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
Amendment filed on 09/17/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 18 and 26 have been cancelled. Claim 25 has been amended. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-15, 17, 21-24, and 27 are as previously presented. Claims 4, 9-10, 16, 19-20 are original. Claim 28 is new. Therefore, claims 1-17, 19-25, and 27-28 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundholm (US 5,810,090).
Regarding claim 11, Sundholm discloses a fire suppression nozzle (Fig. 6-9, 81) for releasing a fire suppression agent (Col. 1: Ln. 34-37 – “Extinguishing Liquid”), comprising:
a first nozzle (Fig. 6-9, 83) configured to release the fire suppression agent (Col. 6: Ln. 44-61) at a first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 8; Ab. – “concentrated fog spray”) for a first time period (Fig. 10, The time period relating to 100; Col. 7: Ln. 19-25); and
a second nozzle (Fig. 6-9, 84) configured to release the fire suppression agent (Col. 6: Ln. 44-61) at a second spray angle (Annotated Fig. 9; Ab. – “spread fog-like liquid spraying”) for a second time period (Fig. 10, The time period relating to 101; Col. 7: Ln. 19-25) following the first time period (Fig. 10), the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 8 and Annotated Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
734
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Sundholm discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11 and further discloses the system comprising a mechanism (Fig. 8, 89, 91, 92), the mechanism configured to change spray of the fire suppression agent from the first nozzle at the first spray angle to the second nozzle at the second spray angle (Col. 6: Ln. 44-61).
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 1-10, 17, 19-25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatsonides (US2017/0014655) in view of Obach (NPL – “Effects of Different Suppression Tactics on the Firefighter and Compartment Environment”) and Sundholm.
Regarding claim 1, Gatsonides discloses a fire suppression system (Ti. – “Fire Suppression Control System”), comprising:
an agent tank (Fig. 1a & 1b) configured to store a quantity of a fire suppression agent (Para. 0034);
at least one nozzle (Fig. 1, 7) configured to release at least a portion of the quantity of the fire suppression agent (Para. 0037);
a conduit coupling (Fig. 1, {3a, 3b, & 5}) the agent tank to the at least one nozzle to direct the fire suppression agent from the agent tank to the at least one nozzle (Fig. 1);
wherein the fire suppression agent is released through the at least one nozzle (Para. 0037).
wherein there is a first time period (Fig. 2, The time period at the high rate discharge.) and a second time period (Fig. 2, Time period at the low rate discharge immediately following the high rate discharge).
Gatsonides does not disclose wherein the fire suppression agent is released through the at least one nozzle in a conical pattern having a spray angle defined between two edges of the conical pattern; and wherein the spray angle is a first spray angle for a first time period and a second spray angle for a second time period following the first time period, the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle.
However, Obach teaches a conical pattern having a spray angle defined between two edges of the conical pattern (Pg. 326 – “straight stream, narrow fog, and wide fog, with measured average cone angles of 0°, 16.6°, and 110.0°, respectively”; Fig. 3).
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 the definition of the spray angle taught by Obach and because the definition of a spray angle for a conical pattern is a well-known definition in the art, and the spray angle definition as taught by Obach can be achieved through the structure of Gatsonides (Gatsonides: Fig. 1, 7; Para. 0037 – “distribution of the fire suppression agent”) with a reasonable expectation of success of a measured spray angle of a conical pattern as such as shown Fig. 3 of Obach.
Gatsonides in view Obach does not teach, wherein the spray angle is a first spray angle for a first time period and a second spray angle for a second time period following the first time period, the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle.
However, Sundholm teaches a prior art comparable device (Col. 2: Ln. 24-25 – “Firefighting Installation”) wherein at least one nozzle (Fig. 6-9, 81) is configured to spray fire suppressant agent (Col. 1: Ln. 34-37 – “Extinguishing Liquid”) the spray angle is a first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 8 (Claim 11); Ab. – “concentrated fog spray”) and a second spray angle (Annotated Fig. 9 (Claim 11)); Ab. – “spread fog-like liquid spraying”), the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 8 (Claim 11) and Annotated Fig 9 (Claim 11)).
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 (at least one nozzle configured to spray fire suppressant agent wherein a spray angle is a first spray angle and a second spray angle, the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle.) as taught by Sundholm, into the system disclosed by Gatsonides in view of Obach to provide the first spray angle to suppress fire broken out and the second spray angle to effect effective heat absorption (Col. 1: Ln. 34-42) and yielding the predictable result of a first and second spray angle.
Regarding claim 2, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one nozzle is a distance of 6-48 inches from a hazard area.
However, the “hazard area” is considered to be an area of an “article worked upon” by the claimed apparatus. "Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). MPEP § 2115. The nozzle of Saito’s fire suppression system is capable of being positioned a distance of 6-48 inches from a hazard area.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1 and the method of claim 17.
Sundholm further teaches wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a pair of nozzles (Fig. 6-9, 83 & 84).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the fire suppression system of claim 3 and the method of claim 19.
Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm further teaches wherein a first nozzle (Sundholm : Fig. 6-9, 83) of the pair of nozzles is configured to release the fire suppression agent at the first spray angle (Sundholm: Col. 7: Ln. 5-10; Fig. 8) and for the first time period (Para. 0042-0044 of Gatsonides discloses that the quantity of fire suppression agent for the first time period (high rate discharge) regulated by a discharge pressure regulator which must be at a higher pressure than the low rate discharge to have a higher mass flow rate as shown in Fig. 2 which corresponds to the first spray angle of Sundholm.), and a second nozzle (Sundholm: Fig. 6-9, 84) of the pair of nozzles is configured to release the fire suppression agent at the second spray angle (Sundholm: Col. 7: Ln. 5-10; Fig. 9) and for the second time period. (Para. 0042-0044 of Gatsonides discloses that the quantity of fire suppression agent for the second time period (low rate discharge) is reduced by regulating the pressure to a lower value which would corresponds to the second spray angle of Sundholm.)
Regarding claim 5 and 21, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1 and the method of claim 17, but does not disclose wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees.
However, 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 wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the or optimum value 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 wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification (Para. 0042) 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 claims 6 and 22, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1 and the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees.
However, 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 wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the or optimum value 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 wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification (Para. 0042) 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 7 and 23, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1 and the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the first time period is 7 seconds.
However, 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 wherein the first time period is 7 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the or optimum value 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 wherein the first time period is 7 seconds, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification (Para. 0045, 0051) 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, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1.
Sundholm further teaches wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a mechanism (Fig. 8, {89, 91 & 92}) configured to change the spray angle of the fire suppression agent from the first spray angle to the second spray angle during activation of the fire suppression system (Col. 6: Ln. 44-61).
Regarding claims 9, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1.
Gatsonides further discloses the system comprising a valve (Fig. 1, 4) located within the conduit and configured to change a pressure of the fire suppression agent within the conduit (Para. 0044).
Regarding claims 10, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the fire suppression system of claim 9.
Sundholm further teaches wherein the change in the pressure of the fire suppression agent within the fire suppression system facilitates change of a release angle of fire suppression agent from the first spray angle to the second spray angle (Col. 7: Ln. 5-10; Col. 6: Ln. 32-61).
Regarding claim 17, Gatsonides discloses a method for suppressing a fire (Para. 0022 – “a method of controlling a fire suppression system… discharging fire suppression agent from one or more fire suppression agent bottles, through the unlocked, open directional valve and into the endangered enclosure”;), comprising:
providing a fire suppression system (Fig. 1, All Structural Elements; The fire suppression system must be provided to perform the method of suppressing a fire. {MPEP 2112.02-I}) including at least one nozzle (Fig. 1, 7) within a hazard area (A “hazard area” is considered to be an area of an “article worked upon” by the claimed apparatus. "Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). MPEP § 2115.);
activating the fire suppression system (Para. 0039-0040 – “activate the manual control”) in response to detecting a potential fire within the hazard area (Para. 0039-0040 – “fire hazard alarm”);
releasing a fire suppression agent (Para. 0034) toward the hazard area (Para. 0039-0040 – “the unlocked directional valve 6a will then be opened”) through the at least one nozzle (Para. 0037) for a first time period (Fig. 2, The time period at the high rate discharge.); and
releasing the fire suppression agent (Para. 0034) toward the hazard area (Para. 0039-0040 – “the unlocked directional valve 6a will then be opened”) through the at least one nozzle (Para. 0037) for a second time period following the first time period. (Fig. 2, Time period at the low rate discharge following the high rate discharge.)
However, Gatsonides does not disclose through the at least one nozzle at a spray angle defined by an angle between outermost edges of the fire suppression agent when released through the at least one nozzle, wherein the spray angle is a first spray angle for a first time period, and at a second spray angle for a second time period following the first time period, the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle.
However, Obach teaches a spray angle defined by an angle between outermost edges of the fire suppression agent (Pg. 326 – “straight stream, narrow fog, and wide fog, with measured average cone angles of 0°, 16.6°, and 110.0°, respectively”; Fig. 3).
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 the definition of the spray angle taught by Obach and because the definition of a spray angle is a well-known definition in the art, and the spray angle definition as taught by Obach can be achieved through the structure of Gatsonides (Gatsonides: Fig. 1, 7; Para. 0037 – “distribution of the fire suppression agent”) with a reasonable expectation of success of a measured spray angle as such as shown Fig. 3 of Obach.
Gatsonides in view Obach does not teach, wherein the spray angle is a first spray angle for a first time period, and at a second spray angle for a second time period following the first time period, the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle.
However, Sundholm teaches a prior art comparable device (Col. 2: Ln. 24-25 – “Firefighting Installation”) wherein at least one nozzle (Fig. 6-9, 81) is configured to spray fire suppressant agent (Col. 1: Ln. 34-37 – “Extinguishing Liquid”) the spray angle is a first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 8 (Claim 11); Ab. – “concentrated fog spray”) and a second spray angle (Annotated Fig. 9 (Claim 11)); Ab. – “spread fog-like liquid spraying”), the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 8 (Claim 11) and Annotated Fig 9 (Claim 11)).
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 spray angle is a first spray angle for a first time period, and at a second spray angle for a second time period following the first time period, the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle.) as taught by Sundholm, into the system disclosed by Gatsonides in view of Obach to provide the first spray angle to suppress fire broken out and the second spray angle to effect effective heat absorption (Col. 1: Ln. 34-42) and yielding the predictable result of a first and second spray angle.
Regarding claim 24, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the method of claim 17.
Sundholm further teaches wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a mechanism (Fig. 8, {89, 91 & 92}) configured to change (Col. 6: Ln. 44-61) responsive to expiration of a first time period (Fig. 112 shows a drop in pressure constituting the expiration of a first time period 111), the spray angle of the fire suppression agent from the first spray angle to the second spray angle during activation of the fire suppression system (Col. 7: Ln. 5-10 –“ concentrated fog sprays with strong penetration have at first been sprayed via the nozzles 83, and later, after the operating pressure has fallen, spread fog-like liquid has been sprayed via the nozzles”).
Regarding claim 25, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the method of claim 17.
Gatsonides further discloses wherein the fire suppression system includes a valve (Fig. 1, 4) configured to change a pressure of the fire suppression agent within the fire suppression system (Para. 0044).
Sundholm further teaches wherein the change in the pressure of the fire suppression agent within the fire suppression system causes the change of the spray angle of the fire suppression agent from the first spray angle to the second spray angle (Col. 7: Ln. 5-10; Col. 6: Ln. 32-61).
Regarding claim 28, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the first time period is the same as the second time period.
However, 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 wherein the first time period is the same as the second time period, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value (of the first time period and the second time period) 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 wherein the first time period is the same as the second time period (Para. 0045), 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.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm.
Regarding claim 12, Sundholm discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11 but does not disclose wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees.
However, 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 wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the or optimum value 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 wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification (Para. 0042) 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 13, Sundholm discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees.
However, 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 wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the or optimum value 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 wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification (Para. 0042) 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 14 Sundholm discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11 but does not disclose wherein the first time period is 7 seconds.
However, 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 wherein the first time period is 7 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the or optimum value 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 wherein the first time period is 7 seconds, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification (Para. 0045, 0051) 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, Sundholm discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11 but does not disclose wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees and the second spray angle is 120 degrees.
However, 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 wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees and the second spray angle is 120 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the or optimum value 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 wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees and the second spray angle is 120 degrees, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification (Para. 0042) 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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatsonides in view of Obach, Sundholm, and Curzon (US 4,756,839).
Regarding claim 27, Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches the method of claim 17.
Sundholm further teaches wherein releasing the fire suppression agent at the second angle facilitates continued cooling (Col. 6: Ln. 54-58) of a point of interest (Col. 4: Ln. 37).
Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm does not teach wherein releasing the fire suppression agent at the first angle is carried out to form a crust over the point of interest within the hazard area, and wherein releasing the fire suppression agent at the second angle facilitates continued cooling of the point of interest to maintain the crust to minimize reignition.
However, Curzon teaches a fire suppressant agent (Col. 1: Ln. 12-16 – “Fire extinguisher composition”) forms a crust (Col. 3: Ln. 48-50 – “A thick crust forms”), and minimizes reignition (Col. 1: Ln. 12-16 – “excellent reignition protection”).
Gatsonides in view of Obach and Sundholm teaches a system and method upon which the claimed invention (fire suppressant agent that forms a crust) can be seen as an improvement. 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 fire suppressant agent taught by Curzon into the system and method taught by Gatsonides in view of Obach to protect the surface from flashback (Curzon: Col. 3: Ln. 48-50), which is an improvement, and yield the predictable result of the fire suppression agent at the first angle is carried out to form a crust over a point of interest within the hazard area and wherein releasing the fire suppression agent at the second angle facilitates continued cooling of the point of interest to maintain the crust to minimize reignition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6, filed 09/17/2025, with respect to the drawing objection has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 7-10 the applicant argues that the claimed invention is not anticipated by Sundholm because “the first spray angle,” “the second spray angle”, and “the second spray angle is greater than the first spray angle” are not explicitly disclosed nor are inherent to the invention Sundholm nor does it satisfy the requirements of inherency under 5 U.S.C. § 102 and MPEP § 2112(IV). However, MPEP § 2125 states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) … When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).” The examiner finds that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a first spray nozzle (Fig. 6-9, 83) is configured to release the fire suppression agent at a first spray angle out the outlets of the first spray nozzle shown in Annotated Fig. 8 of claim 11 which is at an angle less than horizontal (Less than 180°), and the second spray nozzle (Fig. 6-9, 84) is configured to release the fire suppression agent at a second spray angle out the outlets of the second spray nozzle shown in Annotated Fig. 9 of claim 11 which is at an angle that is horizontal (180°) and thus the second spray angle is greater than the first spray angle, and thus the positively recited elements, namely “the first spray nozzle” and “the second spray nozzle” which are configured to perform various functions are explicitly disclosed and Inherency is not required. The examiner is NOT relying on specific dimensions but merely what the drawings reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10, 17, and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sundholm fails to teach, disclose, or even suggest "a first spray angle" and a "second spray angle," where "the second spray angle [is] greater than the first spray angle," as claimed.
Firstly with regard to apparatus claims 1-10 and similarly to claim 11 above with respect to MPEP § 2125, the examiner finds that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that at least one spray nozzle (Fig. 6-9, 81, which includes 83 & 84) is configured to release at least a portion of the quantity of the fire suppression agent at a "a first spray angle," as shown in Annotated Fig. 8 of claim 11 which is at an angle less than horizontal (Less than 180°), and a "second spray angle," shown in Annotated Fig. 9 of claim 11 which is at an angle that is horizontal (180°) and thus the second spray angle is greater than the first spray angle, and thus the positively recited elements, namely “the at least one spray nozzle” which is configured to perform various functions namely, “wherein the fire suppression agent is released through the at least one nozzle in a conical pattern having a spray angle defined between two edges of the conical pattern; wherein the spray angle is a first spray angle for a first time period and a second spray angle for a second time period following the first time period, the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle.” The examiner is NOT relying on specific dimensions but merely what the drawings reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Secondly with regards to method claims 17, 19-25, and 27, the device would inherently be able to release the fire suppression agent at the first and second angle because fire suppression agent would be discharged through the openings which as stated above are at "a first spray angle" and a "second spray angle," where "the second spray angle [is] greater than the first spray angle."
The applicant also argues that “Sundholm merely discloses relative pressures but fails to 1) disclose or suggest differences in spray angles, let alone relative changes between spray angles of different nozzles and 2) does not relate pressure to spray angle.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Sundholm recites “after a fire has broken out, the fire fighting equipment is activated and there is a high pressure of e.g. 100 bar at the inlet 85. The high pressure surpasses the spring 89 and presses the valve body 88 apart from the surface 92, while liquid flows past the cone 91 via a split 93 between the base of the cone 91 and the wall of the channel 86. The split 93 is so narrow that the pressure fall in the split becomes great enough to surpass continuously the force of the spring 89, whereby the valve body 88 strikes right down to the bottom of the channel 86 and closes the connection from this to the central nozzle 84, preferably by means of a conical contact sealing like 91, 92; FIG. 8.” (Col. 6: Ln. 32-43) Therefore, figure 8 shows cone 91 seated to prevent flow to the central nozzle 84, which as recited above happens at a high pressure (e.g. 100 bar), which corresponds to the first spray angle. Additionally, Sundholm recites “A continued spraying of liquid through the central nozzle 84, in the position of FIG. 9, is possible, if necessary, by utilizing a conventional water pipe with a pressure of about 7 bar, even after the hydraulic accumulators have been emptied entirely and are possibly being recharged” (Col. 6: Ln. 57-62). Therefore, figure 9 shows cone 91 NOT seated to prevent flow to the central nozzle, which as recited above happens at about 7 bar (a lower pressure), which corresponds to the first spray angle.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-15 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 12 the applicant argues that the cited references, considered alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, or even suggest the combination of elements recited in independent claim 1 (or similar elements of independent claim 17), but the examiner asserts that Claims 11 and 17 are rejected properly as described above and thus the argument is not persuasive.
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 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
January 14, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752