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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 15, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Nozzle Species I (Figs. 2 and 3. Claims 1-4, 10-13, and 15 read on the elected species) in the reply filed on June 28, 2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-9, 14 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 28, 2023.
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, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15 and 21 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.
The term “continuous” in line 11 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “continuous” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree or shape or geometry required to meet the claim limitation is not known. The term “continuous” is defined as “adj. 1. Uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance, or extent. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=continuous. Fig. 3 of the Applicant’s drawing clearly shows a drop or a reduction of diameter from the threaded flange 32 to the body 22. The allowable deviation of not “interrupted” to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relyea et al. (US5301756. Relyea hereinafter) in view of Parsons et al. (WO 98/04322. Parsons hereinafter) and further in view of Popp (US 9308404).
With respect to claim 1, Relyea discloses a nozzle assembly (Figs. 15 and 16) for a fire suppression system (180) (capable of) discharging a fire extinguishing agent being of a gas form, the nozzle assembly configured to (capable of) threadedly engage a fitting (195 of 194), the nozzle assembly, comprising:
a) a body (198, 196) having an inlet end (right end of 196. Fig. 15) for having an interior surface (capable of) having a first diameter configured to (capable of) receive the fitting, the inlet configured to (capable of) receive a flow of the fire extinguishing agent (water) from the fire suppression system at an inlet pressure (Col. 1, lines 64-66);
b) a nozzle portion (198, 196) extending from the body, converging to a nozzle tip (198) and having an interior cavity defining a cylindrical nozzle portion (pointed by marker “194” in Fig. 15) and a conical nozzle portion (with 200), the cylindrical nozzle portion being a continuous (exterior) wall having a second (external) diameter that is smaller than the first diameter of the inlet, and wherein a plurality of exit orifices (200) are formed in a an outer wall of the conical nozzle portion, the plurality of exit orifices are in communication with the cylindrical nozzle portion, for (capable of) vectoring the flow of fire extinguishing agent exiting therefrom and to (capable of) reduce a noise level of the nozzle assembly, wherein a length of the conical nozzle portion is greater than a length of the cylindrical nozzle portion.
Relyea fails to disclose at least one perforated filter member positioned upstream from the plurality of exit orifices formed in the nozzle portion and seated on the abutment surface and pressed between the fitting and the abutment surface, for reducing the inlet pressure of the fire extinguishing agent in furtherance of noise level reduction.
However, Parsons teaches a nozzle assembly (10 and/or 50. Fig. 1) for a fire suppression system, comprising: a) a body (of 50) having an inlet end (at 17) having an interior surface for (capable of) receiving a flow of fire extinguishing agent (water) from the fire suppression system at an inlet pressure (page 4, lines 20-24), the inlet end having a flange portion (left and right sides of recess 19) extending radially from a distal (upper) end of the body so as to define an abutment surface (for filter screen 18) extending radially and inwardly from the (bottom of 19) interior surface; b) a nozzle portion (lower portion of 50) extending conically from the body, converging to a nozzle tip (at 52 of center nozzle 15) and having an interior cavity (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below), wherein a plurality of exit orifices (14) are formed in an outer wall of the nozzle portion, in communication with the interior cavity, for (capable of) vectoring the flow of fire extinguishing agent exiting therefrom and to (capable of) reduce a noise level of the nozzle assembly, wherein a (vertical) length of the conical nozzle portion is greater than a length of the interior cavity; and c) at least one perforated filter member (18) positioned upstream from the plurality of exit orifices formed in the nozzle portion and seated on the abutment surface and pressed between the fitting and the abutment surface, for (capable of) reducing the inlet pressure of the fire extinguishing agent in furtherance of noise level reduction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a perforated filter member, as taught by Parsons, to Relyea’s nozzle assembly, in order to filter the fire extinguishing agent (Page 7, line 21 and Fig. 1).
Relyea fails to disclose the cylindrical nozzle portion being a continuous wall having a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter of the inlet.
However, Popp teaches a nozzle assembly (28. Figs. 1-5) for a fire suppression system discharging a fire extinguishing agent being of a gas form (82), the nozzle assembly, comprising: a) a body (of 28) having an inlet end (with 50. Fig. 2) for having an interior surface having a first diameter configured to (capable of) receive a fitting (54); b) a nozzle portion (near 44 and 42) extending from the body, converging to a nozzle tip (tip end of 42) and having an interior cavity (30 and 32) defining a cylindrical nozzle portion (above 46). Popp further teaches the cylindrical nozzle portion being a continuous wall (same as the Applicant’s invention) having a second diameter (below 46) that is smaller than the first diameter of the inlet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a two-diameter pipe connection for gas fire extinguishing agent, as taught by Popp, to Relyea’s inlet, in order to connect the body to the fitting for gas passage (Fig. 2). As for the fire extinguishing agent being of a gas form, Relyea’s and Parsons’ nozzle assembly is capable of discharging a fire extinguishing agent being of a gas form. A recitation of function may not distinguish over the prior art since an apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what it does. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. The material or article worked upon also does not limit an apparatus claim but is rather an intended use of the apparatus. See: MPEP §§ 2114, 2115; See also: In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Relyea also fails to disclose wherein the at least one perforated filter member has between 20% to 40% open area as defined by a multiplicity of perforations so as to reducing reduce the inlet pressure of the fire extinguishing agent in furtherance of noise level reduction.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least one perforated filter member having between 20% to 40% open area as defined by a multiplicity of perforations, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, percentage open area as defined by a multiplicity of perforations is a results effective variable with the results being a chock of the fluid flow or the rate of restriction (metering) to the fluid flow. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aluminum plate having 23% open area as defined by a multiplicity of perforations, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 2, Relyea’s nozzle assembly modified by Parsons’ perforated filter member and Popp’s pipe connection for gas fire extinguishing agent, Parsons further teaches wherein the at least one perforated filter member is formed from a perforated metal plate (Page 7, line 21 and Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, Relyea’s nozzle assembly modified by Parsons’ perforated filter member and Popp’s pipe connection for gas fire extinguishing agent according to the nozzle assembly as recited in Claim 1, Relyea further discloses wherein the inlet end of the body portion includes a metering orifice (defined by the size of the inlet end of Relyea).
With respect to claim 11, Relyea’s nozzle assembly modified by Parsons’ perforated filter member and Popp’s pipe connection for gas fire extinguishing agent according to the nozzle assembly as recited in Claim 1, Relyea further discloses wherein the inlet end of the body portion is axially aligned with the nozzle portion along a central (horizontal) axis thereof (Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 15, Relyea’s nozzle assembly modified by Parsons’ perforated filter member and Popp’s pipe connection for gas fire extinguishing agent, Relyea fails to disclose wherein the plurality of exit orifices formed in the conical outer wall of the conical nozzle portion are oriented at an angle that is perpendicular to a local wall angle of the nozzle portion.
However, Parsons teaches wherein the plurality of exit orifices formed in the conical outer wall of the conical nozzle portion are oriented at an angle that is perpendicular to a local wall angle of the nozzle portion (Fig. 7. Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of oriented the plurality of exit orifices at an angle that is perpendicular to a local wall angle of the nozzle portion, as taught by Parsons, to Relyea’s plurality of exit orifices, in order to achieve a desired spray angle for the nozzle (Page 5, lines 3-19).
With respect to claim 21, Relyea’s nozzle assembly modified by Parsons’ perforated filter member and Popp’s pipe connection for gas fire extinguishing agent, Relyea and Parsons disclose wherein the interior surface of the inlet end (of Relyea) is threaded (mating with 195) and the at least one perforated filter member (of Parsons) is disposed between the abutment surface and the thread. The male and female threads of Parsons are opposite of the Relyea’s threads. In the instant suggested combination, Relyea’s threads remain the same, the interior surface with the abutment surface of Parsons are being added to the Relyea’s nozzle assembly. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the male and female threads of Relyea. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. And because such a change (reversing male and female threads) would only produce an expected result, i.e, provide secure threaded connection.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relyea in view of Parsons and Popp’s pipe connection for gas fire extinguishing agent and further in view of Spaeth (US 4958554).
With respect to claims 4, Relyea, Parsons and Popp discloses the nozzle assembly as recited in Claim 1 except for wherein the at least one perforated filter member is formed from an aluminum plate that has 23% open area as defined by a multiplicity of perforations.
However, Spaeth teaches a fire protection filter (Figs. 1-3) with a filter (transverse supports 8), wherein the filter is a perforated filter member formed from a perforated metal plate (Col. 3, lines 11-12) and wherein the perforated filter member is formed from an aluminum plate (Col. 1, line 39 and claim 1 of Spaeth).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the aluminum perforated plate filter, as taught by Spaeth, to Parsons’ filter, in order to be easily removed and cleaned (Abstract lines 7-9).
As for the multiplicity of perforations and aluminum plate that has 23% open area as defined by a multiplicity of perforations, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aluminum plate having 23% open area as defined by a multiplicity of perforations, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, percentage open area as defined by a multiplicity of perforations is a results effective variable with the results being a chock of the fluid flow or the rate of restriction (metering) to the fluid flow. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aluminum plate having 23% open area as defined by a multiplicity of perforations, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
1173
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference and/or the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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 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.
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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 March 20, 2026