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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 2-4, 10, 14, 17 are cancelled and pending claims 1, 5-9,11-13,15-16 and 18-25 are addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: “deployment mechanism” with mechanism being the generic placeholder and deployment the functional language without associated structural recitation.
Claim 18: “a release mechanism configured to deliver the fire control agent into the distribution channel from the reservoir in the situation that there is demand for fire control agent” with mechanism being the generic placeholder and release/configured to deliver…the functional language without associated structural recitation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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, 5-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 6415870) in view of Subbarao (US 20200086153).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Matsuoka discloses a system and method for controlling fire in a building, the system comprising;
a distribution channel (20, 22); and
at least one deployment mechanism (12);
wherein the distribution channel comprises at least one riser (vertical run of 22) fitted in
wherein the distribution channel (20, 22) is configured to deliver a fire controlling agent to the at least one deployment mechanism (12), in the case of a fire in the building (col. 8, ln 34-38),
wherein the fire controlling agent is a stored in an external reservoir (62; see fig. 1) connectable to the distribution channel (22) and
wherein the reservoir (62) is fitted or for fitting on a roof of the building (see fig. 1) and is configured to deliver the fire controlling agent to the distribution channel (22).
Matsuoka does not teach at least one exterior wall and external cladding fitted to a building and defining a cavity therebetween, wherein the at least one riser is fitted vertically on the at least one external wall of the said building; and wherein the distribution channel is located or for locating within the cavity between the exterior wall and the external cladding.
However, Subbarao discloses a suppression system having part of water conduit/distribution channel 22 fitted vertically in a cavity defined between exterior wall 10 and cladding 12 (see annotation below) for the purpose of extinguishing fire on the exterior of a building (abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And in another embodiment, Subbarao shows that the distribution channel can be attached externally to both the exterior wall and external cladding.
PNG
media_image2.png
702
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 have modified Matsuoka to incorporate the teachings of Subbarao to provide at least one exterior wall and external cladding fitted to a building and defining a cavity therebetween, wherein the at least one riser is fitted vertically on the at least one external wall of the said building; and wherein the distribution channel is located or for locating within the cavity between the exterior wall and the external cladding. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating delivery of water to extinguish fire on or adjacent an exterior wall of the building, since cladding and insulation material are potential fire risks as suggested in Subbarao in paragraph 2.
(Note 2: all references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the primary reference, unless otherwise stated in each parathesis).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses the system and method of claim 1, but does not teach the at least one deployment mechanism is configured to disperse the fire controlling agent within the cavity.
However, Subbarao further shows in fig. 2 that a nozzle 30 can be included in the cavity to spray between the cladding 12 and exterior wall 10 (par. 15).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 have modified Matsuoka to incorporate the teachings of Subbarao to provide the at least one deployment mechanism is configured to disperse the fire controlling agent within the cavity. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating additional protection coverage for building structure in a fire hazard.
Regarding claims 6-7, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses the system and method of claim 1, but Matsuoka is silent regarding the deployment mechanism is to disperse the fire controlling agent externally to any external cladding (claim 6); and the deployment mechanism is to disperse the fire controlling agent within the cavity and externally to external cladding (claim 7).
However, Subbarao shows in fig. 2 that nozzles can be used to disperse the fire controlling agent externally to any external cladding (claim 6) or within the cavity and externally to external cladding (claim 7). See annotated figure for claim 5 above.
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 have modified Matsuoka to incorporate the teachings of Subbarao to provide the deployment mechanism is to disperse the fire controlling agent externally to any external cladding (claim 6); and the deployment mechanism is to disperse the fire controlling agent within the cavity and externally to external cladding (claim 7). Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating additional protection coverage for building structure in a fire hazard.
Regarding claim 8, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses the at least one deployment mechanism is a sprinkler (col. 6, ln. 23).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses the fire controlling agent is water (col. 6, ln. 23-24).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses the distribution channel is empty of any fire controlling agent (20, 22 can be empty prior to being filled, during installation, or after water supply is depleted from spraying; see MPEP 2114, section II).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses the distribution channel is used to store fire controlling agent (col. 7, ln 14-24).
Regarding claim 13, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses the fire controlling agent is only distributed to the at least one deployment mechanism upon a demand (col. 8, ln 42-46).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses at least one distribution pipe (24) configured to direct the flow of the fire controlling agent (water) from the at least one riser (22) to the at least one deployment mechanism (12).
Regarding claim 16, while Matsuoka does not teach but, Subbarao further shows in fig. 3, a distribution pipe fitted horizontally on the outside of the exterior wall.
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 have modified Matsuoka to incorporate the teachings of Subbarao to a distribution pipe fitted horizontally on the outside of the exterior wall. Doing so would provide agent/water delivery to desired exterior wall coverage for fire suppression.
Regarding claim 18, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses a release mechanism (26) configured to deliver the fire controlling agent into the distribution channel (20, 22) from the reservoir in the situation that there is demand for fire controlling agent (col. 8, ln 21-26).
Regarding claim 19, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses the release mechanism is a release valve (26) linked to the fire detection and alarm system (“fire-detection signal AS”; col. 8, ln 18-23; also fire sensor 40) of the said building; wherein when the fire detection or alarm system sends the appropriate signal the release valve opens, providing a path for the fire controlling agent to enter the distribution channel from the reservoir (col. 8, ln 21-26).
Regarding claim 20, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses at least one deployment valve (valve in sprinkler 12 that can be activated by heat, fig. 5: 74, 76, 78, 88; col. 8, ln 42-43), that when open allows for the fire controlling agent to be distributed by the at least one deployment mechanism (col. 8, ln 18-46).
Regarding claim 21, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses at least one riser valve (26) that when open allows for the fire controlling agent to pass from the reservoir (62) to the at least one riser (22) of the distribution channel (see fig. 1; col. 8, ln 22-26).
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 6415870) in view of Subbarao (US 20200086153), and further in view of Wicks (US 5979565).
Regarding claims 22-24, Matsuoka, as modified above, discloses the system of claim 21 (see above), but fails to teach the at least one deployment valve (valve in sprinkler 12) and at least one riser valve (26) are remotely controlled (claim 22); wherein the fire detection or alarm system remotely controls the valves to distribute agent to local area of the building the fire is within (claim 23); wherein a transmitter remotely controls the valves to distribute agent to local area of the building the fire is within (claim 24).
Wicks discloses a fire suppression system having at least one deployment valve 62 that is remotely controlled and riser valve 70 also shown to be remotely controlled/activated via radio signal 60 from transmitters 64 that includes conventional fire or smoke detectors upon sensing signs of fire to deliver water to the fire (as shown in fig. 3; see column 4, ln 17-31).
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 have modified Matsuoka to incorporate the teachings of Subbarao to provide the at least one deployment valve (valve in sprinkler 12) and at least one riser valve (26) are remotely controlled via wireless transmitters in fire detectors to distribute agent to local area of the building the fire is within. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating earlier activation of fire suppression hidden fire, smaller fire, or ones that are further away from the sprinklers that can be detected via remote fire/smoke detectors placed closer to the ground or fire source (positioning of detectors/transmitters 64 can be seen in figure 3). Additional advantage of wirelessly/remotely control of the valves also include personnel safety, allowing system triggering from a distance for observed fires before heat from the fire can reach the sprinkler actuators.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot since Krayeski reference is no longer part of the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 20050103327) and Al Azemi (US 8534370) both incorporate fire suppression agent storage tank at roof.
Scott (US 5732511) and Su (US 20090121045) are relevant fire suppression systems that run riser pipes and spray suppressant at the exterior wall of the building.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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 on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752