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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, 22-23 and 31-32 are cancelled. Claims 21, 29, and 38 are amended. Claims 24-28, 33-37, and 39-40 are as previously presented. Claim 41 is new. Therefore, claims 21, 24-30, and 33-41 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Drawing Objections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 38-40 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 38 recites the limitation “the fluid supply line and the fluid supply external to the housing” in line 6 of claim 38 and recites the same limitation “the fluid supply line and the fluid supply external to the housing” in line 9 of claim 38. It is unclear as to how the second instance of the claimed limitation further limits the claim.
Claims 39-40 depend on claim 38, therefore claims 39-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 24-30, and 33-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loh (US 5,971,080) in view of Jackson (US 6,848,513), and Wilkins (US 8,668,023).
Regarding claim 21, Loh discloses an electronic accelerator (Fig. 1, 10), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, “System Enclosure”) a fluid supply line (Fig. 1, 20), the fluid supply line disposed between a fluid supply (Fig. 1, 24; Col. 4: Ln. 30-33) and at least one sprinkler head (Fig. 1, 14), the fluid supply line and the fluid supply external to the housing (Fig. 1);
a pressure sensor (Fig. 1, 40) inside the housing (Fig. 1; The pressure sensor is shown as partially inside the housing.),
a second control valve (Fig. 1, 18), the second control valve when in an open state permits fluid to flow from the fluid supply through the fluid supply line to the at least one sprinkler head (Fig. 1; Col. 4: Ln. 15-33), the second control valve coupled with the fluid supply separately from the housing (Fig. 1); and
a control circuit (Fig. 1, 42) inside the housing (Fig. 1), the control circuit to:
receive an indication of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor (Col. 5: Ln. 7-10);
determine that a condition indicative of the at least one sprinkler head being open is satisfied based on a rate of change of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor being less than a threshold rate of change (Col. 13: Ln. 55-60); and
responsive to the condition being satisfied, cause the second control valve to open to permit fluid to flow from the fluid supply through the fluid supply line to the at least one sprinkler head (Col. 5: Ln. 21-34).
Loh does not disclose the housing comprising an atmosphere port and a supply port coupled with a fluid supply line; the pressure sensor coupled with the supply port such that the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line via the supply port to detect a pressure in the fluid supply line; a first control valve inside the housing, the first control valve coupled with a second control valve, the first control valve coupled with the atmosphere port to allow pressure in a chamber of the second control valve to reduce based on the first control valve opening; an outlet coupled to the chamber; and responsive to the condition being satisfied, cause the first control valve to open to cause fluid release from the chamber via the outlet to cause the second control valve to open to permit fluid to flow from the fluid supply through the fluid supply line.
However, Jackson teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 4: Ln. 35-37) comprising a housing (Fig. 11, 314) comprising an atmosphere port (Fig. 14, 348; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5) and a first control valve (Fig. 14, 318) inside the housing (Fig. 14), the first control valve coupled with a second control valve (Fig. 1, 12), the first control valve coupled with the atmosphere port to allow pressure in a chamber (Fig. 1, 30) of the second control valve to reduce based on the first control valve opening (Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5); an outlet coupled to the chamber (Fig. 1, connection where 348 is coupled to 30 to cause the release pressure in the priming chamber; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5); and: responsive to a condition (Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5 – “fire condition”) being satisfied, cause the first control valve to open to cause fluid release from the chamber via the outlet (Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5) to cause the second control valve to open to permit fluid to flow from the fluid supply through a fluid supply line (Fig. 1, 16; Col. 4: Ln. 62-67; Col. 7: Ln. 49-56; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to substitute the second control valve of Loh with the first control valve and the second control valve taught by Jackson, which each have a known function of opening and closing, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the first control valve and the second control valve taught by Jackson because Loh discloses that other types of control valves may be used (Col. 11: Ln 26-29), and the incorporation would yield the predictable result of opening the second control valve when actuated with a reasonable expectation of success, namely to suppress a fire.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an atmosphere port and a first control valve inside the housing disclosed by Loh because Jackson teaches that this incorporation provides a simplified assembly that is easy to hook-up to a fire protection system and the various controls for the fire protection system (Col. 6: Ln. 49-54). Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the incorporation of an atmosphere port and a first control valve inside the housing would yield the predictable result of protecting the first control valve with a reasonable expectation of success, namely to suppress a fire.
Loh in view of Jackson does not teach the housing comprising a supply port coupled with a fluid supply line; the pressure sensor coupled with the supply port such that the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line via the supply port to detect a pressure in the fluid supply line.
However, Wilkins teaches a housing (Fig. 1 & 2A, 10) comprising a supply port (Fig. 1 & 2A, opening that #40 passes through) coupled with a fluid supply line (Fig. 1 & 2A, 40 outside of 10), a pressure sensor (Fig. 1 & 2A, 20) coupled with the supply port such that the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled the fluid supply line disposed between a fluid supply (Fig. 2A, 25) and at least one sprinkler head (Fig. 2A, 50);
Therefore, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the pressure sensor of Loh completely inside the housing to protect it from outside elements, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely detecting the pressure of the fluid supply line. Locating the pressure sensor inside the housing inherently requires a supply port to conduct the fluid to the pressure sensor, which is well within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and is additionally taught by Wilkins.
Regarding claim 24, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the electronic accelerator of claim 21.
Loh further discloses the electronic accelerator comprising:
the control circuit is to output a low air alarm responsive to detecting a low air alarm condition being satisfied based on the pressure detected by the pressure sensor (Col. 5: Ln 21-30).
Regarding claim 25, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the electronic accelerator of claim 21.
Loh further discloses the electronic accelerator comprising:
the control circuit is to output a high air alarm responsive to detecting a high air alarm condition being satisfied based on the pressure detected by the pressure sensor (Col. 6: Ln. 27-28).
Regarding claim 26, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the electronic accelerator of claim 21.
Loh further discloses the electronic accelerator comprising:
the first control valve is a solenoid valve (Col. 5: Ln. 15-16).
Regarding claim 27, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the electronic accelerator of claim 21.
Loh further discloses the electronic accelerator comprising:
the pressure sensor is a pressure transducer (Col. 5: Ln. 21-23).
Regarding claim 28, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the electronic accelerator of claim 21.
Jackson further teaches the first control valve coupled with the second control valve and the atmosphere port such that opening the first control valve decreases pressure applied against the second control valve (Fig. 14 shows the first control valve (318) coupled to the atmosphere port (348) and prime outlet (338), and Fig. 1 shows these elements fluidly connected to the priming chamber (30) of the second control valve (12) via conduits (112); Col. 7: Ln. 57 to Col. 8: Ln. 5; Col. 4: Ln. 66 to Col. 5: Ln 10; Col. 5: Ln. 50-59).
Regarding claim 29, Loh discloses, a fire protection system (Fig. 1, 10), comprising:
a sprinkler head (Fig. 1, 14) coupled with a fluid supply line (Fig. 1, 20);
a second control valve (Fig. 1, 18) coupled with the fluid supply line between a fluid supply (Fig. 1, 24; Col. 4: Ln. 30-33) and the sprinkler head (Fig. 1);
a pressure sensor (Fig. 1, 40) coupled with the fluid supply line between the second control valve and the sprinkler head to detect a first pressure in the fluid supply line (Col. 5: Ln. 7-10);
a control circuit (Fig. 1, 42) to:
receive an indication of the first pressure detected by the pressure sensor (Col. 5: Ln. 7-10);
determine that a condition indicative of the sprinkler head being open is satisfied based on a rate of change of the first pressure detected by the pressure sensor being less than a threshold rate of change (Col. 5: Ln. 27-38); and
responsive to the condition being satisfied, cause the second control valve to open (Col. 5: Ln. 21-34).
a housing (Fig. 1, “System Enclosure”) in which the pressure sensor (Fig. 1, 40), and the control circuit are disposed (Fig. 1; The pressure sensor is shown as partially inside the housing.), the fluid supply line and the fluid supply external to the housing (Fig. 1), the pressure sensor fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line (Fig. 1), the second control valve coupled with the fluid supply separately from the housing (Fig. 1).
