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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 10 has been previously cancelled. Claims 1-5, 9, and 11-24 have been amended. Claims 6-8 are as previously presented. Claim 25 is new. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-25 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 05/23/2025 have been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following.
Existing 112(a) rejection
Existing 112(b) rejections
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the spray mist nozzle comprises a first spray mist nozzle and second spray mist nozzle having a spacing in a range from 1 m to 3 m in the direction of the extracted air flow,” however in lines 1-5 of claim 18, but the specification states “the hood spray mist nozzle and a duct spray mist nozzle installed adjacent thereto have a spacing in a range from 1 m to 3 m in the direction of the extracted air flow” in Para. 0030. Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation “a spray mist nozzle” in line 5 of claim 1 and “a hood spray mist nozzle” in line 5 of claim 2 which distinctly claims the first spray mist nozzle and the hood spray mist nozzle as separate elements.
Therefore, this limitation is new matter that 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 2-8, 16, 22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the plurality of separate angularly-oriented spray mist outlets" in line 6 of claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a plurality of separate angularly-oriented spray mist outlets”
Claims 3-8, 16, 22, and 24 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 3-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the spray mist nozzle comprises an operating pressure in a range from 50 bar to 65 bar” in lines 1-2 of claim 25. It is unclear as to how the spray mist nozzle comprises an operating pressure because the operating pressure is the pressure in which a fluid, which is not recited in the invention, acts on the spray mist nozzle. The examiner will interpret this limitation as “the spray mist nozzle configured to operate at a pressure in a range from 50 bar to 65 bar.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 17, 19-21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Kellogg (US 8,746,231) in view of Kim (US 5,794,705).
Regarding claim 1, Kellogg discloses a system (Fig. 2, 100) that is capable of suppressing a fire in a cooking area (Fig. 2, 101), comprising:
a duct (Fig. 2, 108) including a first side wall (Annotated Fig. 2) opposed to a second side wall (Annotated Fig. 2), the duct having an inlet side (Fig. 2, 109) and an outlet side (Annotated Fig. 2), spaced apart from the inlet side, which defines a direction (Annotated Fig. 2) of an extracted air flow from the inlet side to the outlet side, and
a spray mist nozzle (Annotated Fig. 2) mounted through the first side wall (Fig. 2) and oriented to emit a spray mist in a direction of the second side wall (Fig. 2) and along a wall distance (Annotated Fig. 2).
Kellogg does not disclose said spray mist nozzle having a plurality of separate spray mist outlets, wherein the spray mist outlets are oriented at an angle to one another and include a nozzle insert having a swirl body with a central longitudinal passage extending from an inlet end to an outlet end of the swirl body, a plurality of grooves positioned at the inlet end, and a plurality of vortex ducts positioned at the outlet end, wherein the central longitudinal passage extends through a central inlet opening and a central outlet opening.
However, Kim teaches a prior art comparable nozzle (Fig. 2-3, 100) having a plurality of separate spray mist outlets (Fig. 2, 122), wherein the spray mist outlets are oriented at an angle to one another (Annotated Fig. 3) and include a nozzle insert (Fig. 2-3, 130) having a swirl body (Fig. 3, 135; Col. 5: Ln. 9-18) with a central longitudinal passage (Fig. 3, 137) extending from an inlet end (Fig. 3, End of 135 facing 140) to an outlet end (Fig. 3, End of 135 facing 152) of the swirl body, a plurality of grooves (Fig. 3, 144) positioned at the inlet end, and a plurality of vortex ducts (Fig. 3, 136; Col. 5: Ln. 37-41) positioned at the outlet end, wherein the central longitudinal passage extends through a central inlet opening (Fig. 3, 140) and a central outlet opening (Fig. 3, 152).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (nozzle) with a known function (spraying pressurized liquid; Col. 2: Ln. 18-24), taught by Kim, by performing a simple substitution of two nozzles of taught by Kim into the two instances of item 30 representing the spray mist nozzle disclosed by Kellogg yielding a predictable result, namely spraying pressurized liquid to effectively extinguish a fire even when an extensive fire occurs (Kim – Col. 2: Ln. 18-24).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
550
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
564
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Kim further teaches wherein the spray mist outlets each have a predetermined K-factor (Each spray mist outlet inherently has a K-factor because the K-factor is a constant that relates the flow rate of water through the nozzle to the pressure at the nozzle and the outlet is a type nozzle.).
