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 .
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, 11-12, and 14-17 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, the shroud body has a converging tapered shroud portion (30a, 30e, 30c, fig 2) and a straight shroud portion (30d, fig 2); 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, 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.
Monte discloses using a bullet shaped flow blocker (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 (col 4, lines 23-30), as suggested by Monte.
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 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 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 (30a, e, c, d, fig 2).
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 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.
Fischer 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 Fischer. 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 Fischer.
Regarding claim 18, Larah as modified by Monte, Ancone, and Fischer 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, the shroud body has a converging tapered shroud portion and a straight shroud portion, 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), 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 (see rejection of claim 1 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 Fischer 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the agitator of Larah and the deflector of Monte are non-analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine them. Applicants arguments are not persuasive, as they both relate as a structure used within a nozzle of a fire-fighting apparatus to control the flow within, and Monte teaches as per the combination that it’s deflector can be used to help with the distribution of the fire-fighting flow which has obvious benefit as it relates to Larah. Applicant further argues that the straight agitator portion being axially aligned with the smallest shroud passage diameter is not taught by Larah and Monte. This argument is not persuasive because as set forth in the rejection, Larah teaches that the agitator should be located within the smallest diameter portion of the shroud, when the ball is replaced with the bullet, that fact would still exist and the straight portions would be within the claimed space.
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 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
Prosecution Insights