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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 19/307,039, for a SUPPORT BRACKET SUPPORTING SUPPORT BAR, MOUNTING BRACKET FOR MOUNTING SPRINKLER REDUCER ON SUPPORT BAR, AND SPRINKLER SUPPORT ASSEMBLY INCLUDING SAME, filed on 8/22/2025. Clams 1-19 are pending.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Specifically, the term “the same” is unclear.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the first direction, second direction and zigzag pattern as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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 1-19 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 1 contains the limitation wherein the first base and second base are “passing through the support bar,” however, it appears that the support bar is passing through the first base and second base. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claims 2-9 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 1.
Claims 10 and 19 contain the limitation wherein the first support wall and second support wall are “passing through the support bar,” however, it appears that the support bar is passing through the first support wall and second support wall. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claims 11-18 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 10.
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (U.S. Pat. 8,500,079) in view of Roberts (U.S. Pat. 11,168,834).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Oh teaches a mounting bracket configured to mount a sprinkler reducer (500) on a support bar (400) extending in a first direction (parallel to the floor), comprising: a first base extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and wherein the support bar passes through the first base (in the same manner as that of applicant’s invention); a fixing lever rotatable from the first base, coupled to the first base to enclose a front surface of the sprinkler reducer, and having fixing teeth at a portion thereof; and an elastic hanger (top of spring 232 can be considered a hanger because it is a protrusion that can be attached to another member for hanging) coupled to the first base and engaged with the fixing teeth; but does not teach a second base extending in the second direction and wherein the support bar passes through the second base (in the same manner as that of applicant’s invention), the second base being rotatable relative to the first base to enclose the sprinkler reducer together with the first base; the fixing lever rotatable from the second base; and the elastic hanger coupled to the second base and engaged with the fixing teeth when the first base and the second base are coupled by the fixing lever. Roberts, however, teaches a mounting bracket (Figs. 6B, 6C) formed in multiple pieces with a first base (84) and a second base (82) wherein the support bar (104) passes through the first and second bases in order to provide greater adjustability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the mounting bracket with a first base and second base, the second base extending in the second direction and wherein the support bar passes through the second base (in the same manner as that of applicant’s invention), the second base being rotatable relative to the first base to enclose the sprinkler reducer together with the first base; the fixing lever rotatable from the second base; and the elastic hanger coupled to the second base and engaged with the fixing teeth when the first base and the second base are coupled by the fixing lever in order to easily and quickly attach and detach the mounting bracket from the support bar due to the adjustability creating a large opening between the first and second bases, and further, because constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, in view of Roberts.
[AltContent: textbox (Elastic hanger)][AltContent: textbox (Fixing teeth)][AltContent: textbox (Fixing lever)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st base)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
426
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Oh and Roberts teach the bracket of claim 1, wherein Roberts teaches a base rotation shaft (86) provided at a rear portion of the support bar and passing through an overlapping portion of the first base and the second base.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Oh and Roberts teach the bracket of claim 6, but Roberts does not teach a spring structure surrounding the base rotation shaft, wherein one side of the spring structure is coupled to the first base, and the other side of the spring structure opposite to the one side of the spring structure is coupled to the second base. Oh, however, teaches the concept of a spring structure (231, see figure above) surrounding the base rotation shaft, wherein one side of a spring structure is coupled to a first member, and the other side of the spring structure opposite to the one side of the spring structure is coupled to a second member in order to store and release mechanical energy through tension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct a spring structure surrounding the base rotation shaft, wherein one side of the spring structure is coupled to the first base, and the other side of the spring structure opposite to the one side of the spring structure is coupled to the second base in order to bias the first and second bases into the desired position.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (U.S. Pat. 8,500,079) in view of Roberts (U.S. Pat. 11,168,834) in further view of Oh (U.S. Pat. 2007/0063121).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Oh and Roberts teach the bracket of claim 6, but do not teach a stopper protruding from an upper surface of the second base and configured to provide a restriction on rotation of the first base. Oh, however, teaches a stopper (603) protruding from a surface of a bracket and configured to provide a restriction on rotation of the bracket in order to stabilize the bracket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct a stopper protruding from an upper surface of the second base and configured to provide a restriction on rotation of the first base since a stopper is a well known restriction portion, and further, in order to prevent or restrict over-rotation and instability of the mounting bracket.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-5, 8 and 11-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 9718076, 6554231, 6260810, 11358170, 10203050 (mounting brackets).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 September 29, 2026
