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 Amendment filed December 16th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-18, 20, and 22-26 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first aperture in claim 26, ln. 3, the second aperture in claim 26, ln. 5, and the third aperture in claim 26, ln. 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant asserts that the first aperture, the second aperture, and the third aperture are shown in Fig. 11B, as noted in Remarks, pg. 7. The first aperture, the second aperture, and the third aperture are not shown in Fig. 11B, nor are these features clearly labeled or designated in the drawing. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 5, 7-8, 12, 14, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford (US 20150047860 A1) in view of Simmons (GB 2577987 A) and Bayer (US 20200246647 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rutherford discloses a fire suppression system (300, Figs. 7A-8D) coupled to a grille of a door (interpreting grille as a grating forming a barrier or screen, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 308, 311, fire suppression system 300 is specifically shown and described to attach to an opening 311 of a soffit 308, but the fire suppression system 300 can be attached to another wall member or structure, which can include a door, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B, Paragraphs 0006, 0047-0048), the fire suppression system (300, Figs. 7A-8D) comprising:
a first inner gate (interpreting gate as a door, valve, or other device for controlling the passage especially of a fluid, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 303, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B);
a second inner gate (Interpreting gate as a door, valve, or other device for controlling the passage especially of a fluid, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 325, Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8D) coupled to the first inner gate (303, shown in Figs. 7D, 8A-8B, Paragraphs 0051-0052) to define one or more air channels (304, 330, Figs. 7A-8D); and
a temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) coupled to one or both of the first inner gate or the second inner gate (303, 325, shown in Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8C),
the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) is configured to be in a first state below a predetermined temperature threshold (mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to bias the slidable vent assembly 302 in an open position below the threshold temperature, Paragraph 0053), and a second state above the predetermined temperature threshold (mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to enable the slidable vent plate 325 to slide in a closed position at or above the threshold temperature, Paragraph 0053), and
in the second state, the second inner gate (325, Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8D) is moved relative to the first inner gate (303, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B) to close the one or more air channels (304, 330, mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to enable the slidable vent plate 325 to slide in a closed position at or above the threshold temperature to cover apertures 304 and 330, Figs. 7A-8D, Paragraphs 0053-0054).
However, Rutherford does not disclose the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive button and a thermoplastic pin as claimed. Simmons teaches a fire suppression system (entire structure, Figs. 2-8) comprising a temperature-responsive device (3, Figs. 2-8, Pg. 3, Fifth Paragraph) comprises:
a conductive blocking member (a conductive button is interpreted as a hidden sensitivity that can be manipulated to produce a desired response, and has the quality of transmitting light, heat, sound, or electricity, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 30, 32, blocking member 30 can be moved under compression or tension through springs 32, and blocking member can be formed of steel which is known in the art to be conductive, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 13, Second to Third Paragraphs) secured to the grille (33, shown in Figs. 3-5, 7-8); and
a thermoplastic pin (31a, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 14, Fifth Paragraph) extending into the conductive blocking member (30, 32, shown in Figs. 7-8) and the second inner gate (35, shown in Figs. 3-5).
Rutherford and Simmons are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temperature-responsive device taught in Simmons’ system to Rutherford’s system, to have the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive blocking member secured to the grille and a thermoplastic pin extending into the conductive blocking member and the second inner gate. Doing so provides an improved system to mitigate fire in an area (Simmons, Pg. 2, Fourth Paragraph).
However, Rutherford and Simmons do not explicitly teach the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive button as claimed. Bayer teaches a temperature-responsive device (5, heat sensor 5 responds when a certain temperature is exceeded, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0014, 0025) comprises:
a conductive button (35, cap 35, from the recoil force of the spring 7 and heat sensor 5, forces against the outlet valve 6 and places it in an open position and ensures that it remains open, and places and ensures it is in a closed position when connected to holder 14, cap 35 is also heat-unstable and melts from the heat, so it conducts heat, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0025-0027); and
a pin (21, Fig. 1) extending into the conductive button (35, shown in Fig. 1).
Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temperature-responsive device taught in Bayer’s system to Rutherford’s system, as modified by Simmons, to have the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive button secured to the grille and a thermoplastic pin extending into the conductive button and the second inner gate. Doing so provides a clearer warning for the employee by designing and arranging the pin so that it influences a signaling system (Bayer, Paragraph 0009).
In regards to claim 5, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression system of claim 1 above. Rutherford further discloses the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) further comprises a eutectic alloy fusible link (temperature-responsive device is a mechanical fusible link, Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 7, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression system of claim 1 above. Rutherford further discloses the first inner gate (303, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B) comprises a fixed open frame (303 is a base vent plate, Paragraph 0046), and the second inner gate (325, Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8D) comprises a louver moveably coupled (325 is a slidable vent plate, Paragraph 0049) to the fixed open frame (303, mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to enable the slidable vent plate 325 to slide in a closed position at or above the threshold temperature to cover apertures, shown in Figs. 7D, 8A-8B, Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 8, Rutherford discloses a fire suppression method (Paragraph 0006, Claim 22) for a fire suppression system (300, Figs. 7A-8D) coupled to a grille of a door (308, 311, fire suppression system 300 is specifically shown and described to attach to an opening 311 of a soffit 308, but the fire suppression system 300 can be attached to another wall member or structure, which can include a door, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B, Paragraphs 0006, 0047-0048), the fire suppression system (300, Figs. 7A-8D):
a first inner gate (303, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B);
a second inner gate (325, Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8D) coupled to the first inner gate (303, shown in Figs. 7D, 8A-8B, Paragraphs 0051-0052) to define one or more air channels (304, 330, Figs. 7A-8D) therethrough; and
a temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) coupled to one or both of the first inner gate or the second inner gate (303, 325, shown in Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8C),
the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) is configured to be in a first state below a predetermined temperature threshold (mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to bias the slidable vent assembly 302 in an open position below the threshold temperature, Paragraph 0053), and a second state above the predetermined temperature threshold (mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to enable the slidable vent plate 325 to slide in a closed position at or above the threshold temperature, Paragraph 0053), and
in the second state, the second inner gate (325, Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8D) is moved relative to the first inner gate (303, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B) to close the one or more air channels (304, 330, mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to enable the slidable vent plate 325 to slide in a closed position at or above the threshold temperature to cover apertures 304 and 330, Figs. 7A-8D, Paragraphs 0053-0054),
the fire suppression method (Paragraph 0006, Claim 22) comprising:
maintaining the temperature-responsive device coupled to one or both of the first inner gate or the second inner gate in the first state below the predetermined temperature threshold (Paragraph 0053);
transitioning the temperature-response device to the second state above the predetermined temperature threshold (Paragraph 0054); and
in response to said transitioning, moving the second inner gate relative to the first inner gate to close the one or more air channels defined when the temperature-responsive device is in the first state (self-closing vent assembly 300 is configured to slide between an open position in below the threshold temperature and a closed position at or above the threshold temperature, Paragraphs 0045, 0053-0054).
However, Rutherford does not disclose the temperature-responsive device comprises a button and a thermoplastic pin as claimed. Simmons teaches a fire suppression system (entire structure, Figs. 2-8) comprising a temperature-responsive device (3, Figs. 2-8, Pg. 3, Fifth Paragraph) comprises:
a conductive blocking member (a conductive button is interpreted as a hidden sensitivity that can be manipulated to produce a desired response, and has the quality of transmitting light, heat, sound, or electricity, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 30, 32, blocking member 30 can be moved under compression or tension through springs 32, and blocking member can be formed of steel which is known in the art to be conductive, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 13, Second to Third Paragraphs) secured to the grille (33, shown in Figs. 3-5, 7-8); and
a thermoplastic pin (31a, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 14, Fifth Paragraph) extending into the conductive blocking member (30, 32, shown in Figs. 7-8) and the second inner gate (35, shown in Figs. 3-5).
Rutherford and Simmons are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temperature-responsive device taught in Simmons’ system to Rutherford’s system, to have the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive blocking member secured to the grille and a thermoplastic pin extending into the conductive blocking member and the second inner gate. Doing so provides an improved system to mitigate fire in an area (Simmons, Pg. 2, Fourth Paragraph).
However, Rutherford and Simmons do not explicitly teach the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive button as claimed. Bayer teaches a temperature-responsive device (5, heat sensor 5 responds when a certain temperature is exceeded, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0014, 0025) comprises:
a button (“button”, not explicitly shown, but the pin 21 can drive against a button that switches on a signal device, Paragraph 0009); and
a pin (21, Fig. 1) extending into the button (not explicitly shown, but the pin 21 can drive against a button that switches on a signal device, Paragraph 0009).
Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temperature-responsive device taught in Bayer’s system to Rutherford’s system, as modified by Simmons, to have the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive button secured to the grille and a thermoplastic pin extending into the conductive button and the second inner gate. Doing so provides a clearer warning for the employee by designing and arranging the pin so that it influences a signaling system (Bayer, Paragraph 0009).
With respect to claim 12, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression method of claim 8 above. Rutherford further discloses the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) further comprises a eutectic alloy fusible link (temperature-responsive device is a mechanical fusible link, Paragraph 0053).
With respect to claim 14, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression method of claim 8 above. Rutherford further discloses the first inner gate (303, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B) comprises a fixed open frame (303 is a base vent plate, Paragraph 0046), and the second inner gate (325, Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8D) comprises a louver moveably coupled (325 is a slidable vent plate, Paragraph 0049) to the fixed open frame (303, mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to enable the slidable vent plate 325 to slide in a closed position at or above the threshold temperature to cover apertures, shown in Figs. 7D, 8A-8B, Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 25, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression system of claim 7. Rutherford further discloses the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) further comprises a eutectic alloy fusible link (temperature-responsive device is a mechanical fusible link, Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 26, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression system of claim 1 above. Simmons further teaches the conductive blocking member (30, 32, Figs. 7-8) extends over a portion of an outer surface (external surface of barrier member 33, shown in Fig. 6) of the grille (33, Figs. 3-8), wherein the conductive blocking member (30, 32, Figs. 7-8) further contacts at least a portion of the second inner gate (35, shown in Figs. 3-6), wherein the thermoplastic pin (31a, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 14, Fifth Paragraph) extends into a second aperture (opening of button 30 and 32 where pin 31a passes through, shown in Fig. 7) formed in the conductive button (30, 32, shown in Fig. 7), and wherein the thermoplastic pin (31a, Figs. 3-8, Pg. 14, Fifth Paragraph) further extends into a third aperture (opening of insulation element 35 where pin 31a passes through, shown in Figs. 3-5) formed in the second inner gate (35, shown in Figs. 3-5), and as modified by Bayer in claim 1 above, would result in the conductive button extends over a portion of an outer surface of the grille, wherein the conductive button further contacts at least a portion of the second inner gate, wherein the thermoplastic pin extends into a second aperture formed in the conductive button, and wherein the thermoplastic pin further extends into a third aperture formed in the second inner gate.
However, Rutherford and Simmons do not explicitly teach the conductive button further extends into and through a first aperture formed in the grille. Bayer teaches the conductive button (35, Fig. 1) further extends into and through a first aperture (14, shown in Fig. 1).
Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conductive button taught in Bayer’s system to Rutherford’s system, as modified by Simmons, to have the conductive button further extends into and through a first aperture formed in the grille. Doing so secures the button in the system and allows it to perform its intended functions (Bayer, Paragraphs 0008, 0014, 0026).
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford (US 20150047860 A1) in view of Simmons (GB 201912730 A) and Bayer (US 20200246647 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Bobenhausen (US 20040216900 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression system of claim 1 above. However, Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer do not teach a lavatory. Bobenhausen teaches a fire suppression system (3, Fig. 1) comprising a lavatory (1, 2, enclosure 1 can be an aircraft toilet, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016) includes a door (1A, shown in Fig. 1).
Rutherford, Simmons, Bayer, and Bobenhausen are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the lavatory and door taught in Bobenhausen’s system to Rutherford’s system, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, to have the first suppression system comprising a lavatory includes the door. Doing so prevents the fueling of a fire in an enclosed aircraft toilet by closing the air flow openings to smother the fire (Bobenhausen, Paragraphs 0013-0014).