Loh does not disclose a first control valve; the second control valve having a chamber; the first control valve to open to decrease a second pressure in the chamber of the second control valve; and a housing in which the first control valve is disposed, the housing comprising an atmosphere port coupled with the first control valve to allow the second pressure in the chamber to be decreased, the housing comprising a supply port, the pressure sensor fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line via the supply port.
However, Jackson teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 4: Ln. 35-37) comprising, a first control valve (Fig. 14, 318); a second control valve (Fig. 1, 12) having a chamber (Fig. 1, 30); the first control valve to open to decrease a second pressure in the chamber of the second control valve (Col. 4: Ln. 66 to Col. 5: Ln 10; Col. 7: Ln. 55-56); and a housing (Fig. 11, 314) in which the first control valve is disposed (Fig. 14), the housing comprising an atmosphere port (Fig. 1, 348) coupled with the first control valve to allow the second pressure in the chamber to be decreased (Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to substitute the second control valve of Loh with the first control valve and the second control valve taught by Jackson, which each have a known function of opening and closing, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the first control valve and the second control valve taught by Jackson because Loh discloses that other types of control valves may be used (Col. 11: Ln 26-29), and the incorporation would yield the predictable result of opening the second control valve when actuated with a reasonable expectation of success, namely to suppress a fire.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an atmosphere port and a first control valve inside the housing disclosed by Loh because Jackson teaches that this incorporation provides a simplified assembly that is easy to hook-up to a fire protection system and the various controls for the fire protection system (Col. 6: Ln. 49-54). Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the incorporation of an atmosphere port and a first control valve inside the housing would yield the predictable result of protecting the first control valve with a reasonable expectation of success, namely to suppress a fire.
Loh in view of Jackson does not teach the housing comprising a supply port, the pressure sensor fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line via the supply port.
However, Wilkins teaches a housing comprising a supply port (Fig. 1 & 2A, opening that #40 passes through), a pressure sensor (Fig. 1 & 2A, 20) fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line via the supply port (Fig. 1 & 2A).
Therefore, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the pressure sensor of Loh completely inside the housing to protect it from outside elements, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely detecting the pressure of the fluid supply line. Locating the pressure sensor inside the housing inherently requires a supply port to conduct the fluid to the pressure sensor, which is well within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and is additionally taught by Wilkins.
Regarding claim 30, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the fire protection system of claim 29.
Jackson further teaches the second control valve to change, responsive to the second pressure in the chamber decreasing below a threshold, to an open state to allow fluid to flow from the fluid supply through the fluid supply line to the sprinkler head (Col. 4: Ln. 48-67; Col. 5: Ln. 50-59).
Regarding claim 33, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the fire protection system of claim 29.
Loh further discloses, the fire protection system, comprising:
the control circuit is to output a low air alarm responsive to detecting a low air alarm condition being satisfied based on the first pressure (Col. 5: Ln 21-30).
Regarding claim 34, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the fire protection system of claim 29.
Loh further discloses, the fire protection system, comprising:
the pressure sensor is a pressure transducer (Col. 5: Ln. 21-23).
Regarding claim 35, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the fire protection system of claim 29.
Loh further discloses, the fire protection system, comprising:
the first control valve coupled with the second control valve and the atmosphere port such that opening the first control valve decreases the second pressure (Col. 4: Ln. 62-67).
Regarding claim 36, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the fire protection system of claim 29.
Loh further discloses, the fire protection system, comprising:
the sprinkler head is to open responsive to a fire condition (Col. 4: Ln. 16-19; Col. 5: Ln. 31-38; If heated sufficiently, the normally closed valve of the sprinkler head opens, thereby allowing the pressurized air to escape from the fluid flow lines.).
Regarding claim 37, Loh in view of Jackson and Wilkins teaches the fire protection system of claim 29.
Loh further discloses, the fire protection system, comprising:
a pressure ratio between air in the fluid supply line and water on an opposite side of the second control valve from the fluid supply line is less than 6:1 Col. 1: Ln 22-23 – “Current industrial dry pipe systems generally charge the fluid flow lines to about 35 to 40 psig.”; Col. 11: Ln 5-6 “System Maximum Water Pressure: 175 psig”; This shows that certain systems have a pressure ratio between air in the fluid supply line and water on an opposite side of the second control valve from the fluid supply line of 4:375 to 5:1, which is less than 6:1).
Additionally, 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 optimize the pressure ratio to and second control valve to operate. The second control valve is taught as a deluge valve by Jackson, which one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would know can be modified to operate at different pressure ration by changing a first applied area located in the chamber which is subject to the pressure of first pressure and therefore a first force, and a second applied area fluidically connected to the water supply pressure, and therefore a second force acting against the first force. The deluge valve will either open if the first force is less than the second force, or close otherwise. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. (Col. 4: Ln. 66 to Col. 5: Ln 10 – “In the illustrated embodiment, valve 12 comprises a deluge valve, which includes a priming chamber 30 and a clapper assembly. The clapper assembly opens and closes communication between inlet 20 and outlet 22 of valve 12 in response to pressure in priming chamber 30, as is known in the art. Trim assembly 110 controls the pressure in priming chamber 30 and communicates with valve 12 and suppressant supply system 14 through by conduits 112, for example, flex hoses. Trim assembly 110 also communicates with a control panel 28 (via wiring indicated by dotted lines in FIG. 1), which provides actuating signals to components within trim assembly 110 and also to components located exteriorly of trim assembly 110 to control the opening of valve 12 in response to low pressure signals from pressure switch 27a and in response to fire-condition signals from detector 40.” )
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with any pressure ratio, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the pressure ratio, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 38, Loh discloses an electronic accelerator (Fig. 1, 10), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, “System Enclosure”):
a pressure sensor (Fig. 1, 40) in the housing (Fig. 1; The pressure sensor is shown as partially inside the housing.), the pressure sensor to detect a pressure in the fluid supply line (Col. 5: Ln. 7-10), the fluid supply line disposed between a fluid supply and at least one sprinkler head (Fig. 1), the fluid supply line and the fluid supply external to the housing (Fig. 1);
a second control valve (Fig. 1, 18), the fluid supply line and the fluid supply external to the housing (Fig. 1); and
a control circuit (Fig. 1, 42) in the housing (Fig. 1), the control circuit to evaluate a trigger condition based on the pressure detected by the pressure sensor and open the second valve (Col. 5: Ln. 21-34).
Loh does not teach the housing having an atmosphere port open to atmosphere and a supply port coupled with a fluid supply line; the pressure sensor fluidly coupled with the supply port; a first control valve in the housing, the first control valve coupled with a second control valve to decrease pressure in a chamber of the second control valve responsive to the first control valve opening; and the control circuit to open the first control valve to cause the pressure decrease in the chamber of the second control valve responsive to the trigger condition being satisfied.
However, Jackson teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 4: Ln. 35-37) comprising a housing (Fig. 11, 314) having an atmosphere port (Fig. 14, 348; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5) open to atmosphere; a first control valve (Fig. 14, 318) in the housing, the first control valve coupled with a second control valve to decrease pressure in a chamber of the second control valve responsive to the first control valve opening (Col. 4: Ln. 62-67; Col. 7: Ln. 49-56; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5); and the control circuit to open the first control valve to cause the pressure decrease in the chamber of the second control valve responsive to the trigger condition being satisfied (Col. 4: Ln. 62-67; Col. 7: Ln. 49-56; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to substitute the second control valve of Loh with the first control valve and the second control valve taught by Jackson, which each have a known function of opening and closing, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the first control valve and the second control valve taught by Jackson because Loh discloses that other types of control valves may be used (Col. 11: Ln 26-29), and the incorporation would yield the predictable result of opening the second control valve when actuated with a reasonable expectation of success, namely to suppress a fire.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an atmosphere port and a first control valve inside the housing disclosed by Loh because Jackson teaches that this incorporation provides a simplified assembly that is easy to hook-up to a fire protection system and the various controls for the fire protection system (Col. 6: Ln. 49-54). Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the incorporation of an atmosphere port and a first control valve inside the housing would yield the predictable result of protecting the first control valve with a reasonable expectation of success, namely to suppress a fire.
Loh in view of Jackson does not teach the housing comprising a supply port coupled with a fluid supply line; the pressure sensor coupled with the supply port such that the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line via the supply port to detect a pressure in the fluid supply line.
However, Wilkins teaches a supply port (Fig. 1 & 2A, opening that #40 passes through) coupled with a fluid supply line (Fig. 1 & 2A, 40 outside of 10); a pressure sensor (Fig. 1 & 2A, 20) coupled with the supply port such that the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line via the supply port to detect a pressure in the fluid supply line (Fig. 1 & 2A; Col. 10: Ln. 36-38)
Therefore, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the pressure sensor of Loh completely inside the housing to protect it from outside elements, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely detecting the pressure of the fluid supply line. Locating the pressure sensor inside the housing inherently requires a supply port to conduct the fluid to the pressure sensor, which is well within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and is additionally taught by Wilkins.
Regarding claim 39, Loh in view of Jackson teaches the electronic accelerator of claim 38.
Loh further discloses the electronic accelerator comprising:
the control circuit is to determine that the trigger condition is satisfied responsive to at least one of
(i) determining that the pressure detected by the pressure sensor is less than or equal to a threshold pressure and
(ii) determining that a rate of change of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor is less than or equal to a threshold rate of change (Col. 5: Ln. 20-47; Fig. 2A & 2B).
Regarding claim 40, Loh in view of Jackson teaches the electronic accelerator of claim 38.
Loh further discloses the electronic accelerator comprising:
the first control valve is a solenoid valve (Col. 5: Ln. 15-16) and the pressure sensor is a pressure transducer (Col. 5: Ln. 21-23).
Alternate Rejection
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Loh and Wilkins.
Regarding claim 21, Jackson discloses an electronic accelerator (Fig. 1, all structural features utilizing the embodiment of 310 in Figs. 11-14 for item 110 in Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 11, 314) comprising an atmosphere port (Fig. 14, 348; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5) and a fluid supply line (Fig. 1, 16), the fluid supply line disposed between a fluid supply (Fig. 1, “Water Supply”) and at least one sprinkler head (Col. 4: Ln. 39-40 – “plurality of sprinklers”), the fluid supply line and the fluid supply external to the housing (Fig. 1);
a pressure sensor (Fig. 1, 27a) the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line to detect a pressure in the fluid supply line (Col. 4: Ln. 55-61);
a first control valve (Fig. 14, 318) inside the housing (Fig. 14), the first control valve coupled with a second control valve (Fig. 1, 30; Col. 7: Ln. 57-60), the first control valve coupled with the atmosphere port to allow pressure in a chamber (Fig. 1, 30) of the second control valve to reduce based on the first control valve opening (Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5); the second control valve when in an open state permits fluid to flow from the fluid supply through the fluid supply line to the at least one sprinkler head (Col. 4: Ln. 48-67; Col. 5: Ln. 50-59), the second control valve coupled with the fluid supply separately from the housing (Fig. 1);
an outlet coupled with the chamber (Fig. 1, connection where 348 is coupled to 30 to cause the release pressure in the priming chamber; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5); and
a control circuit (Fig. 1, 28; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5 – “control panel”) inside the housing, the control circuit to:
receive an indication of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor (Col. 5: Ln. 3-9);
responsive to a (emphasis to show difference from the claimed language) condition (Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5 – “fire condition”) being satisfied, cause the first control valve to open to cause fluid release from the chamber via the outlet (Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5) to cause the second control valve to open to permit fluid to flow from the fluid supply through the fluid supply line to the at least one sprinkler head (Col. 4: Ln. 62-67; Col. 7: Ln. 49-56; Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5).
Jackson does not disclose a supply port coupled with the fluid supply line; the control circuit to determine that a condition indicative of the at least one sprinkler head being open is satisfied based on a rate of change of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor being less than a threshold rate of change.
However, Loh teaches a prior art comparable dry pipe sprinkler system (Fig. 1, all structural elements) comprising a pressure sensor (Fig. 1, 40) inside a housing (Fig. 1, “System Enclosure”), a control circuit (Fig. 1, 42) to determine that a condition indicative of the at least one sprinkler head being open is satisfied based on a rate of change of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor being less than a threshold rate of change (Col. 13: Ln. 55-60), responsive to the condition being satisfied cause a second control valve to open (Col. 5: Ln. 21-34).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the electronic accelerator disclosed by Jackson upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the dry pipe sprinkler system taught by Loh that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (a pressure sensor inside a housing, a control circuit to determine that a condition indicative of the at least one sprinkler head being open is satisfied based on a rate of change of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor being less than a threshold rate of change, responsive to the condition being satisfied cause a second control valve to open), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely opening the second control valve when a sprinkler is activated with the benefit of a dry pipe sprinkler system which has a quick response time, which is capable of accurately discriminating between false alarm conditions, an open sprinkler condition and a pressurized gas leak condition (Col. 2: ln. 18-23).
Jackson in view of Loh does not teach the housing comprising a supply port coupled with a fluid supply line; the pressure sensor coupled with the supply port such that the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled with the fluid supply line via the supply port to detect a pressure in the fluid supply line.
However, Wilkins teaches a housing (Fig. 1 & 2A, 10) comprising a supply port (Fig. 1 & 2A, opening that #40 passes through) coupled with a fluid supply line (Fig. 1 & 2A, 40 outside of 10), a pressure sensor (Fig. 1 & 2A, 20) coupled with the supply port such that the pressure sensor is fluidly coupled the fluid supply line disposed between a fluid supply (Fig. 2A, 25) and at least one sprinkler head (Fig. 2A, 50);
Therefore, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the pressure sensor of Loh completely inside the housing to protect it from outside elements, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely detecting the pressure of the fluid supply line. Locating the pressure sensor inside the housing inherently requires a supply port to conduct the fluid to the pressure sensor, which is well within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and is additionally taught by Wilkins.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Loh and Wilkins and applicants admitted prior art.
Regarding claim 41, Jackson in view of Loh, Wilkins and applicant admitted prior art teaches the electronic accelerator of claim 21, comprising:
Jackson further discloses the control circuit is to cause the first control valve to open in responsive to a fire condition (Col. 7: Ln. 66 to Col. 8: Ln. 5), where the fire condition is the detection of a fire from a fire or heat detector (Col. 2: Ln. 14-23) (emphasis to show a difference compared to the claimed language).
Jackson in view of Loh and Wilkins does not teach the control circuit to cause first control valve to open prior to the pressure in the fluid supply line being less than a fluid pressure in the fluid supply.
Additionally, Jackson in view of Loh and Wilkins does not teach the pressure in the fluid supply line being greater than a fluid pressure in the fluid supply prior to activation of the sprinklers (The examiner notes that to meet the claimed limitation the electronic accelerator must be in this configuration initially to “cause first control valve to open prior to (emphasis) the pressure in the fluid supply line being less than a fluid pressure in the fluid supply,” and opening the sprinklers will cause the pressure to drop (Jackson – Col. 2: Ln. 27-28)).
Applicants admitted prior art further teaches the pressure in the fluid supply line being greater than a fluid pressure in the fluid supply prior to activation of the sprinklers (Para. 0021; “In existing systems, (emphasis) the air in the fluid supply line 184 may be at a relatively high pressure to apply mechanical pressure against a fluid control device (e.g., a mechanical clapper) used to hold back fluid from being outputted through the fluid supply line 184. For example, a ratio of the air pressure in the fluid supply line 184 to fluid on an opposite side of the fluid control device from the fluid supply line 184 may be on the order of 6:1.” See MPEP § 2129 for applicant admitted prior art.).
Therefore, the examiner finds that there was some teaching generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pressure in the fluid supply line being greater than a fluid pressure in the fluid supply because Jackson has not disclosed the pressure in the fluid supply line and the pressure in the fluid supply, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely pressurizing the fluid supply line and fluid supply for use in extinguishing a fire.
In combination Jackson in view of Loh, Wilkins and applicant admitted prior teaches the control circuit to cause first control valve to open prior to the pressure in the fluid supply line being less than a fluid pressure in the fluid supply (Jackson discloses the control circuit is to cause the first control valve to open in responsive to a fire condition where the fire condition is the detection of a fire from a fire or heat detector as described above and thus can activate prior to the sprinklers activating causing the pressure in the fluid supply line to drop less than a fluid pressure in the fluid supply).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 8-10, the added limitations for claims 21, 29, and 38 were rendered obvious as outlined in the office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 28, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights