DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12, 14-18, and 21-23 are pending in the application. Claims 13 and 19-20 were previously canceled. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 13 February 2026.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 15-16, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryczek et al. (US 2017/0021213) in view of Dahlgren (US 2013/0269784).
Regarding claim 1, Ryczek discloses a receiver (100, see fig. 2A, 2B) for a fire suppression system (par. 24), the receiver comprising:
a receiving portion (114) comprising a bottom (142) and configured to receive and couple with a portion of a cartridge (16) proximate through the bottom (see fig. 1, 2A, 2B);
an activation mechanism (126) configured to selectively fluidly couple the cartridge with the receiver (par. 25, see figs. 2A, 2B); and,
a translatable member (200) extending beyond the bottom of the receiving portion (figs. 2A, 4A) and configured to engage with a portion of the cartridge beyond the bottom and outside of the receiving portion (fig. 4B, 2A) and translate in response to insertion of the portion of the cartridge into the receiving portion (par. 43).
Ryczek does not disclose a switch configured to transition between a first state and a second state in response to translation of the translatable member to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted into the receiving portion.
Dahlgren teaches a receiver (110/144, see fig. 2, 3) for a fire suppression system (par. 2; fig. 1), the receiver comprising:
a receiving portion (144) comprising a bottom and configured to receive and couple with a portion (104) of a cartridge (102, see fig. 4) proximate through the bottom (fig. 4);
an activation mechanism (110) configured to selectively fluidly couple the cartridge with the receiver (par. 32; see annotated figure);
a translatable member (134) configured to translate in response to insertion of the portion of the cartridge into the receiving portion (par. 42); and
a switch (132) configured to transition between a first state and a second state in response to translation of the translatable member to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted into the receiving portion (par. 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiver of Ryczek to further include a switch configured to transition between a first state and a second state in response to translation of the translatable member to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted into the receiving portion, as taught by Dahlgren. This was known to provide a means for providing an indication that the cartridge is properly coupled to the receiver (Dahlgren, par. 34).
Further, it is noted that the entirety of the translatable member (200) of Ryczek is external to the receiving portion (114), as indicated in the drawing below. Additionally, Dahlgren discloses that the switch is engaged by the translatable member (par. 42). Therefore, in making the modification to include the switch of Dahlgren in the receiver of Ryczek one of ordinary skill would arrange the switch such that the translatable member engages the switch externally to the receiving portion when the translatable member is translated.
Regarding claim 2, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the receiver described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the receiving portion comprises an aperture and threads (par. 37; fig. 2A, 2B) and the portion of the cartridge comprises a neck (fig. 4A), wherein the threads of the receiving portion are configured to engage corresponding threads of the neck of the cartridge (par. 37; fig. 2A, 2B).
Regarding claim 3, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the receiver described regarding Claim 1, but not further wherein the translatable member comprises a bracket having slots configured to slidably couple with corresponding protrusions of the receiver. But, Ryczek further discloses a translatable member (200) comprising a bracket (see par. 43) having protrusions (204a) configured to slidably couple with corresponding slots (144) of the receiver (par. 43).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the receiver of Ryczek such that the translatable member comprises a bracket having slots configured to slidably couple with corresponding protrusions of the receiver since this amounts to rearranging the slots from the receiver to the bracket and the protrusions from the bracket to the receiver, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, Ryczek discloses a fire suppression system (10, see fig. 1) comprising: a fire suppressant tank (14) configured to provide fire suppressant agent to a nozzle (12, see par. 23, fig. 1); a cartridge (16) configured to be selectively fluidly coupled with the fire suppressant tank (par. 23); and a receiver (100, see fig. 2A, 2B) configured to fluidly couple the cartridge with the fire suppressant tank (par. 24), the receiver comprising:
a receiving portion (114) configured to receive and couple with a corresponding portion of a cartridge (16, see fig. 1, 2A, 2B); and,
a movable member (200) extending below the receiving portion (figs. 2A, 4A) and configured to translate in response to insertion of the portion of the cartridge into the receiving portion (par. 43).
Ryczek does not disclose a switch configured to transition between a first state and a second state in response to movement of the movable member to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted into the receiving portion.
Dahlgren teaches a fire suppression system (fig. 1) comprising: a fire suppressant tank (172/174) configured to provide fire suppressant agent to a nozzle (par. 32); a cartridge (165) configured to release fluid from the cartridge to the fire suppressant tank (par. 32; fig. 9); a receiver (110/144, see fig. 2, 3) configured to fluidly couple the cartridge with the fire suppressant tank (par. 32), the receiver comprising:
a receiving portion (144) configured to receive and couple with a corresponding portion (104) of the cartridge (102, see fig. 4);
a movable member (134) configured to translate in response to insertion of the portion of the cartridge into the receiving portion (par. 42); and
a switch (132) configured to transition between a first state and a second state in response to movement of the movable member to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted into the receiving portion (par. 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiver of Ryczek to further include a switch configured to transition between a first state and a second state in response to movement of the movable member to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted into the receiving portion, as taught by Dahlgren. This was known to provide a means for providing an indication that the cartridge is properly coupled to the receiver (Dahlgren, par. 34).
Further, it is noted that the entirety of the moveable member (200) of Ryczek is external to the receiving portion (114), as indicated in the drawing below. Additionally, Dahlgren discloses that the switch is engaged by the translatable member (par. 42). Therefore, in making the modification to include the switch of Dahlgren in the receiver of Ryczek one of ordinary skill would arrange the switch such that the moveable member engages the switch externally to the receiving portion when the translatable member is translated.
Regarding claim 6, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 5, and wherein the receiving portion comprises an aperture and threads (par. 37; fig. 2A, 2B) and the portion of the cartridge comprises a neck (fig. 4A), wherein the threads of the receiving portion are configured to engage corresponding threads of the neck of the cartridge (par. 37; fig. 2A, 2B).
Regarding claim 7, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 5, but not further wherein the movable member comprises a bracket having slots configured to slidably couple with corresponding protrusions of the receiver.
Ryczek further discloses a translatable member (200) comprising a bracket (see par. 43) having protrusions (204a) configured to slidably couple with corresponding slots (144) of the receiver (par. 43).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the receiver of Ryczek such that the translatable member comprises a bracket having slots configured to slidably couple with corresponding protrusions of the receiver since this amounts to rearranging the slots from the receiver to the bracket and the protrusions from the bracket to the receiver, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 5, and Dahlgren further teaches comprising a cartridge monitoring system (106), wherein the cartridge monitoring system comprises a controller (par. 49) configured to receive status signals from the switch that indicate whether the switch is in the first state or the second state (par. 43).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the fire suppression system of Ryczek to include a cartridge monitoring system, wherein the cartridge monitoring system comprises a controller configured to receive status signals from the switch that indicate whether the switch is in the first state or the second state, as taught by Dahlgren. This would provide a centralized means for monitoring a plurality of receivers in real-time, as well as recording their statuses and providing notifications regarding any changes to their statuses (Dahlgren, par. 49).
Regarding claim 10, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 5, and Dahlgren further teaches wherein the controller is configured to operate a visual alert device or an aural alert device to provide a visual alert or an aural alert to an operator to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted into the receiver (par. 5; par. 46 – “The display device may be configured to mail or fax reports as determined by a user”).
Regarding claim 11, Ryczek discloses a fire suppression system (10, see fig. 1) comprising:
a cartridge (16) comprising a first portion (fig. 4B – lower half of 16) and a second portion (fig. 4B – 16a, 16b);
a receiver (100, see fig. 2A, 2B) configured to receive the cartridge (par. 24), the receiver comprising a bottom (142) and an outlet tubular member (124);
a translatable member (200) extending beyond the bottom of the receiver (figs. 2A, 4A) and configured to translate in response to engagement with the first portion of the cartridge during insertion of the second portion of the cartridge into the receiver (par. 43), wherein the first portion is outside of the receiver (fig. 2A);
a controller (20);
wherein the cartridge comprises an inner volume and is configured to store at least one of a fire suppressant agent or an expellant gas (par. 23);
wherein the controller is further configured to selectively fluidly couple the inner volume of the cartridge with the outlet tubular member (124, see figs. 2A, 2B, 4A, 4B) of the receiver so that the at least one fire suppressant agent or expellant gas is discharged from the cartridge through the receiver (par. 25 – “an outlet port 124 for preferably connecting and conveying the pressurized gas released from cartridge 16 to a storage tank 14 of firefighting agent”).
Ryczek does not disclose a switch configured to transition between a first state and a second state in response to translation of the translatable member to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted, and wherein the controller is also configured to receive status signals from the switch that indicate whether the switch is in the first state or the second state.
Dahlgren teaches a fire suppression system (fig. 1), the fire suppression system comprising:
a translatable member (134) configured to translate in response to engagement with a first portion (interpreted to be the upper flat portion of 104) of a cartridge (102) during insertion of a second portion (fig. 5 – the threaded portion of 104) of the cartridge into a receiver (144, see par. 42);
a switch (132) configured to transition between a first state and a second state in response to translation of the translatable member to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted (par. 42); and
a controller (106) configured to receive status signals from the switch that indicate whether the switch is in the first state or the second state (par. 43),
wherein the cartridge comprises an inner volume (fig. 4) and is configured to store at least one of a fire suppressant agent or an expellant gas (164, see par. 32), and
wherein the controller is further configured to selectively fluidly couple the inner volume of the cartridge with an outlet tubular member (101) of the receiver so that the at least one fire suppressant agent or expellant gas is discharged from the cartridge through the receiver (par. 3, 32 – “plumbing”; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire suppression system of Ryczek to further include a switch configured to transition between a first state and a second state in response to translation of the translatable member to indicate whether the cartridge is inserted, and wherein the controller is also configured to receive status signals from the switch that indicate whether the switch is in the first state or the second state, as taught by Dahlgren. This was known to provide a means for providing an indication that the cartridge is properly coupled to the receiver (Dahlgren, par. 34).
Further, it is noted that the entirety of the translatable member (200) of Ryczek is external to the receiving portion (100), as indicated in the drawing below. Additionally, Dahlgren discloses that the switch is engaged by the translatable member (par. 42). Therefore, in making the modification to include the switch of Dahlgren in the receiver of Ryczek one of ordinary skill would arrange the switch such that the translatable member engages the switch externally to the receiving portion when the translatable member is translated.
Regarding claim 12, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 11, and wherein the receiver comprises a receiving portion (114), wherein the receiving portion is configured to receive the second portion of the cartridge (par. 43; fig. 2A) and comprises an aperture and threads (par. 37; fig. 2A, 2B), wherein the second portion of the cartridge comprises a neck (fig. 4A), wherein the threads of the receiving portion are configured to engage corresponding threads of the neck of the cartridge (par. 37; fig. 2A, 2B).
Regarding claim 15, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 11, and Dahlgren further teaches wherein the controller is configured to operate a visual alert device or an aural alert device to provide a visual alert of an aural alert to an operator indicate whether the cartridge is inserted into the receiver (par. 5; par. 46 – “The display device may be configured to mail or fax reports as determined by a user”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the fire suppression system of Ryczek to configure the controller to operate a visual alert device or an aural alert device to provide a visual alert of an aural alert to an operator indicate whether the cartridge is inserted into the receiver, as taught by Dahlgren. This would provide a means for providing notifications regarding any changes to the status of the fire suppression system (Dahlgren, par. 49).
Regarding claim 16, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 11, and Dahlgren further teaches wherein the controller is configured to prevent activation of a fire suppression feature of the fire suppression system in response to the status signals from the switch indicating that the cartridge is not inserted into the receiver (par. 39, 40; figs. 4-5 – controller 106 receives signal from switch 132 only when the cylinder is in place and the controller only activates solenoid valve with cylinder is in place).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the fire suppression system of Ryczek to configure the controller to prevent activation of a fire suppression feature of the fire suppression system in response to the status signals from the switch indicating that the cartridge is not inserted into the receiver, as taught by Dahlgren. This would provide a means for preventing use of the system when it is not in operational condition (Dahlgren, par. 49).
Regarding claim 18, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 11, and Dahlgren further teaches wherein the switch actuates in a direction that is parallel with a direction of insertion of the cartridge (fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 21, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 18, and further wherein the translatable member engages, outside of the receiver, with the first portion of the cartridge (figs. 2A, 2B).
Regarding claim 22, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 1, and further wherein the cartridge comprises an inner volume (fig. 2A) and the activation mechanism is further configured to selectively fluidly couple the inner volume of the cartridge with the receiver (par. 24).
Regarding claim 23, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 1, and further wherein the cartridge comprises an inner volume (fig. 2A) and the receiver is further configured to selectively fluidly couple the inner volume of the cartridge with the receiver (par. 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryczek, in view of Dahlgren, and further in view of Ferguson et al. (US 2017/0072235).
Ryczek in view of Dahlgren discloses the fire suppression system described regarding Claim 11, and Dahlgren further teaches wherein the controller is configured to receive a user input from a user device (par. 49) to activate the fire suppression system. But, Ryczek in view of Dahlgren does not disclose that the user input activates the fire suppression system if the status signals indicate that the cartridge is inserted into the receiver; or prevent activation of the fire suppression system if the status signals indicate that the cartridge is not inserted into the receiver.
Ferguson teaches a fire suppression system having a controller (404) configured to receive a user input from a user device (402) to activate the fire suppression system, and; activate the fire suppression system if the status signals indicate that the cartridge is inserted into the receiver (par. 46 – “the input signals may comprise a fire-suppression activation signal”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire suppression system of Ryczek in view of Dahlgren such that the user input activates the fire suppression system if the status signals indicate that the cartridge is inserted into the receiver, as taught by Ferguson, since the would provide a means for a user to override the system and manually cause the fire suppression system to activate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretations of the prior art being used in the new rejections. Therefore, the prior art is interpreted to render obvious each and every limitation of the amended claims, as explained in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights