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. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection is hereby withdrawn in view of the approved terminal disclaimer filed 12/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 42-45, 47, 62 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Multer (US Pub No 2013/0199803 A1).
Re claim 42, Multer discloses a differential pressure monitoring system of a fire suppression system (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0008-0012), comprising:
a water pressure sensor (P3) to detect a water pressure of an inlet side of a dry pipe valve (4);
an air pressure sensor (P1) to detect an air pressure of an outlet side of the dry pipe valve (4);
one or more processors (16; paragraph 0011) coupled with memory (paragraph 0011), the one or more processors to:
receive the water pressure from the water pressure sensor and the air pressure from the air pressure sensor (paragraph 0011 – “configured as a differential pressure controller in communication with a pressure sensor monitoring the supply pressure P3 and is in communication with a pressure sensor monitoring the pressure P1”);
retrieve, from the memory, a ratio for tripping of the dry pipe valve (paragraph 0011 – “the differential device is configured to maintain a ratio of 3 to 1” or larger…”);
determine a minimum required air pressure (paragraph 0011 – “….between the pressure P1 in the tube 1 and the supply pressure P3”) for the dry pipe valve based on the water pressure and the ratio (16; paragraph 0011);
store the minimum required air pressure in the memory (paragraph 0012 – “it will be appreciated that notifications can be provided by various methods, including, but not limited to, …e-mail…”); and
determine that the air pressure from the air pressure sensor is less than the minimum required air pressure (paragraph 0012 – “an alarm may be provided for the pressure P1 to notify an operator if the pressure decreases to a certain limit”); and
an alarm (paragraph 0012) to activate responsive to the air pressure being less than the minimum required air pressure (paragraph 0012).
Re claim 43, Multer discloses the one or more processors are to predict that a valve tripping event of the dry pipe valve is expected to occur based on the ratio (paragraph 0011 – “in the event that the pressure ratio drops below 3 to 1, a signal is sent from the controller 16 to the control valve 17” which indicates the controller, disclosed as a computer, is using the ratio as a predictor that the valve 4 will be tripped).
Re claim 44, Multer discloses the one or more processors are to provide, to a client device (paragraph 0012), a prediction that a tripping event of the dry pipe valve is expected to occur based on the ratio (paragraph 0011 – “in the event that the pressure ratio drops below 3 to 1, a signal is sent from the controller 16 to the control valve 17” which indicates the controller, disclosed as a computer, is using the ratio as a predictor that the valve 4 will be tripped).
Re claim 45, Multer discloses the minimum required air pressure is a value at which the dry pipe valve is to open to allow water to flow through the dry pipe valve (paragraph 0011).
Re claim 47, Multer discloses the one or more processors are to operate a device (17) control the air pressure based on the ratio (paragraph 0011).
Re claim 62, Multer discloses an edge device comprises the one or more processors (16; paragraph 0011 – “It will be appreciated that the differential pressure controller may include a computer constructed to execute a computer readable program stored in a tangible computer-readable medium or in other memory, and including instructions for operating the controller…”).
Re claim 63, Multer discloses a transmission circuit to transmit the alarm to a remote device (paragraph 0012 – “It will be appreciated that notifications can be provided by various methods, including, but not limited to, a telephone message, e-mail…and a facsimile display”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
*Alternative rejections of claims 43 and 44*
Claims 43, 44 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multer (US Pub No 2013/0199803 A1) in view of Golinveaux et al. (US Pat No 8,065,110 B2).
Re claims 43 & 44, Multer discloses one or more processors, the ratio and a client device but do not disclose to predict that a valve tripping event of the dry pipe valve is expected to occur.
However, Golinveaux et al. disclose a dry pipe valve system including a ratio (col. 3, lines 66-67 through col. 4, lines 1-6) alone with one or more processors (abstract) which are to predict that a valve tripping event of the dry pipe valve is expected to occur based on the ratio (col. 5, lines 60-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more processors of Multer predict a valve tripping even as taught by Golinveaux et al. which allows for the system to also estimate a time duration for gas pressure in the piping network to drop below a threshold pressure when the gas is permitted to escape from the network through an open node (Golinveaux – col. 3, lines 53-67 through col. 4, lines 1-10).
Re claim 48, Multer discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the one or more processors are to operate a device to control the water pressure based on the ratio.
However, Golinveaux et al. disclose a dry pipe valve system including one or more processors operating a device to control the water pressure based on the ratio (col. 36, lines 10-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more processors of Multer operate a device to control the water pressure as taught by Golinveaux et al. which allows for the system to also estimate a time duration for gas pressure in the piping network to drop below a threshold pressure when the gas is permitted to escape from the network through an open node (Golinveaux – col. 3, lines 53-67 through col. 4, lines 1-10).
Claims 46 and 49-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multer (US Pub No 2013/0199803 A1) in view of Silva, Jr. et al. (US Pat No 7,802,628 B1). (all citations to Multer unless specified otherwise)
Re claims 46 & 53, Multer discloses the minimum required air pressure is a value at which a valve member (4) of the dry pipe valve is to open (paragraph 0011), the clapper between the inlet side (3) of the dry pipe valve and the outlet side (1) of the dry pipe valve.
Multer as modified by Brennecke et al. does not teach a clapper.
However, Silva, Jr. et al. show a fire extinguishing valve including a clapper (Fig. 5A/5B, 36).
The substitution of one known element (valve element in Silva) for another (valve element as shown in Multer) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the valve element shown in Silva, Jr. et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a first seal that is normally closed in Multer to prevent the flow of fluid from the fitting through the tube and sprinkler head.
Re claim 49, Multer discloses a differential pressure monitoring system (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0008-0012), comprising:
a valve comprising a valve element (4) between an air side (1) of the valve and a water side (3) of the valve, the air side (1) to couple with at least one sprinkler (2), the water side (3) to couple with a water supply (“Supply”);
a water pressure sensor (P3) to detect a water pressure of an inlet side of a dry pipe valve (4);
an air pressure sensor (P1) to detect an air pressure of an outlet side of the dry pipe valve (4);
one or more processors (16; paragraph 0011) coupled with memory (paragraph 011), the one or more processors to:
receive the water pressure from the water pressure sensor (paragraph 0011 – “configured as a differential pressure controller in communication with a pressure sensor monitoring the supply pressure P3”);
retrieve, from the memory, a ratio for tripping of the dry pipe valve (paragraph 0011 – “the differential device is configured to maintain a ratio of 3 to 1” or larger…”);
determine a minimum required air pressure (paragraph 0011 – “….between the pressure P1 in the tube 1 and the supply pressure P3”) for the dry pipe valve based on the water pressure and the ratio (16; paragraph 0011);
store the minimum required air pressure in the memory (paragraph 0012 – “it will be appreciated that notifications can be provided by various methods, including, but not limited to, …e-mail…”);
receive the air pressure from the air pressure sensor (paragraph 0011 – “configured as a differential pressure controller…in communication with a pressure sensor monitoring the pressure P1”);
compare the air pressure with the minimum required air pressure (paragraph 0012 – “an alarm may be provided for the pressure P1 to notify an operator if the pressure decreases to a certain limit”); and
determine that the air pressure from the air pressure sensor is less than the minimum required air pressure (paragraph 0012 – “an alarm may be provided for the pressure P1 to notify an operator if the pressure decreases to a certain limit”); and
an alarm (paragraph 0012) to activate responsive to the air pressure being less than the minimum required air pressure (paragraph 0012).
Multer does not teach a clapper or to adjust, based on the ratio, a threshold stored in the memory.
However, Silva, Jr. et al. show a fire extinguishing valve including a clapper (Fig. 5A/5B, 36).
The substitution of one known element (valve element in Silva) for another (valve element as shown in Multer) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the valve element shown in Silva, Jr. et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a first seal that is normally closed in Multer to prevent the flow of fluid from the fitting through the tube and sprinkler head.
Re claim 50, Multer as modified by Silva, Jr. et al. disclose the one or more processors are to predict that a valve tripping event of the dry pipe valve is expected to occur based on the ratio (paragraph 0011 – “in the event that the pressure ratio drops below 3 to 1, a signal is sent from the controller 16 to the control valve 17” which indicates the controller, disclosed as a computer, is using the ratio as a predictor that the valve 4 will be tripped).
Re claim 51, Multer as modified by Silva, Jr. et al. disclose the one or more processors are to provide, to a client device (paragraph 0012), a prediction that a tripping event of the dry pipe valve is expected to occur based on the ratio (paragraph 0011 – “in the event that the pressure ratio drops below 3 to 1, a signal is sent from the controller 16 to the control valve 17” which indicates the controller, disclosed as a computer, is using the ratio as a predictor that the valve 4 will be tripped).
Re claim 52, Multer as modified by Silva, Jr. et al. disclose the minimum required air pressure a value at which the dry pipe valve is to open to allow water to flow through the dry pipe valve (paragraph 0011).
Re claim 54, Multer as modified by Silva, Jr. et al. disclose the one or more processors are to operate a device (17) control the air pressure based on the ratio (paragraph 0011).
*Alternative rejections of claims 50 and 51*
Claims 50, 51 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multer (US Pub No 2013/0199803 A1) in view of Silva, Jr. et al. (US Pat No 7,802,628 B1) and further in view of Golinveaux et al. (US Pat No 8,065,110 B2).
Re claims 50 & 51, Multer as modified by Silva, Jr. et al. disclose one or more processors, the ratio and a client device but do not disclose to predict that a valve tripping event of the dry pipe valve is expected to occur.
However, Golinveaux et al. disclose a dry pipe valve system including a ratio (col. 3, lines 66-67 through col. 4, lines 1-6) alone with one or more processors (abstract) which are to predict that a valve tripping event of the dry pipe valve is expected to occur based on the ratio (col. 5, lines 60-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more processors of Multer predict a valve tripping even as taught by Golinveaux et al. which allows for the system to also estimate a time duration for gas pressure in the piping network to drop below a threshold pressure when the gas is permitted to escape from the network through an open node (Golinveaux – col. 3, lines 53-67 through col. 4, lines 1-10).
Re claim 55, Multer as modified by Silva, Jr. et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the one or more processors are to operate a device to control the water pressure based on the ratio.
However, Golinveaux et al. disclose a dry pipe valve system including one or more processors operating a device to control the water pressure based on the ratio (col. 36, lines 10-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more processors of Multer operate a device to control the water pressure as taught by Golinveaux et al. which allows for the system to also estimate a time duration for gas pressure in the piping network to drop below a threshold pressure when the gas is permitted to escape from the network through an open node (Golinveaux – col. 3, lines 53-67 through col. 4, lines 1-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments directed at the Multer reference, applicant initially states that Multer does not disclose the referenced “certain limit” of paragraph 0012 is determined based on the water pressure and the ratio as required by claim 42, however Multer directly attributes the stated “certain limit” to the sprinkler leaking which is directly related to both the water pressure and disclose ratio as explained in paragraph 0011. Applicant appears mistakenly state that “there is no indication anywhere in Multer of how this ‘certain limit’ is determined, let alone that one or more processor determine this certain limit based on the water pressure and the ratio” however again, this is explicitly explained in paragraph 0011 and attributed to a processor.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the controller in 16 “necessarily determines a minimum required air pressure” appears to ignore what is required in determining whether the pressure at P1 meets the required ratio. To put this plainly, there is no other way to determine whether the pressure measured at P1 meets the required ratio without determining what the pressure at P1 actually is. From paragraph 0011, “in the event the pressure ratio drops below 3 to 1, a signal is sent from the controller 16 to the control valve 17 to open the valve 17 to introduce the high pressure fluid from supply 18 into the tube 1 until the 3 to 1 ratio is achieved” which follows the description of the controller 16 being “in communication with a pressure sensor monitoring the pressure P1.” Thus a pressure sensor is directly measuring the pressure at P1 and communicating that pressure to the controller 16. That measured pressure is stored in the memory, otherwise the system would be unable to communicate that measured pressure to an operator, especially in a text format such as e-mail.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752