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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection on May 19, 2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed May 8, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Applicant’s addition of “new” dependent claims 21-26 is also acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 8, 13, 17 and 19-26 are thus pending, and are addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s request for rejoinder of withdrawn claims 3 and 8, as set forth on page 6 of the “Remarks” portion of the reply filed May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Although claim 1, as set forth below in paragraph 13, is now considered to be allowable over the prior art, dependent claims 3 and 8 cannot be rejoined for the following reasons.
Regarding claim 3, the claim appears to be drafted so as to be exclusively drawn to Species A (as identified in the Restriction Requirement mailed May 19, 2025), shown in Fig. 2 of the application. More specifically, the embodiment/species shown in Fig. 2 (and as described in the specification) appears to be the only embodiment/species which includes, for example, “an insulated ejector spring”, as required by claim 3. However, there does not appear to be any expressed or implicit evidence within the four corners of the instant application disclosure which provides for the combination of elements and limitations recited in claim 1, with the combination of elements and limitations recited in claim 3. For example, the “circuit board” and its associated limitations set forth in claim 1 do not appear to be included with the embodiment/species shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 8, the claim appears to be drafted so as to be exclusively drawn to Species F (as identified in the Restriction Requirement mailed May 19, 2025), shown in Fig. 7 of the application. More specifically, the embodiment/species shown in Fig. 7 (and as described in the specification) appears to be the only embodiment/species which includes, for example, “a pogo pin”, as required by claim 8. However, there does not appear to be any expressed or implicit evidence within the four corners of the instant application disclosure which provides for the combination of elements and limitations recited in claim 1, with the combination of elements and limitations recited in claim 8. For example, the “circuit board” and its associated limitations set forth in claim 1 do not appear to be included with the embodiment/species shown in Fig. 7.
Thus, in light of the discussion in paragraph 4 above, claims 3 and 8 must remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
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.
Claims 22 and 25 are 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.
Regarding each of claims 22 and 25, the recitation that the circuit board, “is to determine that the bulb has fractured based at least on determining that a circuit comprising the first wire and the second wire has closed”, appears to (possibly) contradict Applicant’s originally-filed disclosure, and also appears to contradict common sense logic. As essentially set forth within (at least) the last three sentences of paragraph [0049] of the specification, electrical current can enter the nozzle through either of the first wire or the second wire, and travel through a combination of the arms, the set screw, the bulb, and the button (the order thereof being dependent on whether the electrical current is initially sent via the first wire or the second wire), and then the electrical current exits via the second wire or the first wire, respectively. Such electrical current travel is what one would normally call a “closed” electrical circuit. Although, the last sentence of paragraph [0049] expressly states, “The PCB 1302 can determine if the bulb 30 has fractured by, for example, determining that the circuit is closed”, which seems to be similar to what is being recited in claim 22, such is confusing, as such a bulb fracture would seem to result in the electrical circuit (inclusive of the “first wire” and the “second wire”) being open, not closed. Thus, claim 22 is clearly indefinite, based at least on the fact that the claim limitation does not follow common sense logic. This Office also requests a detailed explanation as to the meaning of the last sentence in paragraph [0049] of the specification, as it appears that the disclosure may also include this flaw, depending on how the last sentence in claim [0049] is to be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanklevski et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0304664.
As to claim 17, Tanklevski shows and describes a fire suppression system (see Abstract), comprising: at least one nozzle (see Fig. 1) comprising an outlet (“output orifice”, as described in at least paragraph [0038]) sealed by a button (2) and a bulb (3) in contact with the button, the bulb comprising an electrically conductive material (4, 5) to cause the bulb to fracture responsive to receiving an electrical current (see, at least, paragraph [0039]); a release assembly (6, and the wire elements shown in Fig. 1, which clearly connect element “6” with the electrically conductive material, as applied above) coupled with the electrically conductive material to provide the electrical current to the electrically conductive material, the release assembly comprising a circuit board (the functions of element “6”, as described in at least paragraphs [0038] and [0039], would require some type of circuit board feature, and thus the recited “circuit board” is implicitly disclosed by Tanklevski) coupled with a base of the at least one nozzle or at least one arm (9) of the at least one nozzle (as shown in Fig. 1, the element “6” is coupled directly with arm element “9”, which is coupled with a corresponding base portion of the nozzle), a first wire (for example, the lowermost wire element shown in Fig. 1) coupled with a through hole defined in the at least one arm (as can be seen in Fig. 1 of Tanklevski) and with the circuit board (see again, Fig. 1), and a second wire (for example, the uppermost wire element shown in Fig. 1) coupled with the button (see again, Fig. 1), and the circuit board of the release assembly to provide the electrical current, to the electrically conductive material by way of the first wire or the second wire, responsive to a fire condition corresponding to a temperature (see again, paragraphs [0038] and [0039]) less than a temperature rating of the bulb. Regarding the recitation, “responsive to a fire condition corresponding to a temperature less than a temperature rating of the bulb”, it is noted that Tanklevski teaches inclusion of an element (for example, the “differential fire alarm” discussed in, at least, paragraphs [0013] and [0034]) to cause the corresponding release assembly to provide electrical current to the corresponding electrically conductive material (4, 5) responsive to a fire condition corresponding to a temperature less than a temperature rating of the corresponding bulb (3), which results in a faster response of the sprinkler to the fire condition (see paragraph [0008]; and, see again, paragraph [0034]). Thus, with respect to the “...temperature less than a temperature rating of the bulb” limitation, such is clearly implied in, at least, lines 20-25 of paragraph [0034]; because the disclosed “differential thermal fire alarm” is described as having the “ability to activate the sprinkler immediately after detecting a change in temperature in the controlled area protected by the sprinkler”.
As to claim 26, Tanklevski shows the fire suppression system of claim 17, and wherein the circuit board is coupled with a manual activation device, an automatic activation device, or a controller (for example, element “6” is coupled with element “7”, which is described as having, at least in part, the function of “controlling” the release assembly; see paragraph [0038]).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanklevski et al.
As to claim 19, Tanklevski shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 17. However, Tanklevski is silent as to a particular, exemplary nominal temperature rating value of the bulb. It should first be noted that each of the nominal temperature rating values of the bulb recited in the claim are well known and common in the art, and are chosen by those of ordinary skill in the art based on known, predetermined parameters of a location being protected by a fire suppression/sprinkler system, such as the characteristics of a particular protected area (e.g., residential area, offices, schools, commercial kitchens, industrial settings, etc.) for which the system is designed, the size of the protected area(s), etc. It should also be noted that known regulations (e.g. NFPA 13 codes) expressly specify required nominal temperature rating values for sprinkler bulb activation, with those well-known and common values recited in the claim being matched to an intended fire suppression application pertaining to the aforementioned parameters. For these reasons, it is extremely likely that the temperature rating of the bulb shown by Tanklevski meets at least one of the optional and exemplary temperature values recited in the claim. In the extremely unlikely event that the claim is not anticipated by Tanklevski, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bulb having any one of the recited nominal temperature rating values recited in claim 19, for the Tanklevski bulb, in order for the sprinkler, and the fire suppression system used therewith, to comply with the known regulations, such as NFPA 13, which dictate requirements for the use of such sprinkler bulb temperature ratings in a particular location, as would be well within the ordinary skill of one in the art.
Claims 20, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanklevski et al., in view of Muller et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0083833.
As to claim 20, Tanklevski shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 17. However, Tanklevski does not expressly disclose that the circuit board uses the electrical current to detect that the bulb has fractured.
Muller (see Figs. 1-6) shows and describes at least two embodiments of a nozzle/sprinkler having a remarkably similar design, function and effect as compared to that of Tanklevski; and the corresponding circuit board (10) of Muller is disclosed as also having the function of using the corresponding electrical current to detect that the corresponding bulb (8) has fractured (see paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0014], [0015] and [0031]; and note that paragraph [0030] expressly describes bidirectional data signal communication between the corresponding release assembly and an activation device, with paragraph [0015] expressly discussing a “higher level control system” as part of this activation device, which can determine bulb fracture using the discussed signal communications), thus providing the advantage of being able to “deduce the status of the thermal release element from the determined current flow”, so that “the state of the thermal release element 8 can be determined”, for example to determine “whether said release element is intact or has already been triggered or may be defective” (see, at least, paragraphs [0007], [0015] and [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tanklevski, whereby the circuit board thereof is capable of using the electrical current to detect that the bulb has fractured, as taught by Muller, thus providing the advantage of being able to deduce the status of the bulb element from the determined flow of the electrical current, so that one may determine whether the bulb is intact or has already been triggered or whether or not the bulb is defective.
As to claim 24, Tanklevski shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 17. However, it is unclear from the Tanklevski document as to whether or not a set screw extending through a deflector to couple with the bulb is included with the system, although one having ordinary skill in the art of fire sprinklers would readily recognize that such an arrangement is common and well known, as such set screw elements are used for not only reliably connecting a deflector element to the sprinkler/nozzle body, but are also used for reliably clamping the bulb with an adjustable clamping force. Indeed, the prior art to Muller, which as discussed above shows and describes at least two embodiments of a nozzle/sprinkler having a remarkably similar design, function and effect as compared to that of Tanklevski, shows (see, for example, Fig. 2) a set screw (7) extending through a corresponding deflector (13) to couple with the corresponding bulb (8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a set screw extending through a deflector, as taught by Muller, and as was well known in the prior art, to couple with the bulb shown by Tanklevski, thereby facilitating a reliable connection with a deflector element, as would be necessary for a providing a particular effluent fluid spray pattern which addresses a predetermined and expected fire hazard, as well as facilitating a reliable clamping of the bulb with an adjustable clamping force.
As to claim 25, as well as the claim can be understood (see paragraph 7 of the instant Office action), Tanklevski shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 17. However, Tanklevski does not expressly disclose that the circuit board is to determine that the bulb has fractured based at least on determining the open or closed status of a circuit comprising the first wire and the second wire.
As previously discussed, Muller (see Figs. 5 and 6) shows and describes a nozzle/sprinkler having a remarkably similar design, function and effect as compared to that of Tanklevski; and the corresponding circuit board (10) of Muller is disclosed as also having the function determining that the corresponding bulb (8) has fractured based at least on determining the status of a circuit (see paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0014], [0015] and [0031]) comprising first and second wire-like elements (16). It is also noted that paragraph [0030] expressly describes bidirectional data signal communication between the corresponding release assembly and an activation device, with paragraph [0015] expressly discussing a “higher level control system” as part of this activation device, which can determine bulb fracture using the discussed signal communications, thus providing the advantage of being able to “deduce the status of the thermal release element from the determined current flow”, so that “the state of the thermal release element 8 can be determined”, for example to determine “whether said release element is intact or has already been triggered or may be defective” (see, at least, paragraphs [0007], [0015] and [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tanklevski, whereby the circuit board thereof is capable of determining that the bulb has fractured based at least on determining the open or closed status of a circuit which comprises the first wire and the second wire, as taught by Muller, thus providing the advantage of being able to deduce the status of the bulb element from the determined flow of the electrical current, so that one may determine whether the bulb is intact or has already been triggered or whether or not the bulb is defective.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 13, 21 and 23 are allowed.
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the “Remarks” portion of the reply filed May 8, 2026, with respect to claim 17, have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of prior art rejection does/do not rely on the reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record in the same manner, which is/are specifically challenged in the argument(s). It should be noted that although Applicant broadly argues the prior art to Tanklevski “does not teach at least the above-recited elements of claim 17”, this Office does not agree, as set forth above in paragraph 9 of the instant Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights