DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on August 8, 2025 is acknowledged. One pages of amended specification and eight pages of amended claims were received on 8/8/2025. The specification has been amended such that the drawings are no longer objected to.
Claims 1-15 have been amended and Claims 16-17 are newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections and some previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the non-final rejection mailed 4/9/2025, however Claims 1 and 17 are objected to and Claim 12 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as noted below. The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 4/9/2025, however Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 6/18/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP21382537.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention Group I in the reply filed on 2/5/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 12/5/2024 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 13-15 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-9 and 16 are allowed. The restriction requirement between Invention Groups I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 12/5/2024, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is maintained because the non-elected Claims 13-15 do not sufficiently require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 26, “filed” should be revised to “filled” to ensure proper spelling.
In Claim 17 Line 2, “the fire is detected” should be revised to “a fire is detected” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “A vehicle, such as a train, comprising the dry pipe fire suppression system of claim 1” and the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, Claim 12 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “A vehicle comprising the dry pipe fire suppression system of claim 1”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,486,007 B2 to Wagner (“Wagner”) in view of KR-101292378-B1 to Lee (“Lee”).
As to Claim 10, Wagner discloses a dry pipe fire suppression system (See Fig. 1) comprising:
a first source of fire suppressing agent (#3, which per Col. 7 Lines 10-20 provides a nitrogen-enriched gas mixture, which Per Col. 1 Lines 43-47 and Col. 2 Lines 50-55 helps suppress fire by making a room inert);
one or more nozzles configured to output the fire suppressing agent (See Annotated Fig. 1 showing two outlets downstream of 5.3 and 5.4 which are equivalent to nozzles that are configured to output gas from #3);
a conduit (#7, which includes #7.1, #7.2, #7.3, and #7.4) for supplying the fire suppressing agent from the first source to the one or more nozzles (See Fig. 1 and Col. 7 Lines 40-52), wherein the conduit has a plurality of sections (#7.1, #7.2, #7.3, and #7.4) defined between a plurality of valves (#5.1, #5.2, #5.3, #5.4, #5.5, and #5.6) for controlling which of the plurality of sections the fire suppressing agent is able to be supplied into, and thereby filled, from the first source (See Fig. 1 and Col. 7 Lines 53-56);
a first pressure sensor (#8.1) located within the conduit for determining a pressure of the fire suppressing agent from the first source (See Fig. 1 and Col. 8 Lines 40-50, the pressure sensor #8.1 determines a pressure in #7.1 of gas from #3); and
control circuitry (#100, which per Col. 8 Lines 60-65 is a control device that can evaluate pressure curves over time, therefore #100 is an electronic controller that has electrical circuitry) configured to determine, from the first pressure sensor, whether the fire suppressing agent has filled a first section of the plurality of sections of the conduit by determining whether the pressure of the fire suppressing agent inside said first section is above or below a threshold (See Col. 5 Lines 10-15 and Col. 8 Line 45- Col. 9 Line 3. A threshold pressure value is assigned for #7.1 and #100 determines whether a measured pressure value goes below the threshold value, which is indicative of a leak).
Regarding Claim 10, in reference to the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner as applied to Claim 10 above, Wagner does not specifically discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to, if the pressure is above the threshold, open one of the plurality of valves so as to supply the fire suppressing agent from the first section into an adjacent, downstream section of the conduit to fill the adjacent, downstream section with the fire suppressing agent; whereas if the pressure is below the threshold, the control circuitry is configured to maintain said one of the plurality of valves closed so as to prevent fire suppressing agent from being supplied from the first section into the adjacent, downstream section (See Col. 9 Lines 26-41 disclosing individually testing sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 and performing automatic leak testing, however opening and closing of valves based on detected leaks is not specifically disclosed).
However, Lee discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0001) a fire suppression system (See Figs. 1-7) comprising:
a first source of fire suppressing agent (See #1 in Fig. 1 and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012 disclosing water);
one or more nozzles configured to output the fire suppressing agent (See multiple extinguishers #3 in Figs. 1 and 3, which per Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0002 are hydrants that emit water when a fire occurs);
a conduit for supplying the fire suppressing agent from the first source to the one or more nozzles (See Figs. 1-3. The conduit is made up of #10.), wherein the conduit has a plurality of sections (See Annotated Fig. 2 showing multiple sections A, B, C, D, E, F, and G) defined between a plurality of valves (See valves #30 and #32 in Fig. 2) for controlling which of the plurality of sections the fire suppressing agent is able to be supplied into, and thereby filled, from the first source (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0027-0031. Supplying water to each section fills each section for a period of time.);
a first pressure sensor located within the conduit for determining a pressure of the fire suppressing agent from the first source (See P1 in Annotated Fig. 2, which is fluidly connected to #1); and
a controller (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Figs. 1-3, the controller is a control system made up of #50 “bypass return driving section”, #2a “detection sensors”, #16 “decompression sensors”, #16a “bypass decompression sensors”, pumps #2 and #26 with valves V1 and V2, heating units #40, and temperature sensors #42, but not including P1. See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0020 and 0031 disclosing #50 being operated to control valves #30 and #32, and See Fig. 3 showing #50 connected to valves #30 and #32. See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0001-0005 disclosing that that water is provided when a fire occurs, thus the system made up of #50, #2a, #16, #16a #2, #26, #40, and #42 as a whole is equivalent to a controller that controls fluid flow.) configured to determine, from the first pressure sensor, whether a pressure of the fire suppressing agent inside a first section of the plurality of sections of the conduit (See Section A in Annotated Fig. 1) is above or below a threshold (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0027 disclosing sensor #16 detecting if a reduced pressure is sensed, thus the controller as a whole determines whether a pressure in a section of the conduit is above or below some pressure threshold); and, if the pressure is above the threshold, open one of the valves so as to supply the fire suppressing agent from the first section into an adjacent, downstream section of the conduit (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0020-0027 disclosing that #50 can return to a normal position and See Fig. 5 showing valves #30 in open positions that allow liquid to flow to subsequent conduit sections #11. Based on Paragraph 0027, such normal position occurs when the pressure is at or above some pressure threshold); whereas if the pressure is below the threshold, the controller is configured to maintain said one of the valves closed so as to prevent fire suppressing agent from being supplied from the first section into the adjacent, downstream section (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0027 and See Figs. 6-7. Also See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner as applied to Claim 10 above such that the control circuitry is configured to, if the pressure is above the threshold, open one of the plurality of valves so as to supply the fire suppressing agent from the first section into an adjacent, downstream section of the conduit to fill the adjacent, downstream section with the fire suppressing agent; whereas if the pressure is below the threshold, the control circuitry is configured to maintain said one of the plurality of valves closed so as to prevent fire suppressing agent from being supplied from the first section into the adjacent, downstream section, since doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Lee of allowing fluid to flow through functioning pipes while preventing fluid from flowing through leaking pipes to yield the predictable result of avoiding providing fluid to damaged pipes (See Lee Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0025-0027).
