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 .
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-6, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Griffin et al., U.S. 2019/0168045 (see previously submitted IDS) in view of Phillips, U.S. 2016/0256719 and Cencini et al., U.S. 2019/0296958.
On claim 1, Griffin cites except as underlined:
A global fire suppression system, comprising:
a primary controller (figure 1, controller 103);
a plurality of local fire suppression systems (figure 1, fire suppression systems 101a through x) each comprising:
a secondary controller coupled to the primary controller
(controller 103 coupled to communications interface 109 which is coupled back to remote device 145);
at least one detection device coupled to the secondary controller
(fire sensors and integrity circuit 129);
at least one release device coupled to the secondary controller
([0051] The second electric solenoid valve controls the flow of a fire suppression solution to at least one sprinkler head disposed in an exhaust hood in the kitchen and is operative to spray the fire suppression solution into the exhaust hood in response to a fire being detected in the kitchen);
wherein the secondary controller of a first of the plurality of local fire suppression systems is configured to:
determine that at least one local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems has become isolated from the primary controller based on a determination that a transmission from the primary controller is disrupted; and
act as the primary controller responsive to the determination that the at least one local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems has become isolated from the primary controller, the secondary controller of the first of the plurality of local fire suppression systems being configured to operate one or more components of the at least one local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems when acting as the primary controller;
Regarding the excepted above claim limitations, Griffin cites:
[0037] In FIG. 1, the communication interface 109 is configured to communicate with one or more remote devices 145, one or more servers 143, or the like via a network 141 (e.g., Internet). The communication interface 109 may be configured to include a receiver and a transmitter used to communicate with one or more other nodes over a communication network according to one or more communication protocols known in the art or that may be developed, such as Ethernet, TCP/IP, SONET, ATM, or the like. Further, the communication interface 109 may implement receiver and transmitter functionality appropriate to the communication network links (e.g., wireless, optical, electrical, or the like). The transmitter and receiver functions may share circuit components, software or firmware, or alternatively may be implemented separately. Network 141 may encompass wired and wireless communication networks such as a local-area network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), a computer network, a wireless network, a telecommunications network, another like network or any combination thereof. For example, the network 141 may be a Wi-Fi network. In another example, the network 141 may be a cellular network. The one or more remote devices 145 may communicate with the fire suppression system 101a via the communication interface 109 to configure, monitor, and/or control the fire suppression system 101a, including the fire monitor circuit 104 and/or the pollution control circuit 105. In addition, when multiple fire suppression systems 101a,b are communicatively linked via their component interfaces 111a,b, the one or more remote devices 145 can communicate with these multiple fire suppression systems 101a,b via the communication interface 109. Accordingly, all of the fire suppression systems 101a,b may be configured, monitored, and/or controlled using the one or more remote devices 145 via the communication interface 109 of the fire suppression system 101a.
Griffin doesn’t disclose the excepted claim limitations. In the same art of fire suppression, Phillips cites:
[0085] Sensor assembly 302 may further include a thermal switch 344 and a wire 346. The thermal switch may be configured to close at a predetermined second temperature greater than the first temperature. The wire 346 may extend from the flow control assembly 306 to the temperature-sensitive release mechanism 308 and to the thermal switch 344. Wire 346 may be configured to carry current when the thermal switch is closed and to activate the temperature-sensitive release mechanism in the event that the temperature-sensitive release mechanism fails to release the interlock pin 320 at the first predetermined temperature. That is, the temperature sensitive switch may serve as a fail-safe or backup system to the temperature-sensitive release mechanism. This backup system may only activate if the primary system of the temperature-sensitive release mechanism fails to either register the presence of a fire or properly release the interlock pin if the presence of the fire is registered.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Griffin the backup fire extinguishing control feature disclosed in Phillips such that the claimed invention is realized.
Phillips discloses a known embodiment wherein if a fire suppression’s primary triggering fails, a secondary or backup means takes place. Even though Phillip’s system doesn’t disclose using controllers, the logical operation of how Phillip’s system operates qualifies its embodiment as a form of rudimentary control system. Thus, one of ordinary skill, apprised with Phillip’s backup control function would have incorporated this feature into Griffin’s embodiment and the results of the substitution would have produced a fire suppression system in which if Griffin’s controller 103 “fails to register,” Griffin’s remote devices will act in the stead of the primary controller as failsafes and become enabled when a fire is detected. One of ordinary skill would have substituted one known device for another and based on the principles set forth in Phillips, realize an embodiment employing a primary and secondary controller which would meet the claimed invention.
Regarding the excepted: wherein the secondary controller of the first of the plurality of local fire suppression systems being configured to operate as the primary controller based on a predetermined hierarchy among each secondary controller of each of the plurality of local fire suppression systems.
Griffin, as above, disclosed the use of a controller 103 and remote devices 145, wherein if a controller 103 is out of service, as was inferred when modified by Phillips, an one or remote devices 145 would take the place of controller 103 in case controller 103 doesn’t enable the fire suppression system. However, neither Griffin nor Phillips discloses the feature of assigning hierarchy to the secondary or subordinate controllers.
In the similar art of data center management of rack-controllers, Cencini cites:
[0142] In the illustrated example, the rack controllers are arranged in a hierarchical tree in the topology of the management system 70. In FIG. 7, the differing modifiers of “primary” and “lead” should not be taken to indicate that, at least in some embodiments, the devices have a different architecture. Rather, in some embodiments, each of the devices illustrated in FIG. 7, in some embodiments, may be a (e.g., identical) instance of a peer rack controller, each controlling a rack in the fashion described above. The lead and primary controllers may be simply designated rack controllers that perform additional tasks based on their role. The topology may be determined by the rack controllers themselves, dynamically, by executing the routines described below with reference to FIG. 8, in some cases, without a human assigning the roles and arrangement shown in FIG. 7, and with the topology self-evolving to heal from the failure of devices. In this example, there are three levels to the topology. At the highest level is a primary rack controller 72. At a next lower level, adjacent the primary rack controller, and therefore in direct communication with the primary rack 72 are lead rack controller 74. Three rack controllers 74 are illustrated, but embodiments are consistent with substantially more, for instance on the order of more than 50 or more than 500. At the next level of the hierarchy, there are a plurality of rack controller 76. Each lead rack controller 74 may communicate directly with a plurality of rack controllers 76, in some cases with those rack controllers 76 communicating exclusively with the rack controller 74 through the management system 70 or purposes of management performed by the system 70. In some embodiments, each of the rack controllers 76 may control a plurality of rack-mounted computing devices 78 in the fashion described above. In some embodiments, the illustrated management systems 70 may be implemented in one or more of the above-described out-of-band networks. In some embodiments, management system may pass through the illustrated spanning tree, with replication chaining, thereby distributing communication load across the network and mitigating bottlenecks communication by which rack-mounted computing devices, racks, or rack controllers are controlled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Griffin and Phillips to try and adopt Cencini’s organization of rack controllers wherein the embodiment establishes a hierarchy of rack controllers to include a primary rack-controller, a lead rack-controller, and a rack-controller, wherein each mentioned controller, except for the primary rack-controller, is subordinate to a higher . What is unstated in this embodiment is there is an establishment of a hierarchy based on the design choices of a user. In this case, the inventors laid out a hierarchy of controllers. Thus, one of ordinary skill, apprised of Cencini’s embodiment, would have adopted this topology to organize the controller and remote devices disclosed in Griffin.
On claim 2, Griffin cites except as underlined:
The global fire suppression system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of wired connections coupling the primary controller to the plurality of local fire suppression systems ([0037] Network 141 may encompass wired and wireless communication networks such as a local-area network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), a computer network, a wireless network, a telecommunications network, another like network or any combination thereof. Network 145 is coupled to controller 103 via communication interface 109), wherein when the local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems becomes isolated, the wired connection between the corresponding local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems and the primary controller is severed or unable to complete the transmission over the wired connection.
Regarding the above excepted claim limitations, Griffin discloses an embodiment wherein:
[0037] The transmitter and receiver functions may share circuit components, software or firmware, or alternatively may be implemented separately. Network 141 may encompass wired and wireless communication networks such as a local-area network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), a computer network, a wireless network, a telecommunications network, another like network or any combination thereof.
Griffin doesn’t specifically disclose if the fire suppression system becomes severed or isolated, the system will be unable to complete a transmission.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention wherein if a broken or severed wire is presented to a circuit, there will be no transmission between severed portions of a connection. One of ordinary skill, based on common knowledge of circuit operations, would understand there is no current flow across a severed wire, and therefore, no data or communication going across that severed node. Furthermore, the examiner asserts an Official Notice per MPEP 2144.03. Since the applicant did not traverse the Examiner’s presumption, the Examiner’s assertion is considered to be applicant admitted prior art.
On claim 3, Griffin cites:
The global fire suppression system of claim 1, further comprising a control panel in communication with the primary controller, wherein the control panel includes a user interface. [0055] discloses a fire panel being coupled to fire suppression system 100. This includes a local trouble alert being presented or occurring o the building fire panel. The cited presentation or occurring on the panel is as least an indication provided to a user observing the panel, which, by definition, is a user interface.
On claim 4, Griffin cites:
The global fire suppression system of claim 3, wherein the user interface is configured to present a representation of at least one of a configuration or a component of the global fire suppression system. [0055] discloses the panel presenting a fault detected in the first or second solenoid valve.
On claim 5, Griffin recites except:
The global fire suppression system of claim 4, wherein the configuration includes an indication of a hierarchy associated with one or more components of the global fire suppression system. In the rejection of claim 2, it was inferred Griffin included embodiments where controller 103 was presented as the primary controller and the remote devices 145 was considered a secondary controller. In the event the primary controller was deemed to be inoperable, the remote devices 145 was to take the place of controller 103. In this operation, the claimed “hierarchy” is met wherein the controller 103 is considered the primary controller and remote devices 145 is considered to be the secondary controller. Griffin doesn’t disclose this feature as being displayed on the cited panel. Additionally, Griffin [0055] discloses a fire panel displaying faults to a user. Griffin doesn’t disclose the panel as showing the hierarchy of the controllers.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Griffin a function of displaying to the user the primary controller for a fire suppression system as being the controller 103 and the secondary controller as remote devices 145. One of ordinary skill would have included such a feature do determine which controller or associated circuitry is faulty.
On claim 6, Griffin cites:
The global fire suppression system of claim 3, wherein the user interface is in communication with an input device, wherein the input device is at least one of an automatic activation system, a manual activation system, a temperature-based fire detector, or a pull station. In FIG. 6, the method 600 may start, for instance, at block 601 where it includes repeatedly testing the integrity of a first electric solenoid valve that controls the flow of a fire suppression solution to at least one sprinkler head disposed over an appliance in the kitchen and operative to spray the fire suppression solution onto the underlying appliance in response to a fire being detected in the kitchen.
On claim 28, Griffin, Phillips, and Cencini cites:
The global fire suppression system of claim 1, wherein the secondary controller of the first of the plurality of fire suppression systems is configured to
determine to operate as the primary controller based on according to at least one of a predetermined configuration of the secondary controller of each local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems or a hierarchy of the secondary controller of each local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems.
See the rejection of claim 1 citing Phillips and Cencini. In Phillips, a secondary control function serving as backup to a primary fire suppression system, is provided while Cencini discloses a design choice of a user defining the hierarchy of different rack controllers.
Claim 7-15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Griffin et al., U.S. 2019/0168045 (see previously submitted IDS) in view of Phillips, U.S. 2016/0256719 and Cencini et al., U.S. 2019/0296958 and Haltore et al., U.S. 10,771,318, and Moffa, U.S. 2018/0169450.
On claim 7, Griffin cites except:
The global fire suppression system of claim 1, wherein the primary controller is configured to receive information from each secondary controller corresponding to each of the plurality of secondary controllers, wherein the primary controller is further configured to store the received information in a log.
In the rejection of claim 1, the claimed “primary controller” and claimed “secondary controller” were said to be the cited controller 103 and remote devices 145 respectively. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to simply relabel the above controllers where the claimed “primary controller” and “secondary controller” are the cited remote devices 145 and controller 103, respectively. One of ordinary skill would have understood assigning sequential ordered labels to certain elements is a matter of design choice, the selection not affecting the operation of the invention.
Regarding the excepted “wherein the primary controller is configured to receive information from each secondary controller corresponding to each of the plurality of secondary controllers, wherein the primary controller is further configured to store the received information in a log,” as was previously discussed, the claimed primary controller can be either the cited controller 103 or remote devices 145. Furthermore, devices 145 worked in conjunction with server 143 to determine, among other things, information from the communication interface 109 of the fire suppression system 101x via the network 141. This information may indicate one or more faults, including a fault with respect to any of the solenoid valves 121-124, the controller 103, or the first and second controllers of the controller 103. Server 143 may determine whether the received information indicates that a fault has been detected in any of these solenoid valves 121-124 or controllers. If so, the server 143 may send an indication (e.g., text message, e-mail alert, E911 message, or the like) to interested parties. Neither server 143 nor remote devices 145 are said to store information on a log.
In the same art of fire suppression systems, Moffa, [0047] discloses an embodiment wherein a monitoring platform of the fire suppression profiles can include a location of a fire suppression system, a fire suppression system identifier, a list of components of the fire suppression system, a list of sensors available on the fire suppression system, current and historical state information, contact information (e.g., phone numbers, mailing addresses, etc.), maintenance logs, and other information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Griffin the logging feature disclosed in Moffa such that the claimed invention is realized. Griffin discloses a known embodiment for transmitting to a remote part, information regarding a monitored fire suppression system. This information is presumed to be in the text messaging history of the recipients. Moffa merely introduces an additional known feature for recording such events on in a logging embodiment.
One of ordinary skill would have added the logging feature to track and ascertain fire suppression history for maintenance, insurance, and another related reasons.
Regarding the excepted: “and wherein the secondary controller is configured to determine that the local fire suppression system has become isolated from the primary controller based on a determination that a transmission from the primary controller is disrupted,” as previously stated, Griffin disclosed both controller 103 and remote devices 145 controlling systems 101x as illustrated in figure 1. However, Griffin doesn’t disclose the excepted claim limitations.
In the related art of networking platforms, Haltore, col. 7, lines 22-35 discloses:
(32) In some embodiments, the primary service engine sends out a heartbeat message at predetermined intervals. Secondary service engines monitor the heartbeat message and check for a pre-specified primary service engine unavailability condition that, if met, indicates that the current primary service engine is deemed to be unavailable. The unavailability can be caused by a failure of the current primary service engine itself (e.g., the primary service engine has crashed and therefore is not sending out heartbeat messages) or the network (e.g., a networking failure prevents the heartbeat messages from reaching other service engines). In some embodiments, the condition specifies that the current primary service engine is deemed to be unavailable if no heartbeat is received after a pre-specified amount of time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Griffin the heartbeat detection features disclosed in Haltore such that the claimed invention is realized. Haltore discloses a known feature where a primary service engine, or controller, sends “heartbeat” messages throughout its network to other secondary service engines to determine if the primary service engine (or primary processor) is functioning. If the secondary engines do not detect the heartbeat messages of the primary engine, the secondary engine presumes the primary engine is inoperable. One of ordinary skill would have substituted this known feature into Griffin’s fire detection system wherein Griffin’s controller 103 includes a heartbeat messaging system telling remote device 145 if controller 103 is operational. In this case, if controller 103 is not sending “hearbeat messages,” by definition, the local fire suppression system has become “isolated from the primary controller,” because the controller 103 isn’t sending out the messages. One of ordinary skill would have included Haltore’s heartbeat messaging feature into Griffin to quickly determine if controller 103 is operational.
On claim 8, Griffin cites except as underlined:
A method of communication within a global fire suppression system, comprising:
providing a control panel,
figure 1, fire suppression systems 101a through x, controller 103
at least one controller, and
a plurality of local fire suppression systems;
the at least one controller comprising a primary controller and a plurality of secondary controllers each communicatively coupled to the primary controller and each corresponding to a local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems, the primary controller configured to facilitate communication among each of the plurality of the secondary controllers;
[0037] In FIG. 1, the communication interface 109 is configured to communicate with one or more remote devices 145, one or more servers 143, or the like via a network 141 (e.g., Internet). The communication interface 109 may be configured to include a receiver and a transmitter used to communicate with one or more other nodes over a communication network according to one or more communication protocols known in the art or that may be developed, such as Ethernet, TCP/IP, SONET, ATM, or the like. Further, the communication interface 109 may implement receiver and transmitter functionality appropriate to the communication network links (e.g., wireless, optical, electrical, or the like). The transmitter and receiver functions may share circuit components, software or firmware, or alternatively may be implemented separately. Network 141 may encompass wired and wireless communication networks such as a local-area network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), a computer network, a wireless network, a telecommunications network, another like network or any combination thereof. For example, the network 141 may be a Wi-Fi network. In another example, the network 141 may be a cellular network. The one or more remote devices 145 may communicate with the fire suppression system 101a via the communication interface 109 to configure, monitor, and/or control the fire suppression system 101a, including the fire monitor circuit 104 and/or the pollution control circuit 105. In addition, when multiple fire suppression systems 101a,b are communicatively linked via their component interfaces 111a,b, the one or more remote devices 145 can communicate with these multiple fire suppression systems 101a,b via the communication interface 109. Accordingly, all of the fire suppression systems 101a,b may be configured, monitored, and/or controlled using the one or more remote devices 145 via the communication interface 109 of the fire suppression system 101a.
Regarding the excepted: communicating a log to the control panel from each of the at least one controller;
determining an operational status of the global fire suppression system and a local status of each local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems from information contained in each log;
providing a user with the operational status and the local status;
as was previously discussed, the claimed primary controller can be either the cited controller 103 or remote devices 145. Furthermore, devices 145 worked in conjunction with server 143 to determine, among other things, information from the communication interface 109 of the fire suppression system 101x via the network 141. This information may indicate one or more faults, including a fault with respect to any of the solenoid valves 121-124, the controller 103, or the first and second controllers of the controller 103. Server 143 may determine whether the received information indicates that a fault has been detected in any of these solenoid valves 121-124 or controllers. If so, the server 143 may send an indication (e.g., text message, e-mail alert, E911 message, or the like) to interested parties. Neither server 143 nor remote devices 145 are said to store information on a log.
In the same art of fire suppression systems, Moffa, [0047] discloses an embodiment wherein a monitoring platform of the fire suppression profiles can include a location of a fire suppression system, a fire suppression system identifier, a list of components of the fire suppression system, a list of sensors available on the fire suppression system, current and historical state information, contact information (e.g., phone numbers, mailing addresses, etc.), maintenance logs, and other information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Griffin the logging feature disclosed in Moffa such that the claimed invention is realized. Griffin discloses a known embodiment for transmitting to a remote part, information regarding a monitored fire suppression system. This information is presumed to be in the text messaging history of the recipients. Moffa merely introduces an additional known feature for recording such events on in a logging embodiment.
One of ordinary skill would have added the logging feature to track and ascertain fire suppression history for maintenance, insurance, and another related reasons.
and
responsive to a determination by the secondary controller of at least one local fire suppression system of the plurality of the local fire suppression systems that a first the at least one local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems has become isolated from the primary controller, causing a first the secondary controller of a first local fire suppression system of the plurality of secondary controllers to act as the primary controller and operate one or more components of the first local fire suppression system, and wherein the secondary controller is configured to determine that the local fire suppression system has become isolated from the primary controller based on a determination that a transmission from the primary controller is disrupted;
Regarding the excepted above claim limitations, Griffin cites:
[0037] In FIG. 1, the communication interface 109 is configured to communicate with one or more remote devices 145, one or more servers 143, or the like via a network 141 (e.g., Internet). The communication interface 109 may be configured to include a receiver and a transmitter used to communicate with one or more other nodes over a communication network according to one or more communication protocols known in the art or that may be developed, such as Ethernet, TCP/IP, SONET, ATM, or the like. Further, the communication interface 109 may implement receiver and transmitter functionality appropriate to the communication network links (e.g., wireless, optical, electrical, or the like). The transmitter and receiver functions may share circuit components, software or firmware, or alternatively may be implemented separately. Network 141 may encompass wired and wireless communication networks such as a local-area network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), a computer network, a wireless network, a telecommunications network, another like network or any combination thereof. For example, the network 141 may be a Wi-Fi network. In another example, the network 141 may be a cellular network. The one or more remote devices 145 may communicate with the fire suppression system 101a via the communication interface 109 to configure, monitor, and/or control the fire suppression system 101a, including the fire monitor circuit 104 and/or the pollution control circuit 105. In addition, when multiple fire suppression systems 101a,b are communicatively linked via their component interfaces 111a,b, the one or more remote devices 145 can communicate with these multiple fire suppression systems 101a,b via the communication interface 109. Accordingly, all of the fire suppression systems 101a,b may be configured, monitored, and/or controlled using the one or more remote devices 145 via the communication interface 109 of the fire suppression system 101a.
Griffin doesn’t disclose the excepted claim limitations. In the same art of fire suppression, Phillips cites:
[0085] Sensor assembly 302 may further include a thermal switch 344 and a wire 346. The thermal switch may be configured to close at a predetermined second temperature greater than the first temperature. The wire 346 may extend from the flow control assembly 306 to the temperature-sensitive release mechanism 308 and to the thermal switch 344. Wire 346 may be configured to carry current when the thermal switch is closed and to activate the temperature-sensitive release mechanism in the event that the temperature-sensitive release mechanism fails to release the interlock pin 320 at the first predetermined temperature. That is, the temperature sensitive switch may serve as a fail-safe or backup system to the temperature-sensitive release mechanism. This backup system may only activate if the primary system of the temperature-sensitive release mechanism fails to either register the presence of a fire or properly release the interlock pin if the presence of the fire is registered.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Griffin the backup fire extinguishing control feature disclosed in Phillips such that the claimed invention is realized.
Phillips discloses a known embodiment wherein if a fire suppression’s primary triggering fails, a secondary or backup means takes place. Even though Phillip’s system doesn’t disclose using controllers, the logical operation of how Phillip’s system operates qualifies its embodiment as a form of rudimentary control system. Thus, one of ordinary skill, apprised with Phillip’s backup control function would have incorporated this feature into Griffin’s embodiment and the results of the substitution would have produced a fire suppression system in which if Griffin’s controller 103 “fails to register,” Griffin’s remote devices will act in the stead of the primary controller to act as a failsafe and become enabled when a fire is detected. One of ordinary skill would have substituted one known device for another and based on the principles set forth in Phillips, realize an embodiment employing a primary and secondary controller which would meet the claimed invention.
Regarding the excepted: wherein the secondary controller of the first of the plurality of local fire suppression systems being configured to operate as the primary controller based on a predetermined hierarchy among each secondary controller of each of the plurality of local fire suppression systems,
Griffin, as above, disclosed the use of a controller 103 and remote devices 145, wherein if a controller 103 is out of service, as was inferred when modified by Phillips, an one or remote devices 145 would take the place of controller 103 in case controller 103 doesn’t enable the fire suppression system. However, neither Griffin nor Phillips discloses the feature of assigning hierarchy to the secondary or subordinate controllers.
In the similar art of data center management of rack-controllers, Cencini cites:
[0142] In the illustrated example, the rack controllers are arranged in a hierarchical tree in the topology of the management system 70. In FIG. 7, the differing modifiers of “primary” and “lead” should not be taken to indicate that, at least in some embodiments, the devices have a different architecture. Rather, in some embodiments, each of the devices illustrated in FIG. 7, in some embodiments, may be a (e.g., identical) instance of a peer rack controller, each controlling a rack in the fashion described above. The lead and primary controllers may be simply designated rack controllers that perform additional tasks based on their role. The topology may be determined by the rack controllers themselves, dynamically, by executing the routines described below with reference to FIG. 8, in some cases, without a human assigning the roles and arrangement shown in FIG. 7, and with the topology self-evolving to heal from the failure of devices. In this example, there are three levels to the topology. At the highest level is a primary rack controller 72. At a next lower level, adjacent the primary rack controller, and therefore in direct communication with the primary rack 72 are lead rack controller 74. Three rack controllers 74 are illustrated, but embodiments are consistent with substantially more, for instance on the order of more than 50 or more than 500. At the next level of the hierarchy, there are a plurality of rack controller 76. Each lead rack controller 74 may communicate directly with a plurality of rack controllers 76, in some cases with those rack controllers 76 communicating exclusively with the rack controller 74 through the management system 70 or purposes of management performed by the system 70. In some embodiments, each of the rack controllers 76 may control a plurality of rack-mounted computing devices 78 in the fashion described above. In some embodiments, the illustrated management systems 70 may be implemented in one or more of the above-described out-of-band networks. In some embodiments, management system may pass through the illustrated spanning tree, with replication chaining, thereby distributing communication load across the network and mitigating bottlenecks communication by which rack-mounted computing devices, racks, or rack controllers are controlled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Griffin and Phillips to try and adopt Cencini’s organization of rack controllers wherein the embodiment establishes a hierarchy of rack controllers to include a primary rack-controller, a lead rack-controller, and a rack-controller, wherein each mentioned controller, except for the primary rack-controller, is subordinate to a higher . What is unstated in this embodiment is there is an establishment of a hierarchy based on the design choices of a user. In this case, the inventors laid out a hierarchy of controllers. Thus, one of ordinary skill, apprised of Cencini’s embodiment, would have adopted this topology to organize the controller and remote devices disclosed in Griffin.
On claim 9, Griffin cites:
The method of claim 8, wherein communicating the log to the control panel is based on a hierarchy associated with the at least one controller. During the operation of the fire suppression system disclosed in Griffin, the operation of the system defaults to having the remote devices 145 taken control over local controller 103, and therefore, by nature of this operation, any subsequent operations involving the remote devices 103 are logged relative to the operations related to devices 145 operating in tandem with the fire suppression system 101x. See the rejection of claim 5.
On claim 10, Griffin cites:
The method of claim 8, wherein the local status is based on at least one component status associated with at least one component of the corresponding local fire suppression system. Devices 145 worked in conjunction with server 143 to determine, among other things, information from the communication interface 109 of the fire suppression system 101a via the network 141. This information may indicate one or more faults, including a fault with respect to any of the solenoid valves 121-124, the controller 103, or the first and second controllers of the controller 103.
On claim 11, Griffin cites:
The method of claim 8, wherein the operational status is determined by the local status of each local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems.
Griffith discloses:
[0037] In FIG. 1, the communication interface 109 is configured to communicate with one or more remote devices 145, one or more servers 143, or the like via a network 141 (e.g., Internet). The communication interface 109 may be configured to include a receiver and a transmitter used to communicate with one or more other nodes over a communication network according to one or more communication protocols known in the art or that may be developed, such as Ethernet, TCP/IP, SONET, ATM, or the like. Further, the communication interface 109 may implement receiver and transmitter functionality appropriate to the communication network links (e.g., wireless, optical, electrical, or the like). The transmitter and receiver functions may share circuit components, software or firmware, or alternatively may be implemented separately. Network 141 may encompass wired and wireless communication networks such as a local-area network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), a computer network, a wireless network, a telecommunications network, another like network or any combination thereof. For example, the network 141 may be a Wi-Fi network. In another example, the network 141 may be a cellular network. The one or more remote devices 145 may communicate with the fire suppression system 101a via the communication interface 109 to configure, monitor, and/or control the fire suppression system 101a, including the fire monitor circuit 104 and/or the pollution control circuit 105. In addition, when multiple fire suppression systems 101a,b are communicatively linked via their component interfaces 111a,b, the one or more remote devices 145 can communicate with these multiple fire suppression systems 101a,b via the communication interface 109. Accordingly, all of the fire suppression systems 101a,b may be configured, monitored, and/or controlled using the one or more remote devices 145 via the communication interface 109 of the fire suppression system 101a.
[0028] The controller 103 may include a fire monitor circuit, unit, or module 104 (hereafter fire monitor circuit) for monitoring and detecting faults in the fire suppression system 101a and shutting down the appliance 131a responsive to selected faults.
The claimed “local fire suppression system” may include the cited first fire suppression system 101 of the series of fire suppression systems 101x.
On claim 12, Griffin cites:
The method of claim 8, wherein the control panel comprises a user interface, the user interface configured to present a representation of at least one of a configuration or a component of the global fire suppression system. [0055] discloses the panel presenting a fault detected in the first or second solenoid valve.
On claim 13, Griffin, Phillips, Cencini, Haltore, and Moffa cites:
A global fire suppression system, comprising:
a primary controller;
a plurality of local fire suppression systems, each comprising:
a secondary controller coupled to the primary controller;
at least one detection device coupled to the secondary controller; and
at least one release device coupled to the secondary controller;
wherein each secondary controller is configured to maintain a log of events relating to each of the plurality of local fire suppression systems; and
wherein the secondary controller of a first of the plurality of local fire suppression systems is configured to act as the primary controller responsive to a determination by the secondary controller of at least one fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems that the at least one local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems becomes isolated from the primary controller, the secondary controller of the first of the plurality of local fire suppression systems being configured to operate one or more components of the at least one local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems when acting as the primary controller, and wherein the secondary controller is configured to determine that the local fire suppression system has become isolated from the primary controller based on a determination that a transmission from the primary controller is disrupted; wherein the secondary controller of the first of the plurality of local fire
suppression systems being configured to operate as the primary controller based on a predetermined hierarchy among each secondary controller of each of the plurality of local fire suppression systems.
See the rejection of claim 8 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons. Furthermore, (and as per the previous rejection of claim 13 in the previous Office Action)see MPEP 2144.03, C. Rearrangement of Parts
“In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).”
In short, merely relegating the function of logging to a specific controller would not be considered new or unexpected if the references cite functions application to either the claimed primary or secondary controllers.
On claim 14, Griffin cites except:
The global fire suppression system of claim 13, further comprising a control panel in communication with the primary controller, wherein the control panel includes a user interface.
Griffin, [0055] discloses a fire panel being coupled to fire suppression system 100. This includes a local trouble alert being presented or occurring to the building fire panel. The cited presentation or occurring on the panel is as least an indication provided to a user observing the panel, which, by definition, is a user interface. Additionally, Griffin discloses the panel presenting a fault detected in the first or second solenoid valve. Griffin discloses the primary controller in figure 1 as remote devices 145 in conjunction with server 143.
Additionally, Griffin, [discloses an embodiment wherein [0038] discloses that server 143 may be located at a remote site (e.g., located at a different geographical location than the fire suppression systems 101a,b). Server 143 may be configured to receive information from the communication interface 109 of the fire suppression system 101a via the network 141. This information may indicate one or more faults, including a fault with respect to any of the solenoid valves 121-124, the controller 103, or the first and second controllers of the controller 103. Server 143 may determine whether the received information indicates that a fault has been detected in any of these solenoid valves 121-124 or controllers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Griffin the feature of coupling the cited fire panel to the cited server 143/remote device 145 such that the cited faults are displayed. One of ordinary skill would have desired the fire panel including such faults to facility the location and nature of the faults.
On claim 15, Griffin cites:
The global fire suppression system of claim 14, wherein the control panel is the primary controller. See the rejection of claim 14 wherein the cited remote devices 145/server 143 are coupled together to perform display functions showing faults in the fire suppression system.
On claim 17, Griffin cites:
The global fire suppression system of claim 14, wherein the control panel is configured to store the log of events of each secondary controller of each of the plurality of local fire suppression systems. See the rejection of claim 7 which recited the logging feature of Moffa.
On claim 18, Griffin cites except as underlined:
The global fire suppression system of claim 13,
wherein a first secondary controller of a first local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems is configured to communicate a corresponding first log of events to a second secondary controller of a second local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems and
to a third secondary controller of a second local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems.
In the rejection of claim 13, the claimed ‘secondary controller” was defined as at least a controller 103 of fire suppression system 101 of a plurality of fire suppression systems 101x. Additionally, in the rejection of claim 13, Griffin’s remote devices 145/server 143 were considered to be the claimed “primary controller,” being modified with Moffa’s logging function.
Furthermore, in the rejection of claim 13, it was surmised the logging function is not limited to either the primary or secondary controllers.
According, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Griffin and Moffa to realize an embodiment making obvious the claimed invention.
As was previously cited, Griffin includes an embodiment in which the remote devices 145/server 143 though networks 141 ascertains the health of the plurality of the fire suppression systems 101x. Furthermore, each fire suppression system 101x, in addition to the cited controller 103, includes, among other things, control unit 115.
The present invention is claiming the embodiment: wherein a first secondary controller of a first local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems is configured to communicate a corresponding first log of events to a second secondary controller of a second local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems and
to a third secondary controller of a second local fire suppression system of the plurality of local fire suppression systems.
In other words, a controller 103 of a fire suppression system 101x is serving as a first local fire suppression system, where a logging function assigned to the first local fire suppression system is communicating a first log of events to a neighboring controller 103 of a neighboring fire suppression system 101x. The controller 103 is also communicating the first log of events to a second neighboring controller of the neighboring fire suppression system 101x.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Griffin and Moffa the embodiment of a first secondary controller sending logging information to a neighboring second controller and second additional controller of a neighboring fire suppression system.
Even though the logging functions have been previously assigned to the cited modified remote devices 145/server 143, one of ordinary skill would have also assigned these functions to controllers 103 and processor 115 as a matter of redundancy. Furthermore, merely assigning the function of a logging device to a specific structure isn’t given patentable weight if the functions of the logging device are present in the other devices of the cited citation. MPEP 2144.03, C. Rearrangement of Parts (see claim 13)
On claim 20, Griffin cites except:
The global fire suppression system of claim 13,
wherein the primary controller is configured to receive a configuration from a user,
the configuration defining a hierarchy of rules for controlling the plurality of local fire suppression systems ([[0031] In addition, the controller 103 (such as via the fire monitor circuit 104) may repeatedly test the integrity of a manual actuator (i.e. a manual actuator for the fire suppression system 101) via its integrity circuit, collectively the actuator and integrity circuit 155, to determine whether it has a fault. For instance, the controller 103 may sense the presence of the actuator, monitor the electrical conductivity associated with the actuator, monitor electrical connections associated with the actuator, or the like to determine whether the actuator has a fault); and
wherein the primary controller is configured to perform a simulation of a fire condition based on the hierarchy of rules ([0030] For instance, controller 103 may sense the presence of each fire sensor, monitor the electrical conductivity of each fire sensor monitor electrical connections associated with each fire sensor, and det3rmine a fault).
As previously discussed, the claimed “primary controller” was analogous to the cited “devices 145.” Additionally, Griffin disclosed: “[0037] and figure 1, accordingly, all of the fire suppression systems 101 a,b may be configured, monitored, and/or controlled using the one or more remote devices 145 via the communication interface 109 of the fire suppression system 101a.” Griffin didn’t disclose the remote devices as “configured to receive a configuration from a user.”
In an additional aspect of Griffin, [0029] discloses: “In FIG. 1, controller 103 may be a single controller or two or more controllers. Further, controller 103 may include one or more processors. Each processor may be configured to process computer instructions and data. Further, each processor may be configured as any sequential state machine operative to execute machine instructions stored as machine-readable computer programs in the memory, such as one or more hardware-implemented state machines (e.g., in discrete logic, FPGA, ASIC, etc.); programmable logic together with appropriate firmware; one or more stored-program, general-purpose processors, such as a microprocessor or Digital Signal Processor (DSP), together with appropriate software; or any combination of the above.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Griffin the programming of the controller 103 the programming of remote devices 145 to have the same algorithms as the controller 103. As indicated in Griffin, remote devices 145 are functionally used to control fire suppression device 101x, thus suggesting the type of programming found in controller 103 is also found in remote devices 145. Furthermore, while the programming of controller 103 isn’t stated to be “wherein the primary controller is configured to receive a configuration from a user,” the cited programming disclosed in Griffin, [0029] invariably includes a mechanism or other uploading means to provide the controller 103 with programming, programming that is more likely than not, provided by a user. One of ordinary skill would have included a user to upload programming on controller 103 as what is practiced during the manufacturing and assembly stages normal to the industry of electronic manufacturing. The examiner asserts this an Official Notice per MPEP 2144.03. Because the applicant did not rebut the Examiner’s presumption of the cited feature, the lack of rebuttal regarding this feature is considered to be applicant admitted prior art.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Griffin et al., U.S. 2019/0168045 (see previously submitted IDS) in view of Phillips, U.S. 2016/0256719 and Cencini et al., U.S. 2019/0296958 and Haltore et al., U.S. 10,771,318 and Moffa, U.S. 2018/0169450 and Meier et al., U.S. 2013/0000927.
On claim 19, Griffin and Moffa cites except as underlined:
The global fire suppression system of claim 14, wherein the first secondary controller is configured to communicate the first log of events to the second secondary controller and to the third secondary controller (see the rejection of claim 18) based on a signal received from the control panel.
Griffin [0055] discloses a fire panel being coupled to fire suppression system 100. This includes a local trouble alert being presented or occurring o the building fire panel.
Griffin and Moffa, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 18, included a provision for communicating logging information from a first secondary controller to a neighboring secondary controller and a neighboring additional secondary controller. Furthermore, Griffin, [0038], discloses server 143 transmitting fault information to interested parties regarding a particular fault. Neither Griffin nor Moffa disclose communicating the first log events to the claimed secondary controllers.
In the same art of networked fire suppression systems, Meier [0003], discloses a feature wherein a fire-suppression system may be enabled manually using a remote switch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Griffin the manual remote switch disclosed in Meier such that communicating the first log events to the claimed secondary controllers as in the claimed invention is realized.
Meier disclosed a known feature of a user enabling a fire extinguishing system from a remote location while Griffin disclosed the fire control panel where this function is accomplished. One of ordinary skill would have included such a feature so the user can manually enable a communication of logging information from one part of a fire suppressing system to another without having to rely on automated means to do so and at a time the user desires.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicant’s arguments to the rejection of claim 1 and the claimed “wherein the secondary controller of the fist of the plurality of local fire suppression systems being configured to operate as the primary controller based on a predetermined hierarchy among each secondary controller of each of the plurality of local fire suppression systems,” the Examiner asserts the above excepted claim limitation were not examined in a prior examination, thus, the amendments requiring a new search an consideration while making the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 moot. Furthermore, the Examiner’s response also applies to independent claims 8 and 13 which discloses similar amendments.
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 CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571) 270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon -Thu 9:00 Am-5:30Pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Brian Zimmerman whose telephone number is (571) 272-3059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8229. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAL J EUSTAQUIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686