Ex Parte Helasuo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

14110290 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/110,290 04/17/2014 Jarmo Helasuo
87059 7590 05/02/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
61878US01 (U300116US) 2650
EXAMINER
LIEUWEN, CODY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARMO HELASUO and JARKKO MALINEN 1
Appeal2017-008272
Application 14/110,290
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 4--11, 13-16, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Mari off Corporation OY, which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008272
Application 14/110,290
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A spray head, comprising a fastening body, a spray head body
with at least one nozzle and a thermally activated triggering
device, said spray head body being arranged within the fastening
body, the spray head body movable between two positions, a first
position, in which spray head is in an inactive state, and a second
position, in which the spray head body is extended out in a ready
position prior to activation of said thermally activated triggering
device, said spray head body being arranged to be movable by
pressurized medium in relation to the fastening body from the
first position to the second position, wherein a retaining
arrangement is arranged between the spray head body and the
fastening body, and adapted to keep the spray head body in the
first position, until the pressure of the medium exceeds a preset
value;
wherein the retaining arrangement comprises a first
circumferential groove on an exterior of the spray head body and
second circumferential groove on an interior of the fastening
body, and a retaining element arranged between the first
circumferential groove and the second circumferential groove in
the first position.
REJECTIONS
I. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
II. Claims 1, 4--11, 13-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Bonfield (US 5,921,322, iss. July
13, 1999) and Quaile (US 5,080,521, iss. Jan. 14, 1992).
III. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bonfield, Quaile, and Lamers
(WO 2009/156583 Al, pub. Dec. 30, 2009).
2
Appeal2017-008272
Application 14/110,290
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellant does not present any substantive arguments contesting the
propriety of the indefiniteness rejection. See Appeal Br. 3 n.1 (stating that
the "rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph [is] not
appealed"). Consequently, Appellant has waived any argument of error, and
we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d at 984, 985 (holding that the Board
did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, when the appellant failed to contest the rejection on appeal); see
also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.31(c) ("An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken
from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an
amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.").
Rejections II and III
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Bonfield
discloses a spray head including, in relevant part, a fastening body and a
spray head body that is movable between a first "inactive" position and a
second "ready" position, in which the spray head is extended. See Final Act.
4 ( citing Bonfield, col. 5, 11. 54---60; col. 5, 1. 66-col. 6, 1. 6). The Examiner
also finds that Bonfield discloses
a retaining arrangement comprising at least one groove (27)
formed onto the spray head body (col. 8, ln. 8-9; fig. 4), a
threaded hole (fig. 4 - unlabeled, interpreted to be the threaded
hole for element 13) formed onto the fastening body ( col. 8, ln.
11-13), and a retaining element (9/12/13) comprising an elastic
element (9), arranged between the spray head body and the
fastening body (fig. 4) and adapted to keep the spray head body
3
Appeal2017-008272
Application 14/110,290
in the first position until the pressure of the medium exceeds a
preset value (col. 8, ln. 2-13).
Id. at 5. The Examiner acknowledges that "Bonfield does not disclose that
the particular retaining arrangement compris[ es] a circumferential groove on
an interior of the fastening body." Id. However, the Examiner finds that
Quaile discloses a locking mechanism including "a first circumferential
groove (8) on an exterior of an inner concentric part ( 4), a second
circumferential groove ( 10) on an interior of an outer concentric part ( 6), and
an elastic ring (2) arranged between the first circumferential groove and the
second circumferential groove." Id. ( citing Quaile, col. 2, 1. 63---col. 3, 1. 6;
Fig. 1 ). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
modify Bonfield' s retaining arrangement
to include a first circumferential groove on an exterior of the
spray head, a second circumferential groove on an interior of the
fastening body, and an elastic ring arranged between the first
circumferential groove and the second circumferential groove, as
taught by Quaile, since such a modification would simplify the
retaining arrangement, making it more economical, easier to
manufacture, and easier to disassemble.
Id. at 6.
Appellant argues that "the proposed modification of Bonfield, based
on Quaile, would render Bonfield unsatisfactory for its intended purpose."
Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant asserts that "[t]he locking mechanism
of Quaile is designed to prevent any axial movement between the inner
concentric part 4 and the outer concentric part 6." Id. at 4--5 ( citing Quaile,
Abstract, Summary of the Invention). According to Appellant, "[i]f the
locking mechanism of Quaile [were] used in place of the retaining
arrangement of Bonfield, the spray head body would not be able to move
from a first position to a second position," as required by claim 1. Id. at 5;
4
Appeal2017-008272
Application 14/110,290
see also id. (asserting that, "[i]fthe retaining arrangement of Quaile were
used in Bonfield, the spray head body 22 would be in a fixed position
relative to the fastening body 11, and the device would not be able to
transition from the nested position to the deployed position").
We do not agree with Appellant that modifying Bonfield to include a
retaining arrangement having a circumferential groove on the interior of the
fastening body, as taught by Quaile, would render Bonfield's telescopic
sprinkler unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appellant's argument
appears to be premised upon a position that Quaile' s retaining arrangement
(i.e., "locking mechanism") permanently locks and prevents any and all
movement between concentric parts, but Appellant does not proffer
sufficient evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to support such a
position. Although Quaile discloses "locking of concentric machine parts to
prevent relative axial movement of the concentric parts" (Quaile, col. 1, 11.
8-10), Quaile also discloses that "[ s ]uch locking means should be ... easy
to disassemble" (id., col. 1, 11. 17-18), which suggests that the locking
mechanism would permit relative axial movement of concentric parts ( e.g.,
for disassembly) under certain conditions.
As the Examiner explains, Quaile's retaining arrangement is
"designed to inhibit axial movement or, more specifically, to prevent
unwanted axial movement caused by forces that do not exceed a certain
threshold (i.e., vibrations) and allow axial movement that does exceed the
threshold (i.e., during assembly or disassembly of the parts), but not to
prevent any axial movement." Ans. 7; see also id. (explaining that Quaile's
"deformable ring can be deformed to allow movement when a sufficient
force is applied"). The Examiner also explains that, like Quaile' s retaining
5
Appeal2017-008272
Application 14/110,290
arrangement, Bonfield' s retaining arrangement also "prevents axial
movement between a spray head body and a fastening body until a minimum
pressure is applied (col. 8, ln. 2-9)." Id. at 8. In other words, Quaile's
locking mechanism is a type of retaining arrangement that appears to
perform the same general function as Bonfield's retaining arrangement (i.e.,
prevent movement between concentric parts together until sufficient force is
applied). 2 In this regard, Appellant does not persuasively explain why
modifying Bonfield' s spray head to use the retaining arrangement of Quaile,
as proposed by the Examiner (see Final Act. 6; Ans. 8), would prevent the
spray head from suitably operating as intended. Moreover, the Examiner's
proposed modification of Bonfield to use the retaining arrangement of
Quaile amounts to nothing more than the simple substitution of one known
retaining arrangement ( a deformable ring disposed between concentric parts
each provided with a groove) for another (a deformable ring disposed
between one part provided with a groove and a spring biased pin) or the
mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
(noting that such modifications are obvious where they do no more than
yield a predictable result).
For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the
rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, and of its dependent claims 4--11, 13-16, and 18, for which
2 A person having ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the
particular level of force required to cause relative movement between the
concentric parts may be set by selecting proper dimensions and material
properties for the concentric parts, the grooves, and the deforming ring.
6
Appeal2017-008272
Application 14/110,290
Appellant relies on the same arguments (see Appeal Br. 5), under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bonfield and Quaile.
In contesting the rejection of dependent claim 19, Appellant relies on
the arguments presented for patentability of independent claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 6. For the reasons discussed above, Appellant's arguments do
not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, and likewise do not apprise
us of error with respect to the rejection of claim 19. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bonfield, Quaile, and Lamers.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--11, 13-16, 18, and 19
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7