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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ cancellation of claims 1-18, addition of claim 27, and amendment of claims 19-26 in the Response dated May 19, 2025 to the Non-final Office Action dated January 23, 2025. However, it is acknowledged that claim 27, which is a new independent claim, appears broader in scope than original claim 1 as explained below. Claims 19-27 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and amendments to the abstract to reduce word count, which obviate the abstract objection described in the Non-final Office Action dated January 23, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further objection.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments, cancellation of claims 1-18, amendments to claims 19-26, and addition of claim 27 to resolve claim informalities and misnumbering, which obviate the claim objections described in the Non-final Office Action dated January 23, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further objection.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and cancellation of claim 18, amendment of claim 24, and addition of claim 27 to resolve indefiniteness of the claims, which obviate the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) described in the Non-final Office Action dated January 23, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Examiner acknowledges that any arguments applicants have made with respect to the original claims 1-26 and new claim 27 in the Response dated May 19, 2025 are deemed moot in light of the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below for new claim 27 and amended claims 19-26 since Examiner could not have reasonably anticipated any rejection of new claim 27 in the Non-final Office Action dated January 23, 2025.
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.
Examiner sets forth new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to amended or new features as described below because each of the features of applicants claimed invention as newly added or amended are unpatentable or obvious over the prior art. Specifically, new claim 27 language medium carrier and the manner in which the opening is provided in the medium carrier appears broader in scope than how the opening was claimed to be created in the medium carrier in original claim 1, requiring a different interpretation of the newly claimed features.
Claims 23, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US Pat No 5,909,776) in view of Clauss et al. (US Pub No 2003/0038718 A1) and further in view of Dirksmeier et al. (DE 102013002853 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Stewart et al. show an automatic cooling and equipment system (Fig. 1 & 2) for arrangement in a protected facility, comprising:
a medium carrier (17) made of polymer material (col. 2, lines 49-51) and having an extinguishing medium (18) that is enclosed, under pressure (col. 2, lines 55-56), inside the medium carrier, and the medium carrier being adapted so that in response to an initiation temperature being reached in the protected facility an opening in the medium carrier forms to release the extinguishing medium, whereby the extinguishing medium is a cooling mixture with extinguishing effects (col. 2, lines 11-13),
wherein the system is activated as soon as the temperature in the protected facility reaches the initiation temperature, which is 30°C (col. 1, lines 65-67 & col. 3, lines 6-8).
Stewart et al. does not teach a passive internal sensor arranged within the medium carrier and/or an external sensor arranged outside the carrier, yet in contact therewith, for monitoring and assessing a thermodynamic state of the medium inside the medium carrier or of leakage of medium from the carrier, and
at least one sensor arranged in an area of the protected facility yet outside the medium carrier for assessment of thermal processes in the area of the protected facility,
and an additional element, arranged outside the protected facility, for detecting the temperature conditions of surroundings of the protected area.
However, Clauss et al. teach a system with at least one sensor (Fig. 1, 5) arranged in an area of the protected facility yet outside the medium carrier for assessment of thermal processes in the area of the protected facility,
and an additional element (5, paragraph 0023 – “in each of the rooms of the house there is a row of sensors 5 for the separate detection of the time course of the temperature…”), arranged outside the protected facility, for detecting the temperature conditions of surroundings of the protected area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Stewart et al. include the sensor and additional element as taught by Clauss et al. to provide direct and indirect detection of fire indicators in each individual room (p. 3, column on the right, last 3 lines).
Further, Dirksmeier et al. disclose a passive internal sensor arranged within the medium carrier and/or an external sensor arranged outside the carrier, yet in contact therewith, for monitoring and assessing a thermodynamic state of the medium inside the medium carrier or of leakage of medium from the carrier (paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the medium carrier of Stewart et al. include the internal sensor as taught by Dirksmeier et al. in order to monitor the temperature of the extinguishing fluid and ensure it does not freeze (Dirksmeier – paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 23, Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. show an arrangement of the automatic cooling and extinguishing system is multipled to ensure better safety for larger protected facilities (Clauss – paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 26, Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. show a minimal length of a hose is 10 mm or more and an internal diameter of 3 mm or more (Stewart – col. 10, lines 7-8 and line 17).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US Pat No 5,909,776) in view of Clauss et al. (US Pub No 2003/0038718 A1) and Dirksmeier et al. (DE 102013002853 A1) and further in view of Ford et al. (US Pat No 6,029,751).
Regarding claim 19, Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the system is wirelessly connected to a system of disconnecting a source of power of the protected facility.
However, Ford et al. teach a system that is wirelessly connected to a system of disconnecting a source of power of the protected facility (col. 5, lines 21-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. include the wireless connection as taught by Ford et al. to eliminate and shut off heat sources (Ford – col. 5, lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 20, Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the system is wirelessly connected to a control system of the protected facility.
However, Ford et al. teach a system that is wirelessly connected to a control system of the protected facility (co. 5, lines 21-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. include the wireless connection as taught by Ford et al. to eliminate and shut off heat sources (Ford – col. 5, lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 21, Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the system is wirelessly connected to a system of electronic signaling of the protected facility.
However, Ford et al. teach a system that is wirelessly connected to a system of electronic signaling of the protected facility (co. 5, lines 21-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. include the wireless connection as taught by Ford et al. to eliminate and shut off heat sources (Ford – col. 5, lines 25-26).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US Pat No 5,909,776) in view of Clauss et al. (US Pub No 2003/0038718 A1) and Dirksmeier et al. (DE 102013002853 A1) and further in view of Grunert et al. (US Pub No 2013/0174441 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. disclose more than one automatic cooling and extinguishing system but do not teach that another automatic cooling and extinguishing system has a different initiation temperature arranged within the protected facility.
However, Grunert et al. disclose a first automatic extinguishing system (abstract – “a first temperature activated valve arranged in the first line”) and a second automatic extinguishing system (abstract – “a second temperature activated valve is configured to close the second line”) located in a different area where the second automatic extinguishing system has a different initiation temperature (paragraph 0012 – “…for both the valves to be arranged such that they open automatically at different temperatures…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the system of Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. have different initiation temperatures as taught by Grunert et al. to correspond to analyses of the temperature distributions of different locations (Grunert – paragraph 0012).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US Pat No 5,909,776) in view of Clauss et al. (US Pub No 2003/0038718 A1) and Dirksmeier et al. (DE 102013002853 A1) and further in view of Legare (US Pub No 2001/0048985 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. show the medium carrier (Stewart – 17) has one or more openings closed with plugs (Stewart – 19 & 21) made of polymer material (Stewart – col. 2, lines 9-10) so as to enclose the medium within the medium carrier, but do not teach the plugs are glued onto or welded into the medium carrier.
However, Legare discloses a medium carrier made of polymer material with one or more openings closed with plugs also made of polymer material that are welded into the medium carrier (paragraph 0046 – “since blow-molded and roto-molded forms of container 10 will generally be made from polyethylene or polypropylene, plug 48 will preferably be of the same material as walls 42 and 44, attached by spin welding…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plugs of Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al. and Dirksmeier et al. be welded into the medium carrier as taught by Legare to form a homogenous and seamless bond between the outer shell wall and the plug (Legare – paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 25, Stewart et al. as modified by Clauss et al., Dirksmeier et al. and Legare show at least one of the plugs (Stewart – 19) is designed with an internal opening (Stewart – see annotated figure) for installation of a passive sensor (demonstrated hole fully capable of performing the functional recitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 19-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ARTHUR O. HALL whose telephone number is (571) 270-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. CT..
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 at (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.
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
