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 .
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive to the elected Species. The claims are directed exclusively to a sprinkler head, not a method or mold for making the sprinkler head. As such, a new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 “the reinforcing fibers do not cross any knit lines of the body” of claim 39 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes that the drawings do not show or label the “knit lines”.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34, 36, 37 and 49 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 34 discloses: “ the thermoplastic resin has a peak melting temperature of at least 250 degrees Celsius (as determined pursuant to ASTM D3418), and a water absorption of no more than about 0.3 weight percent (as determined pursuant to ASTM D570); and the thermoplastic resin and the reinforcing fibers form a composite material that has a coefficient of thermal expansion of no more than 100 microns/meter (as determined pursuant to ASTM E831)”. Claim 34 contains the trademark/trade name ASTM. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe processes for determining mechanical characteristics of the thermoplastic resin and/or the reinforcement fibers and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the orifice" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 discloses: “the thermoplastic resin comprises polyphenylenesulfide, polyphthalamide, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherimide and mixtures of two or more thereof; and the reinforcing fibers comprise glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers and mixtures of two or more thereof.” The language of “and a mixture of two or more thereof” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if all of the claimed materials are part of the resin/fibers plus two or more of them; or if the different materials are claimed as different alternate options, including a combination of any two of them. Based on disclosure, Examiner will interpret this claim as: the thermoplastic resin comprises polyphenylenesulfide, polyphthalamide, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or polyetherimide, or mixtures of two or more thereof; and the reinforcing fibers comprise glass fibers, carbon fibers, or aramid fibers, or mixtures of two or more thereof. Clarification is required.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the cross member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes and based in disclosure, Examiner will interpret this term as the “member” that was introduced in independent claim 43.
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 30-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pipe et al (U.S. 2015/0297927) in view of Sieper et al (U.S. 2011/0150602).
Regarding claim 30, Pipe teaches a sprinkler head (10), comprising:
a body (12) defining an axis (longitudinal axis extending through the body lengthwise, shown below);
a first frame arm (left arm 15, seen in Fig 1) coupled with the body;
a second frame arm (right arm 15, seen in Fig 1) coupled with the body (both arms 15 are coupled to body 12); and
a cross member (support 13) coupled with the first frame arm and the second frame arm (as seen in Fig 1 and 3).
However, Pipe does not teach the body, the first frame arm, the second frame arm, and the cross member each comprising thermoplastic resin and reinforcing fibers in the thermoplastic resin, the reinforcing fibers in the first frame arm and the second frame arm oriented parallel with the axis.
Sieper teaches a method of producing a molded body (1) wherein the body comprises a thermoplastic resin (Par 0052 discloses the body made with thermoplastics, wherein the thermoplastics are plasticized, i.e. resins) and reinforcing fibers in the thermoplastic resin (Par 0053 discloses reinforcing the thermoplastic resin with fibers), the reinforcing fibers in a longitudinal portion (4) of the body (1) oriented parallel with a longitudinal axis (Fig 12 shows fibers “F” in portion 4 being parallel with longitudinal axis “X”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pipe to incorporate the teachings of Sieper to make the body and the arms with a thermoplastic resin reinforced with fibers in order to achieve high matrix strength and applicability under high thermal stress (as disclosed in Par 0053 and 0074 of Sieper), which would be beneficial to the fire sprinkler of Pipe due to exposure of high temperatures. Furthermore, it would be obvious to align the fibers in the arms along with the longitudinal axis in order to provide improved strength in the stress direction, the direction being axial (as disclosed at least in Pars 0005-0006 and 0079 of Sieper), this would improve the strength of the arms of the sprinkler head of Pipe since it’s under constant axial stress that is applied by the closure device 24 and the trigger assembly 26 (as seen in Fig 3 of Pipe).
Note: references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing Pipe, unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 31, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the body comprises a cylindrical portion (defined by threaded portion 12a, shown below), a planar portion (shown below) coupled with the cylindrical portion (as seen below), and an orifice (passageway 22) through the cylindrical portion and the planar portion (orifice passes through the cylindrical portion and planar portion, as seen in Fig 23), the orifice around the axis (as seen below), the first frame arm and the second frame arm coupled with the planar portion of the body (both arms 15 are coupled to the planar portion, as seen below).
Regarding claim 32, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the cross member defines a plurality of guide pin holes (defined by the holes where screws 26c are placed in; these holes are defined on the cross member 13, as seen in Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 33, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the first frame arm and the second frame arm are outward from and parallel with the axis (as seen below).