Regarding claim 11, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Kellogg further discloses wherein the spray mist outlets (Fig. 2, 30 attached to 24A) of the duct spray mist nozzle (Fig. 2, 24A) are oriented in a plane (Annotated Fig. 2) parallel to the direction of the duct (Annotated Fig. 2).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image3.png
578
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1.
Kellogg in view of Kim does not disclose wherein the duct has a flow area (Fig. 2, 109) in a range from 1 m2 to 2 m2 and has a spacing of the first side wall and the second side wall (The distance between the first side wall and the second side wall shown in Annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1.) in a range from 1 m to 2 m.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the duct flow area to meet the flow requirements of the system by changing the spacing of the first side wall and the second side wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions (changing the spacing of the spacing of the horizontally opposite side walls) to produce a predictable solution (the duct being able to handle the flow capability of the system), with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kellogg in view of Kim.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the duct flow area and spacing of the first side wall and the second side wall this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Kellogg further discloses wherein the spray mist nozzle comprises a first spray mist nozzle (Annotated Fig. 2 of claim 18) and a second spray mist nozzle (Annotated Fig. 2 of claim 18), and wherein the first spray mist nozzle is installed in the duct (Fig. 2) with a spacing (Annotated Fig. 2 of claim 18) from the second spray mist nozzle in the direction of the extracted air flow.
Kellogg in view of Kim does not teach the spacing in a range from 9 m to 11 m in the direction of the extracted air flow.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the spacing between first spray mist nozzle and second spray mist nozzle since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the relative dimensions between the first spray mist nozzle and the second spray mist nozzle.. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions (changing the distance between the duct spray mist nozzles) to produce a predictable solution (spray fluid out of the nozzle), with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kellogg in view of Kim.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the spacing between first spray mist nozzle and second spray mist nozzle in a range from 9 m to 11 m, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0031). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 19.
Kellogg further discloses the spray mist nozzle and the second spray mist nozzle (The spray mist nozzle comprises the second spray mist nozzle as recited in claim 19.) are fluidically connected to an extinguishing fluid supply (Fig. 2 shows a water supply/extinguishing fluid supply (16) connected to the spray mist nozzle and the second spray mist nozzle via conduit (28).).
Regarding claim 21, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 9.
Kellogg further discloses wherein the duct has an elbow (Fig. 1, 114), and wherein the spray mist nozzle is installed downstream and/or upstream of the elbow (Fig. 2 shows the spray mist nozzle installed upstream of the elbow).
Kellogg in view of Kim does not teach wherein the spray mist nozzle has a spacing in a range of 6 m or less from the elbow.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice place the spray mist nozzle at a spacing in a range of 6 m or less from the elbow, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the relative dimensions between the duct spray mist nozzles. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Additionally, to get a specific range from the spray mist nozzle to the elbow 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions (changing the distance of duct spray mist nozzle with regards to the from the elbow) to produce a predictable solution (spray fluid out of the nozzle), with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kellogg in view of Kim.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the spray mist nozzle has a spacing in a range of 6 m or less from the elbow, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0033, ). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 23, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 9.
Kim further teaches wherein the spray mist nozzles are in the form of an open extinguishing nozzle (Fig. 3 shows the spray mist nozzle in the form of an open extinguishing nozzle).
Regarding claim 25, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 9.
Kim further teaches the spray mist nozzle comprises an operating pressure (Col. 6: Ln. 18-20; The pressure acting on the spray mist nozzle as described in the 112(b) above.).
Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the claimed invention except for the operating pressure in a range from 50 bar to 65 bar. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the operating pressure in a range from 50 bar to 65 bar, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the operating pressure in a range from 50 bar to 65 bar, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0032). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2-5, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras (WO 2018006000)
Regarding claim 2, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system as claimed in claim 1.
Kellogg further discloses a hood (Fig. 2, 104), arranged on the inlet side of the duct (Fig. 2, 106) and assigned to the cooking area (Fig. 2, 101), for receiving cooking fumes from the cooking area, wherein the inlet side of the duct is fluidically connected to the hood (Ab. –“ a cooking range exhaust having a hood, a backsplash, and a flue for exhausting cooking effluent”), wherein a hood spray mist nozzle (Annotated Fig. 2) is installed in the hood.
Jutras further teaches a prior art comparable hood spray mist nozzle (Fig. 1-3, 10), said hood spray mist nozzle having the plurality of separate angularly-oriented spray mist outlets (Fig. 2B, {12a, 12c, 12d}) which each have a K-factor (Each spray mist outlet inherently has a K-factor because the K-factor is a constant that relates the flow rate of water through the nozzle to the pressure at the nozzle and the outlet is a type nozzle.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (hood spray mist nozzle) with a known function (discharge a mist or spray; Para. 0002), taught by Jutras, by performing a simple substitution with another element (hood spray mist nozzle) disclosed by Kellogg yielding the predictable result, namely generating and discharging a mist or spray having a droplet size for providing total flooding for wetting or cooling to indirectly impinge or address a fire or other potential combustible source. (Jutras – Para. 0002).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image4.png
546
696
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras teaches the system as claimed in claim 2.
Kellogg further discloses wherein the hood has two opposite side walls (Annotated Fig. 4), and the hood spray mist nozzle is designed to emit spray mist in the direction of the opposite side wall (Fig. 4).
Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the hood spray mist nozzle is installed on one of the two opposite side walls, and the courts have held that rearrangement of parts, such as moving the hood spray mist nozzle along with conduit 26 on one of the side walls, requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the hood spray mist nozzle is installed on one of the two opposite side walls (Para. 0013), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image5.png
656
567
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras teaches the system as claimed in claim 2.
Jutras further discloses wherein the spray mist outlets of the hood spray mist nozzle are oriented in a plane (Fig. 3A shows a cross section view about a plane where the hood spray mist nozzles are oriented.).
Regarding claim 5, Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras teaches the system as claimed in claim 3.
Kellogg further discloses wherein the hood spray mist nozzle is oriented perpendicularly to the opposite side wall (Fig. 4).
Jutras further teaches two second spray mist outlets (Fig. 2B, {12a & 12c)), which are each oriented at a predetermined angle (Annotated Fig. 3A) to a first spray mist outlet (Fig. 2B, 12d).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image6.png
773
1025
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system as claimed in claim 11.
Kellogg in view of Kim does not teach wherein the spray mist nozzle has a first spray mist outlet, which is oriented perpendicularly to the second side wall, and a second spray mist outlet and a third spray mist outlet, which are each oriented at a predetermined angle to the first spray mist outlet, wherein the second spray mist outlet is directed counter to the direction of the extracted air flow and the third spray mist outlet is directed in the direction of the extracted air flow.
However, Jutras teaches a prior art comparable spray mist nozzle (Fig. 2-3, 10) having a first spray mist outlet (Fig. 2B, 12d), and a second spray mist outlet (Fig. 2B, 12a) and a third spray mist outlet (Fig. 2B, 12c), which are each oriented at a predetermined angle (Annotated Fig. 3A of claim 5) to the first spray mist outlet.
Therefore, modifying the spray mist nozzle of Kim by incorporating the teaching of the spray mist nozzle having a first spray mist outlet, a second spray mist outlet, and a third spray mist outlet, which are each oriented at a predetermined angle taught by Jutras by adding a first spray mist nozzle into the spray mist nozzle of Kim was made obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with the motivation of increasing the coverage area of the spray mist nozzle, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely to suppress a fire, and yielding the predictable result of discharging fluid through each of the spray mist outlets.
Furthermore the teachings of Jutras incorporated into system of Kellogg in view of Kim the first spray mist outlet (Jutras: Fig. 2B, 12d), which is oriented perpendicularly to the second side wall (Kellogg shows a spray mist outlet {30 attached to 24B} perpendicular to the second side wall in Fig. 2, which when incorporated with the teachings of Kim the first spray mist outlet {12d as shown in Fig. 2B} is also be perpendicular to the side wall), wherein the second spray mist outlet is directed counter to the direction of the extracted air flow and the third spray mist outlet is directed in the direction of the extracted air flow (Kellogg shows a spray mist outlet {30 attached to 24B} perpendicular to the second side wall in Fig. 2, which when incorporated with the teachings of Kim the second spray mist outlet (Fig. 2B, 12a) is directed counter to the direction of the extracted air flow and the third spray mist outlet is directed in the direction of the extracted air flow.).
Regarding claim 14, Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras teaches the system as claimed in claim 13.
Kim further teaches wherein a K-factor (Each spray mist outlet inherently has a K-factor because the K-factor is a constant that relates the flow rate of water through the nozzle to the pressure at the nozzle and the outlet is a type nozzle.) of the second spray mist outlet and the third spray mist outlet of the spray mist nozzle are each identical (Col. 5: Ln. 9-18 describes item the second spray mist outlet and the third spray mist outlet housing the same nozzle insert, which can also be seen in Fig. 2-3, and thus the K-factor of the second spray mist outlet and the third spray mist outlet are also identical.).
Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the first spray mist outlet and the third spray mist outlet have a K-factor that lies in a range from 0.3 to 0.5, However it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the K-factor by changing the diameter of the spray mist outlet, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, to get a specific value of a K-factor 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since there is only a finite number of solutions (fluid pressure and geometry, such as the diameter of the spray mist outlet, shape leading to the spray mist outlet, and shape discharging from the spray mist outlet) to produce a predictable solution (adjust, modify or determine the K-factor), with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice (Para. 0024). Absent a teaching as to criticality of the first spray mist outlet and the third spray mist outlet have a K-factor that lies in a range from 0.3 to 0.5 this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras teaches the system as claimed in claim 2.
Kellogg further discloses disclose wherein the hood has an inlet cross-sectional area (Fig. 4, opening of the hood (104) facing 101) and a spacing of two opposite side walls (Annotated Fig. 4 of claim 3).
Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras does not disclose wherein the hood has an inlet cross-sectional area in a range from 3m2 to 5m2 and a spacing of two opposite side walls in a range from 2m to 4m.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the hood inlet cross-sectional area to meet the flow requirements of the system and to change the distance between the opposite side cover the required cooking area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions (changing the lengths of edges associated with inlet, and changing the distance of the two opposite side walls) to produce a predictable solution (the hood covering the cooking area and the inlet of the hood being sized to extract cooking fumes), with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kellogg in view of Kim.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality the hood has an inlet cross-sectional area in a range from 3 m2 to 5 m2 and a spacing of two opposite side walls in a range from 2 m to 4 m (Para. 0028 & 0056), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras teaches the system as claimed in claim 2.
Kellogg further teaches wherein the spray mist nozzle comprises a first spray mist nozzle (Annotated Fig. 2) and second spray mist nozzle (Annotated Fig. 2) having a spacing in the direction of the extracted air flow (Annotated Fig. 2).
Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras does not teach the spacing in a range from 1 m to 3 m in the direction of the extracted air flow.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the spacing between first spray mist nozzle and second spray mist nozzle since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the relative dimensions between the first spray mist nozzle and the second spray mist nozzle.. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions (changing the distance between the duct spray mist nozzles) to produce a predictable solution (spray fluid out of the nozzle), with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kellogg in view of Kim.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the spacing between first spray mist nozzle and second spray mist nozzle in a range from 1 m to 3 m, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement (Para. 0030). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image7.png
546
803
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellogg in view of Kim, Jutras and Sundholm (WO 9601666).
Regarding claim 6, Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras teaches the system as claimed in claim 5, but does not disclose wherein the K-factor of the first spray mist outlet is higher than the K-factors of the second spray mist outlets.
However, Sundholm Teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Spray Head”) which is a hood spray mist nozzle (Fig. 1, 1) which has a first spray mist outlet (Fig. 1, 8) and has two second spray mist outlets (Fig. 1, 4), which are each oriented at a predetermined angle to the first spray mist outlet (Annotated Fig 1); and wherein the K-factor of the first spray mist outlet is higher than the K-factors of the second spray mist outlets (The first spray mist nozzle and second spray mist nozzles each inherently have a K-factor each spray mist outlet inherently has a K-factor because the K-factor is a constant that relates the flow rate of water through the nozzle to the pressure at the nozzle and the outlet is a type nozzle. The first spray mist outlet has a higher than the K-factor than the of the second spray mist the first spray mist nozzle produces a powerful liquid fog jet with a relatively large opening and the second spray mist nozzles a fine liquid fog jet with considerably smaller nozzle openings as claimed in claim 1 of Sundholm).
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 incorporate the known technique (the K-factor of the first spray mist outlet is higher than the K-factors of the second spray mist outlets) as taught by Sundholm, into the hood spray mist nozzle taught buy Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras to provide a first spray mist outlet configured to produce a liquid fog jet with great penetration (Pg. 1, Ln. 11-12) and second spray mist outlets configured to flood an entire space with fine liquid fog (Pg. 1, Ln. 19-20), and yielding the predictable result of discharging a fluid out of the first and second spray mist outlets.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image8.png
786
676
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kellogg in view of Kim, Jutras and Sundholm teaches the system as claimed in claim 6, but does not teach wherein the K-factor of the first spray mist outlet of the hood spray mist nozzle lies in a range from 0.6 to 0.9.
However, a spray mist outlet inherently has a K-factor because the K-factor is a constant that relates the flow rate of water through the nozzle to the pressure at the nozzle and the outlet is a type nozzle, and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the K-factor by changing the diameter of the spray mist outlet, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, to get a specific value of a K-factor 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since there is only a finite number of solutions (fluid pressure and geometry, such as the diameter of the spray mist outlet, shape leading to the spray mist outlet, and shape discharging from the spray mist outlet) to produce a predictable solution (adjust, modify or determine the K-factor), with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kellogg in view of Kim and Sundholm.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice (Para. 0016). Absent a teaching as to criticality of the first spray mist outlet of the hood spray mist nozzle lies in a range from 0.6 to 0.9 this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Kellogg in view of Kim, Jutras and Sundholm teaches the system as claimed in claim 6, but does not teach wherein the K-factor of the first spray mist outlet is three to four times as high as the K- factor of the second spray mist outlets of the hood spray mist nozzle, and wherein the K- factor of the second spray mist outlets of the hood spray mist nozzle lies in a range from 0.15 to 0.25.
However, a spray mist outlet inherently has a K-factor because the K-factor is a constant that relates the flow rate of water through the nozzle to the pressure at the nozzle and the outlet is a type nozzle, and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the K-factor by changing the diameter of the first and second spray mist outlets, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, to get a specific value of a K-factor 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since there is only a finite number of solutions (fluid pressure and geometry, such as the diameter of the spray mist outlet, shape leading to the spray mist outlet, and shape discharging from the spray mist outlet) to produce a predictable solution (adjust, modify or determine the K-factor), with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kellogg in view of Kim, Jutras and Sundholm.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice (Para. 0016). Absent a teaching as to criticality of the K-factors of the second spray mist outlets of the hood spray mist nozzle lies in a range from 0.15 to 0.25 this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Kellogg in view of Kim and Jutras teaches the system as claimed in claim 13, but does not teach, wherein a K-factor of the first spray mist outlet of the duct spray mist nozzle is higher than the K-factors of the second spray mist outlet and the third spray mist outlet of the duct spray mist nozzle, and the sum of the K-factors lies in a range from 0.9 to 1.5.
However, Sundholm Teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “Spray Head”) which is a duct spray mist nozzle (Fig. 1, 1) wherein a K-factor of the first spray mist outlet (Fig. 1, 8) of the duct spray mist nozzle is higher than the K-factors of a second spray mist outlet (Annotated Fig. 1) and a third spray mist outlet (Annotated Fig. 1) of the duct spray mist nozzle (The first spray mist nozzle, second spray mist nozzle, and third spray mist nozzle each inherently have a K-factor each spray mist outlet inherently has a K-factor because the K-factor is a constant that relates the flow rate of water through the nozzle to the pressure at the nozzle and the outlet is a type nozzle. The first spray mist outlet has a higher than the K-factor than the of the second spray mist outlet and the third spray mist outlet because first spray mist nozzle produces a powerful liquid fog jet with a relatively large opening and the second spray mist nozzle and third spray mist nozzle produce a fine liquid fog jet with considerably smaller nozzle openings as claimed in claim 1.).
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 incorporate the known technique (the K-factor of the first spray mist outlet is higher than the K-factors of the second spray mist outlet and the third spray mist outlet) as taught by Sundholm, into the system taught by Kellogg in view of Kim to provide a first spray mist outlet configure to produce liquid fog jet with great penetration (Pg. 1, Ln. 11-12) and second spray mist outlet and third spray mist outlet configured to flood an entire space with fine liquid fog (Pg. 1, Ln. 19-20) yielding the predictable result of discharging a fluid out of the first and second spray mist outlets.
Kellogg in view of Kim and Sundholm teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the sum of the K-factors lies in a range from 0.9 to 1.5, However it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the K-factor by changing the diameter of the spray mist outlet, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, to get a specific value of a K-factor 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since there is only a finite number of solutions (fluid pressure and geometry, such as the diameter of the spray mist outlet, shape leading to the spray mist outlet, and shape discharging from the spray mist outlet) to produce a predictable solution (adjust, modify or determine the K-factor), with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Kellogg in view of Kim, Jutras and Sundholm.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice (Para. 0025). Absent a teaching as to criticality of the sum of the K-factors lies in a range from 0.9 to 1.5 this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image9.png
670
718
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Kellogg in view of Kim and Perkins (US 5,794,853)
Regarding claim 12, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system as claimed in claim 11.
Kellogg further discloses in wherein the spray mist nozzle is mounted on the duct from outside the duct through a mounting opening in the first side wall (Fig. 2).
Kellogg in view of Kim does not teach wherein the duct has a first optical indicator on an outer side of the first side wall, on which the spray mist nozzle is mounted, and wherein the spray mist nozzle has a corresponding second optical indicator, wherein the first optical indicator is positioned in such a way relative to the mounting opening that the first optical indicator and second optical indicator when they are aligned with one another, bring about a correct orientation of the plane of the spray mist outlets relative to the direction of the duct.
However, Perkins teaches a spray mist nozzle (Fig. 2, 10), which is a prior art comparable device, mounted through a mounting opening (Fig. 2, 42) in a first side wall (Fig. 2, 40), and a first optical indicator (Col. 8: Ln. 47-67; The second optical indicator (28) correlates to the top of the sprinkler head and an installer would recognize a top of a side wall in which the installer can orient the nozzle relative to and therefore a first optical indicator.) on an outer side of the first side wall, on which the duct spray mist nozzle is mounted (Fig. 2), and wherein the spray mist nozzle has a corresponding second positioning element including a second optical indicator (Fig. 2, 28), wherein the first optical indicator is positioned in such a way relative to the mounting opening that the first optical indicator and second optical indicator when they are aligned with one another, bring about a correct orientation (Col. 5: Ln. 48-51; Orienting the first optical indicator with the second optical indicator can bring about a correct orientation.).
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 incorporate the known technique (a first optical indicator and a corresponding second optical indicator to bring about a correct orientation of the spray mist nozzle) as taught by Perkins, into the system taught by Kellogg in view of Kim to eliminate the need for a second installers (Col. 5: Ln. 45-53) and yielding the predictable result of bringing about a correct orientation of the plane of the spray mist outlets relative to the direction of the duct for a correct installation of the spray mist nozzle.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Kellogg in view of Kim, Jutras, and Johnsen (US 10,016,642)
Regarding claim 22, Kellogg in view of Kim, and Jutras teaches the system as claimed in claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the spray mist nozzle is formed partially or entirely from stainless steel.
However, Johnsen teaches that nozzles are typically made of stainless steel (Col. 1: Ln. 31-32 – “The known nozzle devices are typically made of stainless steel”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of a nozzle being made or formed from stainless steel, as taught by Johnsen, into the spray mist nozzle taught by Kim, in order to prevent rust on the nozzle which can degrade performance.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the spray mist nozzle partially or entirely from stainless steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Kellogg in view of Kim, Jutras, and Huotari (US 2018/0229060).
Regarding claim 24, Kellogg in view of Kim teaches the system as claimed in claim 2.
Kellogg further discloses a pump system that can be activated to start a feed of extinguishing agent (16) to the spray mist nozzle (Col. 3: Ln. 53-29 – “The pump system 12 can connect the same pump 13 to the degreasing composition source 18 or to the water source 16, such that either degreasing composition or water is propelled by the pump through the fluid delivery system 14. This connection can be, for example, an electronically timed valve or other fluid control system in the pump system”)
Kellogg does not disclose wherein one or more fire characteristic sensors are installed at the hood and/or at the duct, and wherein the firefighting system has a triggering device that is connected to the one or more fire characteristic sensors indirectly or directly in a signal-conducting manner and is designed to start a feed of extinguishing agent as soon as the one or more fire characteristic sensors sense reaching or exceeding of a predetermined fire characteristic threshold or an existence of a fire characteristic.
However, Huotari teaches wherein one or more fire characteristic sensors are installed at the hood and/or at the duct (Para. 46 – “The passage-inlet nozzles 206a, 206b are configured as part of a fire suppression system, which may include other nozzles, dispensers, sensors, etc. As shown in FIGS. 2B and 2C”), and wherein the firefighting system has a triggering device that is connected to the one or more fire characteristic sensors (Para. 58 – “The detection may be made by any number and/or type of sensors. For example, smoke detectors, infrared sensors, and/or other types of detectors and/or sensors may be employed to determine that a fire or excessive temperatures are present in an airflow passage.”) indirectly or directly in a signal-conducting manner and is designed to start a feed of extinguishing agent (Para. 59 – “When a fire or high temperatures are detected (step 902), a suppression or dispensing system may be activated or actuated.”) to the spray mist nozzle as soon as the one or more fire characteristic sensors sense reaching or exceeding of a predetermined fire characteristic threshold or an existence of a fire characteristic (Para. 58 – “The process begins when a fire or high temperatures are detected within an airflow passage of an airflow system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the one or more fire characteristic sensors installed at the duct and the system to actuate the dispensing system as soon as the one or more fire characteristic sensors sense reaching or exceeding of a predetermined fire characteristic threshold or an existence of a fire characteristic, as taught by Huotari, by installing one or more fire characteristic sensors into the duct disclosed by Kellogg and including system to actuate the dispensing system into the pump system (12) disclosed by Kellogg to allow for fluid to be dispensed to the spray mist nozzle. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention would be motivated to include the one or more fire characteristic sensors installed at the duct and the system to actuate the dispensing system as soon as the one or more fire characteristic sensors sense reaching or exceeding of a predetermined fire characteristic threshold or an existence of a fire characteristic because it would actuate the system in the event of a fire condition to suppress the fire threat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claim rejections under 103 on pages 9-11, the added limitation “the claimed firefighting system having a spray mist nozzle with a nozzle insert that has a central longitudinal passage” was rendered obvious as outlined in the office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 November 18, 2025
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights