitly disclose wherein the agitator axial distance is in a range of 0.625 inches to 1.2 inches (15 millimeters to 30 millimeters).
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here, Larah teaches that moving the agitator relative to the foam nozzle impacts the performance of the foam generation (col 4, lines 45-55). Therefore, an ordinary skill worker would recognize that the length of the nozzle to the agitator is a result-effective variable that controls the quality of foam released from the nozzle. Thus, the claimed distance from nozzle to agitator being in a range of 0.625 to 1.2 inches is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. range of distances between the nozzle and agitator, were disclosed in the prior art by Larah, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the shroud between the nozzle and the agitator to have a length of between 0.625 and 1.2 inches, in order to achieve the highest expansion ratio of foam. It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Larah as modified by Monte discloses wherein the deflector has a deflector diameter that is greater than the shroud passage diameter at the straight shroud portion (see claim 17 above).
Regarding claim 20, Larah as modified by Fishcer discloses wherein the deflector includes a planar deflector portion and an angled deflector portion, the angled deflector portion being angled from the planar deflector portion at an angle in a range of 15 degrees to 25 degrees (see claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 21, Larah as modified by Monte discloses wherein the deflector includes a plurality of tines and a plurality of slots defined between the plurality of tines, the plurality of tines being angled away from the shroud outlet (see claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 23, Larah discloses wherein the agitator is positioned within the shroud passage such that the straight agitator portion extends axially from the converging tapered shroud portion to the straight shroud portion (see claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 24, Larah discloses wherein the rounded agitator portion is positioned entirely within the converging tapered shroud portion (see claim 14 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hanson (3051397) and Kuffel (11583873) disclose foaming sprinkler heads similar to applicants invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741