DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 at least one vent is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network, the vent configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one vent not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one vent is allowing passage of gas through the at least vent and when the at least one vent is restricting passage of gas through the at least one vent, of claims 1, 32, 36, 37, and 39, and
the at least one relief valve is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one relief valve in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network, the relief valve configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one relief valve not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve of claims 15, 31, 38, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,4-11, 13, 15, 16, 19-27, 29, 31, 32, 36-39, 41 and 42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 15, 31, 32, 36-39, there is no support for the vent or relief valve not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one vent or relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least vent relief valve and when the at least one vent or relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one vent relief valve. The specification states that the vent can be a relief valve in paragraph [0056], but is silent about how the vent or relief valve functions.
Additionally, paragraph [0012] states that the vent allows gas such as air and oxygen that is displaced by pressurized nitrogen or the pressurized nitrogen itself to exit the piping network, but does not say how this happens.
The specification states in paragraph [0057] that continuous venting of the fire protection system using one or more vents or valves facilitates removal of any oxygen within the system while maintaining the required system pressure (of nitrogen) for the fire sprinkler system. This has nothing to do with the vent or relief valve not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one vent or relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least vent relief valve and when the at least one vent or relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one vent relief valve
Additionally, regarding claims 1, 32, 36, 37, and 39, the term “the at least one vent is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network.” Does not have support in the originally field specification. The specification is silent to the vent doing any restricting of gas through the vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network.
The same can be said for the claimed relief valve in claims 15, 31 and 38.
Paragraph [0056] sates “the system may include a vent such as a relief valve in order to control or limit the pressure in the system. The relief valve allows pressurized nitrogen to escape at a preset or adjustable limit to prevent over-pressurization while maintaining enough pressure within the system to prevent the dry pipe valve from opening”. This is not a relief valve that is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one relief valve in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network, the relief valve configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one relief valve not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve
Paragraph [0057] describes continuous venting using one or more vents. These vents appear to be different vents form the vents of paragraph [0056] since the vents of [0056] are not continuous vents.
Lastly, paragraph [0059] talks about a third vent that is a gas permeable but liquid impermeable membrane. This vent seems to be a completely different vent or at least the same vent as in paragraph [0057], but not the same as in [0056].
In claims 15, 31 and 38, the applicant appears to be giving the functions of the vent in paragraphs [0057] and [0059] to the relief valve of paragraph [0056] there is no support for a relief valve that performs the function of “allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one relief valve in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network, the relief valve configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one relief valve not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve”
The remainder of the claims are rejected for depending from the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13,15, 19-21, 23-27, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37-39, 41 and 42 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 3928201) in view of Bedingfield et al. (2004/0025693)
Regarding claims 1, Nakamura shows a water-based fire protection system (figure 1) comprising: a sprinkler system comprising at least one fusible sprinkler (Sp), a pipe network (2) connected to the at least one fusible sprinkler, and having one or more drains (4, 15); the pipe network pitched toward the one or more drains (figure 2) the one or more drains selectively allowing liquid to exit the pipe network (inherent to a drain), a nitrogen generator (10) coupled to the pipe network (fig 2) the nitrogen generator operable to pressurize the pie network with nitrogen to a system pressure until the water-based fire protection system is actuated ([0012]), the sprinkler system including a pressure regulator (8) distinct from the one or more drains,
But fails to show at least one vent distinct from the one or more drains and positioned within the pipe network, wherein the at least one vent is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network; the at least one vent configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one vent not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one vent is allowing passage of gas through the at least vent and when the at least one vent is restricting passage of gas through the at least one vent; and thereby increasing the concentration of nitrogen and decreasing the concentration of oxygen in the pipe network to reduce or eliminate the rate of corrosion in the pipe network.
However, Bedingfield et al. teaches a vent (20), wherein the at least one vent is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network (fig 6, the vent releases gas when pressure is high and does not release gas when pressure is low); the at least one vent configured to allow gas (through 36 and 26) including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated (they water system pressure is maintained because the water can’t leave the vent), the at least one vent not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one vent is allowing passage of gas through the at least vent and when the at least one vent is restricting passage of gas through the at least one vent (this is how vent 20 operates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to add the vent of Bedingfield et al to the pipe network of Nakamura in order to have the valve automatically vent gas from the liquid as taught by Bedingfield et al (abstract).
In the use of the above combination, adding nitrogen from the nitrogen generator will inherently increase the concentration of nitrogen and decreasing the concentration of oxygen in the pipe network to reduce or eliminate the rate of corrosion in the pipe network.
Regarding claim 4, the pipe network including a void space (the space inside the pipes) within the pipe network, and wherein the at least one vent is connected with the pipe network at a location in which it is in fluid communication with the void space within the pipe network and is further configured to allow gas from the void space to exit the pipe network (fig 2, Nakamura).
Regarding claim 5, the pipe network further including an amount of liquid (water) contained within the pipe network, and wherein the void space is located above the amount of liquid within the pipe network (air will always stay above liquid in the pipes and the water will accumulate at the low points, which are the vents 15 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the at least one vent is operable to continuously vent gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen from the pipe network. The vent of Bedingfield et al will do this.
Regarding claim 8, the at least one vent is operable to continuously or periodically vent gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen from the pipe network (The vent of Bedingfield et al will do this)
Regarding claim 9, the at least one vent is operable to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network when the system pressure reaches or exceeds the prescribed limit and wherein the prescribed limit is preset or adjustable (The vent of Bedingfield et al will do this.)
Regarding claim 11, further comprising a flow valve (1, Nakamura) configured to control introduction of a water-based fire suppression medium into the pipe network.
Regarding claims 13, the above combination fails to disclose that the system is a wet pipe system.
However, wet and dry pipe systems are well known in the art and each have their known advantages and disadvantages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to replace the dry pipe valve of Nakamura as modified above with a wet pipe valve, and operate the system as a wet pipe system, in order to achieve a lower cost of installation and maintenance.
Regarding claims 32 and 36, the above combination shows a sprinkler system (Nakamura ) comprising at least one fusible sprinkler (Sp), a pipe network (fig 2) connected to the at least one fusible sprinkler, and having one or more drains (4, 15); the pipe network pitched toward the one or more drains, the one or more drains (fig 2) selectively allowing liquid to exit the pipe network (inherent to a drain); a nitrogen generator (10) coupled to the pipe network, the nitrogen generator operable to pressurize the pipe network with nitrogen to a system pressure until the water-based fire protection system is actuated; at least one vent (the vent of Bedingfield) distinct from the one or more drains and positioned within the pipe network, wherein the at least one vent is configured to allow and restrict gas from passing through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network; the at least one vent configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one vent further not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one vent is allowing passage of gas through the at least one vent and when the at least one vent is restricting passage of gas through the at least one vent (Bedingfield) and 4822-9409-4478.1thereby increasing the concentration of nitrogen and decreasing the concentration of oxygen in the pipe network to reduce or eliminate the rate of corrosion in the pipe network.
Regarding claim 37 in its use, the above combination inherently performs all the method steps of claim 37 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Nakamura as modified above shows A water-based fire protection system (Nakamura) comprising: a sprinkler system comprising at least one fusible sprinkler (Sp), a pipe network (fig 2) connected to the at least one fusible sprinkler, and having one or more drains (4, 15); the pipe network pitched toward the one or more drains (fig 2), the one or more drains selectively allowing liquid to exit the pipe network; a nitrogen generator (10) coupled to the pipe network, the nitrogen generator operable to pressurize the pipe network with nitrogen to a system pressure until the water-based fire protection system is actuated;- 15 - HB: 4839-4799-7688.1Application of BurkhartApplication No. 16/248,113Filed: 01/15/2019Page 16at least one vent (the vent of Hazelton) distinct from the one or more drains and positioned within the pipe network, wherein the at least one vent configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed adjustable pressure limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network, the vent further configured to remain open while the system pressure of the pipe network is at or above the prescribed adjustable pressure limit, and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one vent not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least on vent is allowing passage of gas through the at least one vent ad when the at least one vent is restriction passage of gas through the at least one vent (Bedingfield); and thereby increasing the concentration of nitrogen and decreasing the concentration of oxygen in the pipe network to reduce or eliminate the rate of corrosion in the pipe network (the above combination will inherently perform this function).
Regarding claim 41, further including the step of pulling water within the system into the nitrogen after the step of introducing nitrogen from the nitrogen generator into the pipe network (this will inherently occur when the piping network is full of nitrogen).
Regarding claim 15, 19-21, 23- 27, 29, 31, 38 and 42 , the vent of the above combination can be considered a relief valve since it vents off gas over a certain pressure (that pressure is ambient pressure).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13,15, 19-21, 23-27, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37-39, 41 and 42 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 3928201) in view of Hazelton (4,730,638)
Regarding claim 15, the above combination shows a water-based fire protection system comprising (Nakamura): 4822-9409-4478.1a sprinkler system comprising at least one fusible sprinkler (Sp), a pipe network (fig 2) connected to the at least one fusible sprinkler, and having one or more drains (15, 4) the pipe network pitched toward the one or more drains and having one or more branch lines (fig 2); a nitrogen generator (10) coupled to the pipe network, the nitrogen generator operable to pressurize the pipe network with nitrogen to a system pressure until the water-based fire protection system is actuated;
But fails to disclose at least one relief valve distinct from the one or more drains and positioned within the pipe network at the one or more branch lines the at least one relief valve configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network while the at least one relief valve in allowing passage of gas through the at least one relief valve and maintain the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one relief not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least open relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve
Hazelton shows at least one relief valve (10), the at least one relief valve configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network while preventing liquid from passing therethrough (fig 2) and out of the pipe network while the at least one relief valve in allowing passage of gas through the at least one relief valve and maintain the system pressure within the pipe network (fig 2, the liquid pressure is being maintained) until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one relief not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve allowing passage of gas through the at least open relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve (when 22 is open)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to add the vent of Hazelton to the pipe network of Nakamura in order to have the valve automatically bleed gas from the network as taught by Hazelton (abstract).
In the use of the above combination, adding nitrogen from the nitrogen generator will inherently increase the concentration of nitrogen and decreasing the concentration of oxygen in the pipe network to reduce or eliminate the rate of corrosion in the pipe network.
Regarding claim 19, wherein the at least one relief valve is configured to respond to a system pressure within the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit (this is inherent, the limit can be zero)
Regarding claim 20, the pipe network including a void space (inside the pipes) within the pipe network, and wherein the at least one relief valve is connected with the pipe network at a location in which it is in fluid communication with the void space within the pipe network and is further configured to allow gas from the void space to exit the pipe network (fig 2, Hazelton).
Regarding claim 21, the pipe network further including an amount of liquid contained within the pipe network (water), and wherein the void space is located above the amount of liquid within the pipe network (air will always be above liquid in the pipes).
Regarding claim 23, the at least one relief valve is operable to continuously vent gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen from the pipe network (this is how the relief valve of Hazelton works).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the at least one relief valve is operable to periodically vent gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen from the pipe network. (this is how the relief valve of Hazelton works).
Regarding claim 25, the at least one relief valve is operable to continuously or periodically vent gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen from the pipe network. (this is how the relief valve of Hazelton works).
Regarding claim 26, the at least one relief valve is operable to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network when the system pressure reaches or exceeds the prescribed limit and wherein the prescribed limit is preset or adjustable. (the vent of Hazelton displaces air, and air includes oxygen. The limit is preset)
Regarding claim 27, further comprising a flow valve (1, Nakamura) configured to control introduction of a water-based fire suppression medium into the pipe network.
Regarding claim 31, Nakamura as modified above shows a water-based fire protection system (Nakamura) comprising: a sprinkler system comprising at least one fusible sprinkler (sp), a pipe network (2) connected to the at least one fusible sprinkler, and having one or more drains (4, 15); the pipe network pitched toward the one or more drains and having one or more branch lines (fig 2), each of the one or more branch lines having a terminal end (fig 2); a nitrogen generator (10) coupled to the pipe network, the nitrogen generator operable to pressurize the pipe network with nitrogen to a system pressure until the water-based fire protection system is actuated (Nakamura [0012]); at least one relief valve (the vent of Hazelton) distinct from the one or more drains and positioned within the pipe network adjacent to the terminal end of the one or more branch lines; the at least one relief valve configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure at an adjustable limit at least while the water-based fire protection system is in a charged state within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one relief not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least open relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve (Hazelton); and thereby increasing the concentration of nitrogen and decrease the concentration of oxygen in the pipe network to reduce or eliminate the rate of corrosion in the pipe network.
Regarding claim 32, the above combination shows a sprinkler system (Nakamura ) comprising at least one fusible sprinkler (Sp), a pipe network (fig 2) connected to the at least one fusible sprinkler, and having one or more drains (4, 15); the pipe network pitched toward the one or more drains, the one or more drains (fig 2) selectively allowing liquid to exit the pipe network (inherent to a drain); a nitrogen generator (10) coupled to the pipe network, the nitrogen generator operable to pressurize the pipe network with nitrogen to a system pressure until the water-based fire protection system is actuated; at least one vent (the vent of Hazelton) distinct from the one or more drains and positioned within the pipe network, wherein the at least one vent is configured to allow and restrict gas from passing through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network; the at least one vent configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one relief not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least open relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve (Hazleton) and 4822-9409-4478.1thereby increasing the concentration of nitrogen and decreasing the concentration of oxygen in the pipe network to reduce or eliminate the rate of corrosion in the pipe network.
Regarding claim 38, in its use, the above combination inherently performs all the method steps of claim 38 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Nakamura as modified above shows A water-based fire protection system (Nakamura) comprising: a sprinkler system comprising at least one fusible sprinkler (Sp), a pipe network (fig 2) connected to the at least one fusible sprinkler, and having one or more drains (4, 15); the pipe network pitched toward the one or more drains (fig 2), the one or more drains selectively allowing liquid to exit the pipe network; a nitrogen generator (10) coupled to the pipe network, the nitrogen generator operable to pressurize the pipe network with nitrogen to a system pressure until the water-based fire protection system is actuated;- 15 - HB: 4839-4799-7688.1Application of BurkhartApplication No. 16/248,113Filed: 01/15/2019Page 16at least one vent (the vent of Hazelton) distinct from the one or more drains and positioned within the pipe network, wherein the at least one vent configured to allow gas including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed adjustable pressure limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network, the vent further configured to remain open while the system pressure of the pipe network is at or above the prescribed adjustable pressure limit, and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated, the at least one relief not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least open relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve (Hazelton); and thereby increasing the concentration of nitrogen and decreasing the concentration of oxygen in the pipe network to reduce or eliminate the rate of corrosion in the pipe network (the above combination will inherently perform this function).
Regarding claim 42, further including the step of pulling water within the system into the nitrogen after the step of introducing nitrogen from the nitrogen generator into the pipe network (this will inherently occur when the piping network is full of nitrogen).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13,15, 32, 36, 37, 39 and 41, the relief valve of Hazelton can be considered the vent since it performs all the same functions as the claimed vent.
Claims 6 and 22 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 3928201) as modified by Bedingfield et al. (2004/0025693) above, further in view of Wagner et al. (7,717,776).
Nakamura as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant's invention but fails to specifically disclose an oxygen sensor connected with the system and in communication with the nitrogen generator and configured to generate a sensor signal in response to a level of oxygen measured in the pipe network; and wherein the nitrogen generator is configured to respond to the sensor by adjusting the amount of nitrogen introduced into the pipe network
However, Wagner et al. "776 teaches an oxygen sensor 7" coupled to a sprinkler system (fig 1) configured to generate a sensor signal in response to a level of oxygen measured in a specific area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to add the oxygen sensor of Wagner et al. '776 to the invention of Nakamura as modified above in order to measure the oxygen content in a given area.
It is noted that the oxygen sensor is operable to determine oxygen level in said piping network and the nitrogen generator can be activated automatically in response to said oxygen sensor in order to supply nitrogen to the piping network when oxygen in the piping network is above a particular level.
Claims 6 and 22 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 3928201) as modified by Hazelton (4,730,638) above, further in view of Wagner et al. (7,717,776).
Nakamura as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant's invention but fails to specifically disclose an oxygen sensor connected with the system and in communication with the nitrogen generator and configured to generate a sensor signal in response to a level of oxygen measured in the pipe network; and wherein the nitrogen generator is configured to respond to the sensor by adjusting the amount of nitrogen introduced into the pipe network
However, Wagner et al. "776 teaches an oxygen sensor 7" coupled to a sprinkler system (fig 1) configured to generate a sensor signal in response to a level of oxygen measured in a specific area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to add the oxygen sensor of Wagner et al. '776 to the invention of Nakamura as modified above in order to measure the oxygen content in a given area.
It is noted that the oxygen sensor is operable to determine oxygen level in said piping network and the nitrogen generator can be activated automatically in response to said oxygen sensor in order to supply nitrogen to the piping network when oxygen in the piping network is above a particular level.
Claims 10, 16 and 31 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 3928201) as modified by Bedingfield et al. (2004/0025693) above, further in view of Jackson (7,389,824)
Regarding claims 10, 16 and 31, Nakamura as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant's invention but fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one vent is positioned adjacent to the terminal end of at least one of the one or more branch lines
However, Jackson teaches similar pipe network and wherein the at least one vent (39) is positioned adjacent to the terminal end of at least one of the one or more branch lines (fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to locate the vent of Hazelton at the terminal end of the branch lines of Nakamura, in order to help vent all the gases in that particular branch line.
Claims 10, 16 and 31 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 3928201) as modified by Hazelton (4,730,638) above, further in view of Jackson (7,389,824)
Regarding claims 10, 16 and 31, Nakamura as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant's invention but fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one vent is positioned adjacent to the terminal end of at least one of the one or more branch lines
However, Jackson teaches similar pipe network and wherein the at least one vent (39) is positioned adjacent to the terminal end of at least one of the one or more branch lines (fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to locate the vent of Hazelton at the terminal end of the branch lines of Nakamura, in order to help vent all the gases in that particular branch line.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-27, 29 and 31-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,144,700 in view of Bedingfield et al. (2004/0025693)
The claims of the pending application disclose all aspects of the claims of the 700’ patent except for the fact that the vent or relief valve that operates in response to pressure inside the pipe network
However, Bedingfield et al. teaches a vent (20), wherein the at least one vent is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network (fig 6, the vent releases gas when pressure is high and does not release gas when pressure is low); the at least one vent configured to allow gas (through 36 and 26) including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated (they water system pressure is maintained because the water can’t leave the vent), the at least one vent not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one vent is allowing passage of gas through the at least vent and when the at least one vent is restricting passage of gas through the at least one vent (this is how vent 20 operates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to add the vent of Bedingfield et al to the pipe network in order to have the valve automatically vent gas from the liquid as taught by Bedingfield et al (abstract).
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-27, 29 and 31-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,186,533 in view of Bedingfield et al. (2004/0025693)
The claims of the pending application disclose all aspects of the claims of the 700’ patent except for the fact that the vent or relief valve that operates in response to pressure inside the pipe network
However, However, Bedingfield et al. teaches a vent (20), wherein the at least one vent is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network (fig 6, the vent releases gas when pressure is high and does not release gas when pressure is low); the at least one vent configured to allow gas (through 36 and 26) including oxygen displaced by the nitrogen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing therethrough and out of the pipe network and maintaining the system pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated (they water system pressure is maintained because the water can’t leave the vent), the at least one vent not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one vent is allowing passage of gas through the at least vent and when the at least one vent is restricting passage of gas through the at least one vent (this is how vent 20 operates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to add the vent of Bedingfield et al to the pipe network in order to have the valve automatically vent gas from the liquid as taught by Bedingfield et al (abstract).
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-27, 29 and 31-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,144,700 in view of Hazelton (4,730,638)
The claims of the pending application disclose all aspects of the claims of the 700’ patent except for the fact that the vent or relief valve that operates in response to pressure inside the pipe network
However, Hazelton teaches combination vent that is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network (fig 2, float up gas is restricted, float down, gas passes), the at least on vent configured to allow gas including nitrogen displaced by the oxygen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing there through and out of the pipe network (this occurs in the position of figure 2) and maintaining pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated (this occurs in the position of figure 2), the at least one relief not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least open relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve (22 open)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to add the vent of Hazelton to the system to relive pressure in the system automatically.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-27, 29 and 31-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,186,533 in view of Hazelton (4,730,638).
The claims of the pending application disclose all aspects of the claims of the 700’ patent except for the fact that the vent or relief valve that operates in response to pressure inside the pipe network
However, Hazelton teaches combination vent that is configured to allow and restrict passage of gas through the at least one vent in response to changes in the system pressure within the pipe network (fig 2, float up gas is restricted, float down, gas passes), the at least on vent configured to allow gas including nitrogen displaced by the oxygen to exit the pipe network in response to the system pressure of the pipe network reaching a prescribed limit while preventing liquid from passing there through and out of the pipe network (this occurs in the position of figure 2) and maintaining pressure within the pipe network until the water-based fire protection system is actuated (this occurs in the position of figure 2), the at least one relief not restricting flow of gas within the pipe network both when the at least one relief valve is allowing passage of gas through the at least open relief valve and when the at least one relief valve is restricting passage of gas through the at least one relief valve (22 open).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to add the vent of Hazelton to the system to relive pressure in the system automatically.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2025 with respect to the Hazelton reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that Hazelton is responsive to system pressure as if there is zero pressure, (no liquid present) then the valve will be open. If there is liquid resent the system is under the pressure of the liquid, the gas will vent through 20 or 22. If the as pressure is higher than atmospheric pressure it gas will exit the vent. If the gas pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure it will not.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am to 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, Arthur 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.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 10/2/2025