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
The response filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged. The claims have not been amended.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/10/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,029,930 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded, and previous double patenting rejections in final rejection mailed 4/25/2025 have been overcome.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I in the reply filed on 10/28/2024 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 8/28/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 22 and 24-36, which are now cancelled, were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the term “about” in Claims 1 and 20 is being interpreted based on Paragraph 0128 of the Specification which states “As used herein, "about" will be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art and will vary to some extent depending upon the context in which it is used. If there are uses of the term which are not clear to persons of ordinary skill in the art, given the context in which it is used, "about" will mean up to plus or minus 10% of the particular term.”. Therefore, the term “about” in Claims 1 and 20 is being interpreted to mean up to +/-10% of the provided value.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2019/0083833 A1 to Muller et al. (“Muller”) in view of US Patent 5,622,225 A to Sundholm (“Sundholm”) and US Patent 4,298,068 to Bray (“Bray”).
As to Claim 1, Muller discloses a bursting capsule (See Fig. 2, the bursting capsule is made up of #8 and #9) comprising:
a hollow cavity (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0027, the hollow cavity is a volume inside of #8) completely enclosed and delimited by a vessel wall (#8) comprising a frangible material (See Paragraph 0027 disclosing glass);
a rupturing liquid disposed in the hollow cavity (See Paragraph 0029 disclosing thermal actuating liquid); and
an electrically conductive element (#9) disposed on an outside surface of the vessel wall (See Paragraph 0013 disclosing an electrically conductive collar on an outer surface of #8).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the bursting capsule of Muller as applied to Claim 1 above, Muller does not specifically disclose wherein the bursting capsule has a predetermined trigger temperature in a range from 50 °C to 275 °C (See Paragraph 0012 disclosing having a triggering temperature, however specific temperature values are not disclosed).
However, Sundholm discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Col. 1 Lines 4-10), a bursting capsule (See Fig. 1, the bursting capsule is made up of #7 and #8) wherein the bursting capsule has a predetermined trigger temperature of 70 °C (See Col. 2 Lines 35-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Bray as applied to Claim 20 above such that the bursting capsule has a predetermined trigger temperature of 70 °C, as taught by Sundholm since doing so would yield the predictable result of fighting a fire during its initial stage and restricting generation of poisonous smoke gases (See Sundholm Col. 2 Lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm as applied to Claim 1 above, Muller does not disclose the bursting capsule comprising a wax coating on at least a portion of the outside surface and covering the electrically conductive element, wherein the wax of the wax coating is selected from the group consisting of a petroleum wax, a mineral wax, an animal wax, a vegetable wax, and a combination of two or more thereof, wherein the wax coating has a melting point that is at least 2.5 °C below the predetermined trigger temperature of the bursting capsule, and wherein the wax coating has an average thickness of at least about 250 µm (Paragraph 0028 discloses an electrically deposited coating but Muller does not disclose any type of wax coating).
However, Bray discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Col. 1 Lines 4-9) a heat sensitive release device (See Figs. 1-5) wherein a wax coating is applied to a component of the heat sensitive release device (See Col. 3 Lines 64 – Col. 4 Lines 2 disclosing glass spheres #48 being immersed in petroleum jelly or wax), wherein the wax coating is selected from the group consisting of a petroleum wax, a mineral wax, an animal wax, a vegetable wax, and a combination of two or more thereof (See Col. 4 Lines 1-2 disclosing petroleum jelly, wax, or mixtures. Petroleum jelly is at least equivalent to petroleum wax), and wherein the wax coating has a melting point that is below a predetermined trigger temperature of the heat sensitive release device (See Col. 3 Lines 63-68. A specific temperature difference is not disclosed, however 2.5°C is understood to be a measurable temperature difference to one of ordinary skill in the art. Bray discloses wax coating melting below a predetermined trigger temperature, and a temperature difference that is less than 2.5°C would be too close to discern between melting points).
Furthermore, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice per In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm as applied to Claim 1 above such that the bursting capsule further comprises the wax coating that has wax that is the petroleum wax of Bray on at least a portion of the outside surface and covering the electrically conductive element by immersing the vessel #8 of Muller in the petroleum wax of Bray with the petroleum wax having a melting point that is at least 2.5 °C below the predetermined trigger temperature of the bursting capsule of Muller, since doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Bray to yield the predictable result of preventing corrosion of the vessel while also allowing the wax coating to melt before the bursting capsule is triggered (See Bray Col. 3 Lines 64 – Col. 4 Lines 2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray such that the wax coating has an average thickness of at least 250 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is an average thickness of the wax coating which achieves the recognized result of providing sufficient corrosion protection for a component that the wax coating is applied to (See Bray Col. 3 Line 64 – Col. 4 Line 2), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, no criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0012 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates that the thickness of the wax coating “may” be within the claimed range).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray as applied to Claim 1 above, Bray further discloses wherein the wax coating covers the entire outside surface of the vessel wall (See Col. 3 Line 64 - Col. 4 Line 2 of Bray disclosing glass sphere #48 being immersed by petroleum jelly or wax. Muller is modified by Bray by immersing glass vessel #8 of Muller in the wax coating of Bray).