Regarding Claim 17, in reference to the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner in view of Lee as applied to Claim 10 above, Wagner as modified by Lee does not specifically disclose wherein the conduit is kept empty until the fire is detected (See Col. 9 Lines 45-52 disclosing that nitrogen-enriched gas is introduced as needed to maintain a predefined level of inertness in 20.1 and 20.2, however the conduit being kept empty until a fire is detected is not disclosed).
However, Lee discloses a fire suppression system wherein a conduit is kept empty until a fire is detected (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner in view of Lee as applied to Claim 10 above such that the conduit is kept empty until a fire is detected, since doing so would yield the predictable result of conserving nitrogen when fire risk is not present (Col. 9 Lines 45-52 of Wagner disclose introducing nitrogen enriched gas as needed to maintain a predefined level of inertness in 20.1 and 20.2, however if 20.1 and 20.2 are in a state where nitrogen enriched gas is not needed, nitrogen can be conserved by keeping the conduit empty until a fire is detected).
PNG
media_image1.png
857
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
648
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
578
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/8/2025, with respect to independent Claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent Claim 11 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that while the claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections of Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), dependent Claim 12 has not been amended to overcome the previous rejection of dependent Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), therefore dependent Claim 12 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 1: wherein “the controller is configured to control the plurality of valves by consecutively: determining whether the fire suppressing agent has filled a current section of the conduit by determining whether a pressure of the fire suppressing agent inside the current section of the conduit is above or below a threshold; and when the pressure is above the threshold, opening a valve of the plurality of valves to supply the fire suppressing agent from the current section into a next section of the conduit to be filed; but when the pressure is below the threshold, controlling the plurality of valves to supply the fire suppressing agent to the at least one nozzle while bypassing the current section of the conduit.”.
In reference to the prior art of Wagner in view of Lee as applied above, Wagner does not disclose bypassing supplying fire suppressing agent to the nozzle while bypassing the current section of conduit (See Fig. 1, Lee has a bypass section #6, however #6 is used for air to bypass #3, rather than for a fire suppressing agent to bypass a section of conduit). While Lee discloses controlling valves to bypass sections of conduit where pressure values below a threshold value are detected (See Lee Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0027), the fire suppression system of Lee is not a dry pipe fire suppression system, and the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner functions differently from the fire suppression system of Wagner since the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner is not subject to freezing and does not have a gridded network of nozzles and conduits. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to modify the dry pope fire suppression system of Wagner to meet all of the limitations of Claim 1 as making such a modification would change the overall functionality of the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner and there is no prior teaching in Wagner, Lee, or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Claims 2-9 and 16 depend from Claim 1, therefore Claims 2-9 and 16 are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in dependent Claim 11: “a second source of fire suppressing agent; and a conduit from the second source to the one or more nozzles, wherein this the conduit from the second source of fire suppressing agent has one or more valves therein for controlling the supply of fire suppressing agent from the second source to the one or more nozzles; wherein the control circuitry is configured such that, when it determines that the pressure of the fire suppressing agent in the first section is below said threshold, the control circuitry opens said one or more valves in the conduit from the second source of fire supressing agent so that fire suppressing agent is able to be supplied from the second source to the one or more nozzles”.
Regarding Claim 11, in reference to the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner in view of Lee as applied to Claim 10 above, Wagner does not disclose the dry pipe fire suppression system comprising a second source of fire suppressing agent (See Fig. 1, air is provided from #2 through conduit #6, however air is not used to suppress fire. The dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner provides nitrogen-enriched gas to areas 20.1 and 20.2 to assist in suppressing fire, however additional fire suppressing agents are not disclosed). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner in view of Lee as applied to Claim 10 above of such that it meets all of the limitations of Claim 11, as there is no apparent benefit to making such a modification and making such a modification would change the overall functionality of the dry pipe fire suppression system of Wagner in view of Lee. Furthermore, there is no prior teaching in Wagner, Lee, or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O Hall can be reached 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 November 12, 2025