With respect to claim 4, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression system of claim 1 above. However, Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer do not teach an enclosed space within an internal cabin of a vehicle. Bobenhausen teaches a fire suppression system (3, Fig. 1) comprising a door (1A, Fig. 1) is coupled to an enclosed space (2, shown in Fig. 1) within an internal cabin of a vehicle (1, “aircraft”, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016).
Rutherford, Simmons, Bayer, and Bobenhausen are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the enclosed space, the internal cabin, and the door taught in Bobenhausen’s system to Rutherford’s system, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, to have the door is coupled to an enclosed space within an internal cabin of a vehicle. Doing so prevents the fueling of a fire in an enclosed aircraft toilet by closing the air flow openings to smother the fire (Bobenhausen, Paragraphs 0013-0014).
In regards to claim 10, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression method of claim 8 above. However, Rutherford does not disclose a lavatory. Bobenhausen teaches a fire suppression method (Paragraph 0014, Claim 1) for a fire suppression system (3, Fig. 1) comprising a lavatory (1, 2, enclosure 1 can be an aircraft toilet, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016) includes a door (1A, shown in Fig. 1).
Rutherford, Simmons, Bayer, and Bobenhausen are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the lavatory and door taught in Bobenhausen’s method and system to Rutherford’s method and system, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, to have the first suppression system comprising a lavatory includes the door. Doing so prevents the fueling of a fire in an enclosed aircraft toilet by closing the air flow openings to smother the fire (Bobenhausen, Paragraphs 0013-0014).
Regarding claim 11, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression method of claim 8 above. However, Rutherford does not disclose an enclosed space within an internal cabin of a vehicle. Bobenhausen teaches a fire suppression method (Paragraph 0014, Claim 1) for a fire suppression system (3, Fig. 1) comprising a door (1A, Fig. 1) is coupled to an enclosed space (2, shown in Fig. 1) within an internal cabin of a vehicle (1, “aircraft”, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016).
Rutherford, Simmons, Bayer, and Bobenhausen are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the enclosed space, the internal cabin, and the door taught in Bobenhausen’s method and system to Rutherford’s method and system, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, to have the door is coupled to an enclosed space within an internal cabin of a vehicle. Doing so prevents the fueling of a fire in an enclosed aircraft toilet by closing the air flow openings to smother the fire (Bobenhausen, Paragraphs 0013-0014).
Regarding claim 22, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses fire suppression system of claim 1. Rutherford further discloses the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) is coupled to a top edge of the second inner gate (top edge of slidable vent plate 25, shown in Fig. 8A). However, Rutherford does not disclose the temperature-responsive device is coupled to a fixed portion of the door. Bobenhausen teaches a fire suppression system (3, Fig. 1) comprising the temperature-responsive device (9, Fig. 1) is coupled to a fixed portion of the door (1A, intumescent material 9 is installed on both sides of the openings or apertures 4 placed on the door 1A, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0018).
Rutherford, Simmons, Bayer, and Bobenhausen are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the temperature-responsive device and the door taught in Bobenhausen’s system to Rutherford’s system, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, to have the temperature-responsive device is coupled to a fixed portion of the door and a top edge of the second inner gate. Doing so prevents the fueling of a fire in an enclosed aircraft toilet by closing the air flow openings to smother the fire (Bobenhausen, Paragraphs 0013-0014).
With respect to claim 23, Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, discloses the fire suppression method of claim 8. Rutherford further discloses the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) is coupled to a top edge of the second inner gate (top edge of slidable vent plate 25, shown in Fig. 8A). However, Rutherford does not disclose the temperature-responsive device is coupled to a fixed portion of the door. Bobenhausen teaches a fire suppression method (Paragraph 0014, Claim 1) for a fire suppression system (3, Fig. 1) comprising the temperature-responsive device (9, Fig. 1) is coupled to a fixed portion of the door (1A, intumescent material 9 is installed on both sides of the openings or apertures 4 placed on the door 1A, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0018).
Rutherford, Simmons, Bayer, and Bobenhausen are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the temperature-responsive device and the door taught in Bobenhausen’s method and system to Rutherford’s method and system, as modified by Simmons and Bayer, to have the temperature-responsive device is coupled to a fixed portion of the door and a top edge of the second inner gate. Doing so prevents the fueling of a fire in an enclosed aircraft toilet by closing the air flow openings to smother the fire (Bobenhausen, Paragraphs 0013-0014).
Claims 15-18, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobenhausen (US 20040216900 A1) in view of Rutherford (US 20150047860 A1), Simmons (GB 201912730 A), and Bayer (US 20200246647 A1).
In regards to claim 15, Bobenhausen discloses a vehicle (“aircraft”, Paragraph 0016) comprising:
an internal cabin (1, Fig. 1);
an enclosed space (2, Fig. 1) within the internal cabin (1, shown in Fig. 1), the enclosed space (2, Fig. 1) including a door (1A, Fig. 1) having a grille (3, 4, 7, 7A, Fig. 1) and a fire suppression system (9, Fig. 1) coupled to the grille (3, 4, 7, 7A, shown in Fig. 1).
However, Bobenhausen does not disclose a fire suppression system comprising a first inner gate, a second inner gate, and a temperature-responsive device. Rutherford teaches a fire suppression system (300, Figs. 7A-8D), comprising:
a first inner gate (303, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B);
a second inner gate (325, Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8D) coupled to the first inner gate (303, shown in Figs. 7D, 8A-8B, Paragraphs 0051-0052) to define one or more air channels (304, 330, Figs. 7A-8D); and
a temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) coupled to one or both of the first inner gate or the second inner gate (303, 325, shown in Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8C),
the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) is configured to be in a first state below a predetermined temperature threshold (mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to bias the slidable vent assembly 302 in an open position below the threshold temperature, Paragraph 0053), and a second state above the predetermined temperature threshold (mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to enable the slidable vent plate 325 to slide in a closed position at or above the threshold temperature, Paragraph 0053), and
in the second state, the second inner gate (325, Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8D) is moved relative to the first inner gate (303, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B) to close the one or more air channels (304, 330, mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to enable the slidable vent plate 325 to slide in a closed position at or above the threshold temperature to cover apertures 304 and 330, Figs. 7A-8D, Paragraphs 0053-0054).
Bobenhausen and Rutherford are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the first inner gate, the second inner gate, and the temperature-responsive device taught in Rutherford’s system to Rutherford’s system, to have a fire suppression system comprising a first inner gate, a second inner gate coupled to the first inner gate to define one or more air channels therethrough, a temperature-responsive device coupled to one or both of the first inner gate or the second inner gate, the temperature-responsive device is configured to be in a first state below a predetermined temperature threshold, and a second state above the predetermined temperature threshold, and in the second state, the second inner gate is moved relative to the first inner gate to close the one or more air channels.. Doing so provides a self-closing vent that provides airflow ventilation during normal conditions, while also preventing fire propagation at a high temperature, to minimize damage to a structure (Rutherford, Paragraph 0003).
However, Bobenhausen and Rutherford do not teach the temperature-responsive device comprises a button and a thermoplastic pin as claimed. Simmons teaches a fire suppression system (entire structure, Figs. 2-8) comprising a temperature-responsive device (3, Figs. 2-8, Pg. 3, Fifth Paragraph) comprises:
a conductive blocking member (a conductive button is interpreted as a hidden sensitivity that can be manipulated to produce a desired response, and has the quality of transmitting light, heat, sound, or electricity, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 30, 32, blocking member 30 can be moved under compression or tension through springs 32, and blocking member can be formed of steel which is known in the art to be conductive, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 13, Second to Third Paragraphs) secured to the grille (33, shown in Figs. 3-5, 7-8); and
a thermoplastic pin (31a, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 14, Fifth Paragraph) extending into the conductive blocking member (30, 32, shown in Figs. 7-8) and the second inner gate (35, shown in Figs. 3-5).
Bobenhausen, Rutherford, and Simmons are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temperature-responsive device taught in Simmons’ system to Bobenhausen’s system, as modified by Rutherford, to have the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive blocking member secured to the grille and a thermoplastic pin extending into the conductive blocking member and the second inner gate. Doing so provides an improved system to mitigate fire in an area (Simmons, Pg. 2, Fourth Paragraph).
However, Bobenhausen, Rutherford, and Simmons do not explicitly teach the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive button as claimed. Bayer teaches a temperature-responsive device (5, heat sensor 5 responds when a certain temperature is exceeded, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0014, 0025) comprises:
a button (“button”, not explicitly shown, but the pin 21 can drive against a button that switches on a signal device, Paragraph 0009); and
a pin (21, Fig. 1) extending into the button (not explicitly shown, but the pin 21 can drive against a button that switches on a signal device, Paragraph 0009).
Bobenhausen, Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temperature-responsive device taught in Bayer’s system to Bobenhausen’s system, as modified by Rutherford and Simmons, to have the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive button secured to the grille and a thermoplastic pin extending into the conductive button and the second inner gate. Doing so provides a clearer warning for the employee by designing and arranging the pin so that it influences a signaling system (Bayer, Paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 16, Bobenhausen, as modified by Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer, discloses the vehicle of claim 15 above. Bobenhausen further discloses the vehicle is an aircraft (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 17, Bobenhausen, as modified by Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer, discloses the vehicle of claim 15 above. Bobenhausen further discloses the enclosed space is a lavatory (enclosure 1 and its internal space 2 can be an aircraft toilet, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0016).
With respect to claim 18, Bobenhausen, as modified by Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer, discloses the vehicle of claim 15 above. Rutherford further teaches the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) further comprises a eutectic alloy fusible link (temperature-responsive device is a mechanical fusible link, Paragraph 0053).
In regards to claim 20, Bobenhausen, as modified by Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer, discloses the vehicle of claim 15 above. Rutherford further discloses the first inner gate (303, Figs. 7D, 8A-8B) comprises a fixed open frame (303 is a base vent plate, Paragraph 0046), and the second inner gate (325, Figs. 7B, 7D, 8A-8D) comprises a louver moveably coupled (325 is a slidable vent plate, Paragraph 0049) to the fixed open frame (303, mechanical fusible link 340 is configured to enable the slidable vent plate 325 to slide in a closed position at or above the threshold temperature to cover apertures, shown in Figs. 7D, 8A-8B, Paragraphs 0051-0052).
In regards to claim 24, Bobenhausen, as modified by Rutherford, Simmons and Bayer, discloses the vehicle of claim 15. Bobenhausen further discloses the temperature-responsive device (9, Fig. 1) is coupled to a fixed portion of the door (1A, intumescent material 9 is installed on both sides of the openings or apertures 4 placed on the door 1A, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0018). Rutherford further teaches the temperature-responsive device (340, Figs. 7A-7B, 8A-8C) is coupled to a top edge of the second inner gate (top edge of slidable vent plate 25, shown in Fig. 8A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer do not teach the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, see Remarks, pg. 7-9, Rutherford, in view of Simmons and Bayer, does disclose these features. Specifically, applicant argues that Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer do not teach “a conductive button secured to the grille; and a thermoplastic pin extending into the conductive button and the second inner gate.” First, it is noted that a conductive button, as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, is a hidden sensitivity that can be manipulated to produce a desired response, and has the quality of transmitting light, heat, sound, or electricity (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Rutherford does not explicitly disclose a conductive button and a thermoplastic pin as claimed. However, Simmons teaches a conductive blocking member (a conductive button is interpreted as a hidden sensitivity that can be manipulated to produce a desired response, and has the quality of transmitting light, heat, sound, or electricity, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 30, 32, blocking member 30 can be moved under compression or tension through springs 32, and blocking member can be formed of steel which is known in the art to be conductive, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 13, Second to Third Paragraphs) secured to the grille (33, shown in Figs. 3-5, 7-8); and
a thermoplastic pin (31a, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 14, Fifth Paragraph) extending into the conductive blocking member (30, 32, shown in Figs. 7-8) and the second inner gate (35, shown in Figs. 3-5).
The conductive blocking member and the thermoplastic pin would be combined to the temperature-responsive device taught in Rutherford, to result in having the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive blocking member secured to the grille and a thermoplastic pin extending into the conductive blocking member and the second inner gate. Simmons provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the conductive blocking member and the thermoplastic pin to Rutherford’s system because doing so provides an improved system to mitigate fire in an area (Simmons, Pg. 2, Fourth Paragraph).
However, Rutherford and Simmons do not explicitly teach the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive button as claimed. Bayer teaches a conductive button (35, cap 35, from the recoil force of the spring 7 and heat sensor 5, forces against the outlet valve 6 and places it in an open position and ensures that it remains open, and places and ensures it is in a closed position when connected to holder 14, cap 35 is also heat-unstable and melts from the heat, so it conducts heat, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0025-0027); and
a pin (21, Fig. 1) extending into the conductive button (35, shown in Fig. 1).
Cap 35 can be manipulated to force the outlet valve 6 and place it in an open position and is also heat-unstable and melts from the heat, so it has the quality of transmitting heat, meeting the definition of a conductive button. The conductive button and the pin would be combined to the temperature-responsive device taught in Rutherford, as modified by Simmons above, to result in having the temperature-responsive device comprises a conductive button secured to the grille and a thermoplastic pin extending into the conductive button and the second inner gate. Bayer provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the conductive button and the thermoplastic pin to Rutherford’s system, as modified by Simmons above, because doing so provides a clearer warning for the employee by designing and arranging the pin so that it influences a signaling system (Bayer, Paragraph 0009).
In response to applicant’s argument that Rutherford, Simmons, and Bayer do not teach the limitations of dependent claim 26, see Remarks, pg. 10, Rutherford, in view of Simmons and Bayer, does disclose these features. Specifically, Simmons further teaches the conductive blocking member (30, 32, Figs. 7-8) extends over a portion of an outer surface (external surface of barrier member 33, shown in Fig. 6) of the grille (33, Figs. 3-8), wherein the conductive blocking member (30, 32, Figs. 7-8) further contacts at least a portion of the second inner gate (35, shown in Figs. 3-6), wherein the thermoplastic pin (31a, Figs. 7-8, Pg. 14, Fifth Paragraph) extends into a second aperture (opening of button 30 and 32 where pin 31a passes through, shown in Fig. 7) formed in the conductive button (30, 32, shown in Fig. 7), and wherein the thermoplastic pin (31a, Figs. 3-8, Pg. 14, Fifth Paragraph) further extends into a third aperture (opening of insulation element 35 where pin 31a passes through, shown in Figs. 3-5) formed in the second inner gate (35, shown in Figs. 3-5), and as modified by Bayer in the rejection of claim 1 above, would result in the conductive button extends over a portion of an outer surface of the grille, wherein the conductive button further contacts at least a portion of the second inner gate, wherein the thermoplastic pin extends into a second aperture formed in the conductive button, and wherein the thermoplastic pin further extends into a third aperture formed in the second inner gate, because doing so provides a clearer warning for the employee by designing and arranging the pin so that it influences a signaling system (Bayer, Paragraph 0009).
In response to applicant’s argument that Rutherford, Simmons, Bayer, and Bobenhausen do not teach the limitations of dependent claims 22-23, see Remarks, pg. 10, Rutherford, in view of Simmons, Bayer, and Bobenhausen, does disclose these features. Specifically, Bobenhausen teaches the temperature-responsive device (9, Fig. 1) is coupled to a fixed portion of the door (1A, intumescent material 9 is installed on both sides of the openings or apertures 4 placed on the door 1A, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0018). The temperature-responsive device being coupled to a fixed portion of the door would be combined to the temperature-responsive device taught in Rutherford, as modified by Simmons and Bayer above, to result in having the temperature-responsive device is coupled to a fixed portion of the door and a top edge of the second inner gate. Bobenhausen provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these features because doing so prevents the fueling of a fire in an enclosed aircraft toilet by closing the air flow openings to smother the fire (Bobenhausen, Paragraphs 0013-0014).
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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 /ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752