As to Claim 20, in reference to the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray as applied to Claim 1 above, Muller discloses the bursting capsule further comprising a gas bubble disposed in the hollow cavity (See Muller Paragraph 0003 disclosing that typical thermal release elements have actuating liquid and a gas bubble contained in the vessel), wherein:
the frangible material comprises glass (See Muller Paragraph 0027).
Regarding Claim 20, in reference to the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray as applied to Claim 20 above, Muller and Sundholm do not specifically disclose wherein the electrically conductive element has an electrical resistance of no more than about 10 ohms (See Paragraph 0029 of Muller which discloses #9 having electrical resistance, but specific resistance values are not disclosed. See Col. 3 Lines 1-3 of Sundholm disclosing an electrically conductive element having an electrical resistance, however no specific resistance values are disclosed.)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrically conductive element in the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray to have an electrical resistance of no more than about 10 ohms, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is an electrical resistance of the electrically conductive element which achieves the recognized result of providing favorable performance for an applied current (See Sundholm Col. 2 Line 60 – Col. 3 Line 3), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0017 of Applicant’s Specification which indicates that the electrical resistance of the electrically conductive element “may” be within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 20, in reference to the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray as applied to Claim 20 above, Muller does not specifically disclose wherein the bursting capsule has an electrical actuation response time of no more than about 10 seconds (See Paragraph 0012 disclosing having a triggering temperature, however specific response times are not disclosed).
However, Sundholm discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Col. 1 Lines 4-10), a bursting capsule (See Fig. 1, the bursting capsule is made up of #7 and #8) wherein the bursting capsule has an electrical actuation response time of 2 seconds (See Col. 2 Lines 55-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray as applied to Claim 20 above such that the bursting capsule has an electrical actuation response time of 2 seconds, as taught by Sundholm since doing so would yield the predictable result of fighting a fire during its initial stage (See Sundholm Col. 2 Lines 1-3).
As to Claim 21, in reference to the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray as applied to Claim 1 above, Muller further discloses a fire protection sprinkler head (#1) comprising the bursting capsule (See Figs. 1-2 and See Paragraph 0027).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray, applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would have no motivation to modify the bursting capsule of Muller in view of Sundholm to further comprise the wax coating of Bray, because the sprinkler heads of Muller rely on heat generated by a triggering current and the electrical resistance of the conduction path, and wax is not electrically conductive and is an electrical insulator. Applicant argues that the addition of a wax coating to the sprinkler head of Muller would result in insulation of the thermal release element and conductive paths in the sprinkler head, thereby interfering with electrical activation of the sprinkler head. Applicant argues that a slower heat transfer within the mechanisms of the sprinkler head could lead to altered activation timings, thus a person of ordinary skill would have no motivation to modify the bursting capsule of Muller to further comprise the wax coating of Bray because this would affect the electrical conduction and triggering mechanism of the sprinkler head, thereby rendering the sprinkler head of Muller unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
These arguments are not found persuasive. The claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). It is noted that skill, not the converse, is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (In re Sovish, 226 USPQ 771) and a conclusion of obviousness can be made from "common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. (In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)). As to the desirability of the modification, the proper inquiry is “whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination,’ not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While the sprinkler heads of Muller do rely on heat generated by a triggering current and while wax is an electrical insulator, Bray discloses the wax coating melting below a predetermined trigger temperature (See Bray Col. 3 Line 64 – Col. 4 Line 2). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to have #7 of Muller penetrate the wax applied to #8 of Muller to still allow a direct electrical connection between #7 and #9 (See Fig. 2 of Muller) to still enable electrical conductivity, thereby still allowing electrical activation of the sprinkler head when #8 is coated in wax. Though heat transfer may be slowed to some extent by applying wax to #8, electrical activation of the sprinkler head would still be permitted even if activation timings are altered to some extent. One of ordinary skill in the art would still have motivation to modify the bursting capsule of Muller to further comprise the wax coating of Bray because it would provide the benefit of preventing corrosion of the vessel while also allowing the wax coating to melt before the bursting capsule is triggered, while still permitting the sprinkler head to operate satisfactorily to extinguish a fire, even if electrical conduction might be altered to some extent. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 is proper, and Claims 1, 9, and 20-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Sundholm and Bray.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 23, 2026