Regarding claim 34, as best understood, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the thermoplastic resin has a peak melting temperature of at least 250 degrees Celsius [as determined pursuant to ASTM D3418], and a water absorption of no more than about 0.3 weight percent [as determined pursuant to ASTM D570]; and the thermoplastic resin and the reinforcing fibers form a composite material that has a coefficient of thermal expansion of no more than 100 microns/meter [as determined pursuant to ASTM E831] (Sieper teaches the thermoplastic resin being polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyphene sulfide (PPS), polyphthalamide (PPA), polyetherimide (PEI), or polysulfone (PSU) – see Par 0052; Sieper also teaches the fibers being glass, carbon or aramid fibers – see Pars 0054 and 0058. Examiner notes that Applicant discloses in their specification, Pars 0014-0015, these same materials as the materials that make up the thermoplastic resin and the fibers; and Applicant also discloses these materials performing the claimed function. As such, Sieper reads on these claim functions).
Regarding claim 35, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the first frame arm and the second frame arm are parallel with the axis (as shown below).
Regarding claim 36, as best understood, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the orifice tapers from an inlet (shown below) of the cylindrical portion (shown below) to an outlet at the planar portion (as shown below).
Regarding claim 37, as best understood, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the thermoplastic resin comprises polyphenylenesulfide, polyphthalamide, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherimide or mixtures of two or more thereof (Sieper teaches the thermoplastic resin being polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyphenylenesulfide (PPS), polyphthalamide (PPA), or polyetherimide (PEI) – see Par 0052); and the reinforcing fibers comprise glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers or mixtures of two or more thereof (Sieper teaches the fibers being glass, carbon or aramid fibers – see Pars 0054 and 0058).
Regarding claim 38, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: threads on an outer surface of the cylindrical portion (threads 12a are on the outer surface of the cylindrical portion, see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 39, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the reinforcing fibers do not cross any knit lines of the body (Examiner notes that by definition “knit lines” are the result of injection molding, where a structural seam forms when two separate flow fronts of molten plastic meet and attempt to fuse together. As such, knit lines are features that are exclusively related to the manufacturing process of the sprinkler head. Thereby, Examiner asserts that patentability of the sprinkler head is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process {see MPEP 2113}. Therefore, the process of making the sprinkler head does not have any patentable weight, since Pipe and Sieper teach all the structure of the device).
Regarding claim 40, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the thermoplastic resin and the reinforcing fibers form a composite material that has a tensile strength of at least 200 MPa (Sieper teaches the thermoplastic resin being polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyphene sulfide (PPS), polyphthalamide (PPA), polyetherimide (PEI), or polysulfone (PSU) – see Par 0052; Sieper also teaches the fibers being glass, carbon or aramid fibers – see Pars 0054 and 0058. Examiner notes that Applicant discloses in their specification, Pars 0014-0015, these same materials as the materials that make up the thermoplastic resin and the fibers; and Applicant also discloses these materials for a composite material that has a strength of at least 200 MPa, Par 0015. As such, Sieper reads on this claim function).
Regarding claim 41, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the first frame arm and the second frame arm do not include knit lines (Examiner notes that by definition “knit lines” are the result of injection molding, where a structural seam forms when two separate flow fronts of molten plastic meet and attempt to fuse together. As such, knit lines are features that are exclusively related to the manufacturing process of the sprinkler head. Thereby, Examiner asserts that patentability of the sprinkler head is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process {see MPEP 2113}. Therefore, the process of making the sprinkler head does not have any patentable weight, since Pipe and Sieper teach all the structure of the device) (Moreover, neither Pipe nor Sieper disclose knit lines).
Regarding claim 42, Pipe and Sieper teach the sprinkler head of claim 30, comprising: the cross member is arcuate or annular (the cross member 13 is annular, as disclosed in Par 0045 and seen in Fig 2 of Pipe).
Regarding claim 43, Pipe teaches a sprinkler head part (10), comprising:
a body (12) comprising a cylindrical portion (defined by 12a, shown below) coupled with a planar portion (shown below), an orifice (passageway 22) defined through the cylindrical portion and the planar portion (orifice passes through the cylindrical portion and planar portion, as seen in Fig 23), a longitudinal axis (shown below) positioned through the orifice (as seen below);
a first frame arm (left arm 15, seen in Fig 1) coupled with the planar portion;
a second frame arm (right arm 15, seen in Fig 1) coupled with the planar portion (both arms 15 are coupled to planar portion, as seen below); and
a member (support 13) coupled with the first frame arm and the second frame arm (as seen in Fig 1 and 3).
However, Pipe does not teach the sprinkler head part being polymeric, wherein the body, the first frame arm, and the second frame arm comprise a composite material comprising reinforcing fibers, the reinforcing fibers in the first frame arm and the second frame arm are arranged parallel with the axis
Sieper teaches a method of producing a molded polymeric body (1) wherein the body comprises a composite material (Par 0052 discloses the body made with thermoplastics, wherein the thermoplastics are plasticized) and reinforcing fibers in the thermoplastic resin (Par 0053 discloses reinforcing the thermoplastic resin with fibers), the reinforcing fibers in a longitudinal portion (4) of the body (1) oriented parallel with a longitudinal axis (Fig 12 shows fibers “F” in portion 4 being parallel with longitudinal axis “X”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pipe to incorporate the teachings of Sieper to make the body and the arms with a composite material, such as a thermoplastic resin, and reinforcing fibers in order to achieve high matrix strength and applicability under high thermal stress (as disclosed in Par 0053 of Sieper), which would be beneficial to the fire sprinkler of Pipe due to exposure of high temperatures. Furthermore, it would be obvious to align the fibers in the arms along with the longitudinal axis in order to provide improved strength in the stress direction, the direction being axial (as disclosed at least in Pars 0005-0006 of Sieper), this would improve the strength of the arms of the sprinkler head of Pipe since it’s under constant axial stress that is applied by the closure device 24 and the trigger assembly 26 (as seen in Fig 3 of Pipe).
Note: references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing Pipe, unless otherwise stated.
Regarding claim 44, Pipe and Sieper teach the polymeric sprinkler head part of claim 43, comprising: the member comprises one or more guide pin holes (defined by the holes where screws 26c are placed in) on an opposite side of the member from the planar portion (holes 26c are defined on the cross member 13 on an opposite side, i.e. upper side, of the member 13 from the planar portion, as seen in Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 45, Pipe and Sieper teach the polymeric sprinkler head part of claim 43, comprising: the composite material comprises a thermoplastic polymeric resin (Par 0052 of Sieper discloses the body made with thermoplastics, wherein the thermoplastics are plasticized, i.e. resins) and the reinforcing fibers (Par 0053 of Sieper discloses reinforcing the thermoplastic resin with fibers).
Regarding claim 46, Pipe and Sieper teach the polymeric sprinkler head part of claim 43, comprising: threads on an outer surface of the cylindrical portion (threads 12a are on the outer surface of the cylindrical portion, see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 47, Pipe and Sieper teach the polymeric sprinkler head part of claim 43, comprising: the body comprises one or more knit lines that the reinforcing fibers do not cross (Examiner notes that by definition “knit lines” are the result of injection molding, where a structural seam forms when two separate flow fronts of molten plastic meet and attempt to fuse together. As such, knit lines are features that are exclusively related to the manufacturing process of the sprinkler head part. Thereby, Examiner asserts that patentability of the sprinkler head is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process {see MPEP 2113}. Therefore, the process of making the sprinkler head does not have any patentable weight, since Pipe and Sieper teach all the structure of the device).
Regarding claim 48, Pipe and Sieper teach the polymeric sprinkler head part of claim 43, comprising: the first frame arm and the second frame arm do not include knit lines (Examiner notes that by definition “knit lines” are the result of injection molding, where a structural seam forms when two separate flow fronts of molten plastic meet and attempt to fuse together. As such, knit lines are features that are exclusively related to the manufacturing process of the sprinkler head. Thereby, Examiner asserts that patentability of the sprinkler head is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process {see MPEP 2113}. Therefore, the process of making the sprinkler head does not have any patentable weight, since Pipe and Sieper teach all the structure of the device) (Moreover, neither Pipe nor Sieper disclose knit lines).
Regarding claim 49, as best understood, Pipe and Sieper teach the polymeric sprinkler head part of claim 43, comprising: the member is arcuate or annular (the member 13 is annular, as disclosed in Par 0045 and seen in Fig 2 of Pipe).
Annotated Figures of Pipe:
PNG
media_image1.png
430
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
302
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights