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
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on April 23, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 15 and 16 have been amended. Claims 10-14 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 15-20 are pending.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and cancellation of claim 7 to resolve multiple dependency, which obviate the claim objection described in the Non-final Office Action dated March 19, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further objection.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and amendments of claims 1-16 to resolve indefiniteness of the claims, which obviate the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) described in the Non-final Office Action dated March 19, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, upon further consideration, Examiner sets forth below new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) against claims 1-9, 15 and 16.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and amendments of claim 5 to resolve informalities in the claim, which obviate the claim objection described in the Non-final Office Action dated March 19, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further objection to claim.
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 1-9, 15 and 16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said pump" in 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are two (primary and secondary) pumps in the claim, it is unclear which particular pump is referred by the Applicant in line 31. Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to all pending claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said extended position" in 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said sprinkler" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are two (primary and secondary) sprinklers in the claim, it is unclear which particular pump is referred by the Applicant in line 2. Same rejection applies to all pending claims.
In claim 3, line 2, the recitation “an extended position” appears to be a double inclusion of the “extended position” recited in line 46 of claim 1.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it depends on a cancelled claim 10. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 15 will be interpreted as dependent of claim 1. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said second fire retardant fluid is dispensed onto along said secondary boundary" in lines 37-38. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 2009/0266563) in view of Smagac et al. (US 5165482).
Regarding claim 1, Wright discloses a fire protection system (Figs. 1-9, System for Large Scale Outdoor Fire Retardation, title) comprising:
a structure (60);
a first fire retardant fluid (in 170. Fig. 4 and par. 0013);
a second fire retardant fluid (in 136. Fig. 3);
a primary tank (170, fig. 4) containing said first fire retardant fluid (par. 0013);
a secondary tank (136. Fig. 3) containing said second fire retardant fluid;
a plurality of sprinklers (sprinklers 30, 31, 32), each said sprinkler having a base being configured to (capable of) be coupled to a ground surface (see annotated fig. 7B, demonstrating sprinkler base coupled to ground), each said sprinkler having a line (see annotated fig. 7A, 7B, equated to applicant’s “line” 28 as disclosed on p. 4 of applicant’s specification) coupled to said base (annotated fig. 7B) and extending outwardly away from said base (annotated fig. 7B), each said sprinkler having a nozzle (head 36) at a distal end of said line relative to said base (annotated fig. 7B), said line (annotated fig. 7B) being fluidically coupled (coupled to the piping 40 via the mechanical tee 38 and swing joint 35) to said nozzle (head 36) and said base (annotated fig. 7B);
PNG
media_image1.png
448
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a primary pump (in pump station 20. Fig. 4) being fluidically coupled to said primary tank (par. 0013) and said sprinkler (The pump station 20 may enable water supplied by a water company or local municipality to be pumped through the system 20 piping 40 to the sprinklers, par. 0018), said primary pump selectively pumping said first fire retardant fluid to said base of each said sprinkler (par. 0012) and through each said sprinkler such that said first fire retardant fluid is dispensed onto one of said structure (par. 0013) and a portion of said ground surface surrounding said structure (par. 0013);
a central processing unit (CPU) (fig. 9, 382 and par. 0020 where article 380 includes CPU 382) being operationally coupled to said pump (CPU 382 is part of system 20, further par. 0024, explains pump station 20 in relation to software); and
a plurality of heat sensors (fire detection sensors 80, may include a temperature, par. 0016), each said heat sensor being positioned proximate a respective sprinkler of said plurality of sprinklers (In an embodiment the fire detection sensors 80 may be placed at or near the piping 40, fig. 7B proximate pop-up sprinkler 32, par. 0016), each said heat sensor being operationally and signally coupled to said CPU (par. 0024), each said heat sensor being configured for generating an actuation signal if detecting a predetermined rate of heat (fire detection sensor 80 may include a temperature sensor, par. 0016), said CPU being operable to actuate said pump when one of said heat sensors generates said actuation signal (page 3, col. 2, line 5-8 [claim 3]).
Wright et al. fail to teach wherein said plurality of sprinklers comprising a plurality of primary sprinklers and a plurality of secondary sprinklers, said plurality of said secondary sprinklers being positioned along a secondary boundary which encompasses said structure, said plurality of said primary sprinklers being positioned along a primary boundary which encompasses said structure and said secondary boundary; a secondary pump being fluidically coupled to said secondary tank and said plurality of secondary sprinklers, said secondary pump selectively pumping said second fire retardant fluid to said base of each said secondary sprinkler and through each said secondary sprinkler such that said second fire retardant fluid is dispensed along said secondary boundary and onto a top side of said structure and a plurality of secondary heat sensors, each said secondary heat sensor being positioned proximate a respective secondary sprinkler of said plurality of secondary sprinklers, each said secondary heat sensor being operationally and signally coupled to said CPU, each said secondary heat sensor being configured for generating a secondary actuation signal if detecting a second predetermined rate of heat, said CPU being operable to move said line of each said secondary sprinkler to said extended position and actuate said secondary pump when one of said secondary heat sensors generates said secondary actuation signal.
However, Smagac et al. teach a fire protection system (Figs. 1-5) comprising: a structure (residential structure R); a first fire retardant fluid (in 9. Fig. 1); a second fire retardant fluid (recycled water in 7. Fig. 2); a primary tank (9, fig. 1) containing said first fire retardant fluid; a secondary tank (7. Fig. 2) containing said second fire retardant fluid; a plurality of sprinklers (11, 14-17), wherein said plurality of sprinklers comprising a plurality of primary sprinklers (11 and 14) and a plurality of secondary sprinklers (15-17), said plurality of said secondary sprinklers being positioned along a secondary boundary (around the structure) which encompasses said structure, said plurality of said primary sprinklers being positioned along a primary boundary (further from the structure. Fig. 1) which encompasses said structure and said secondary boundary; said second fire retardant fluid is dispensed along said secondary boundary and onto a top side of said structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a plurality of primary sprinklers and a plurality of secondary sprinklers, as taught by Smagac et al., to Wright et al.’s system, in order to reduces the probability of local fires caused by wind-borne embers and reduce the combustibility of these materials to assist conventional firefighting efforts (Abstract, lines 11-15).
Smagac et al. teach duplication of the sprinklers but fail to teach the duplication of having a secondary pump and a plurality of secondary heat sensors to generate a secondary actuation signal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system with a secondary pump and a plurality of secondary heat sensors in order to provide two independent systems, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) where the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04, Subtitle VI, Section C.
Regarding claim 2, Wright et al.’s system modified by Smagac et al.’s secondary sprinklers, Wright et al. further discloses the base of each said sprinkler being configured to (capable of) embedded below said ground surface (finished grade 212) (annotated fig. 7B).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Wright et al.’s system modified by Smagac et al.’s secondary sprinklers, Wright et al. further discloses said line of each said sprinkler being movable between a retracted position and an extended position (annotated fig 7B, The head 36 of sprinkler 32 may extend or pop-up from base when liquid is projected from the head 36, par. 0019).
PNG
media_image2.png
553
347
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Wright et al.’s system modified by Smagac et al.’s secondary sprinklers, Wright et al. further discloses said first fire retardant fluid having an equivalent composition (water) as said second fire retardant fluid.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 2009/0266563) in view of Smagac et al. (US 5165482) and further in view of Lemme (US 5,240,182).
Regarding claim 4, Wright et al. and Smagac et al. fail to disclose teaches said line of each said sprinkler being configured to (capable of) be positioned entirely under said ground surface in said retracted position, said line being configured to (capable of) be positioned entirely above said ground surface in said extended position.
However, Lemme teaches said line (cylindrical housing 14, fig. 1) of each said sprinkler (10, fig. 1) being positioned entirely under said ground surface in said retracted position (retracted inside the casing when the sprinkler is not in operation, col. 1, line 28-29), said line being positioned entirely above said ground surface in said extended position (extended position shown in fig. 1 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the sprinkler and line component of Wright et al. by making it fully retract underground and fully extend above ground as taught by Lemme for the benefit of being hidden from view when not in use.
PNG
media_image3.png
249
352
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Wright et al.’s system modified by Smagac et al.’s secondary sprinklers and further modified by Lemme, Wright et al. further discloses said CPU (fig. 9, 382 and par. 0020 where article 380 includes CPU 382) selectively moving said line of each said sprinkler between said retracted position and said extended position (pump station 20 includes controller 125, fig. 3. “pump station 20 may enable water supplied by a water company or local municipality to be pumped through the system 20 piping 40 to the sprinklers 30”, and “The head 36 of sprinkler 32 may extend or pop-up from base when liquid is projected from the head 36”. Therefore, the pump station 20, and by extension the controller 125, determines whether the sprinkler is in a retracted or extended position).
Regarding claim 6, Wright et al.’s system modified by Smagac et al.’s secondary sprinklers and further modified by Lemme, Wright et al. further discloses said CPU being operable to (capable of) move said line of each said sprinkler to said extended position and actuate said primary pump when one of said primary heat sensors generates said primary actuation signal, said CPU being operable to move said line of each said secondary sprinkler to said extended position and actuate said secondary pump when one of said secondary heat sensors (fire detection sensor 80 may include a sensor temperature, par. 0016) generates said secondary actuation signal (the pump station further including a controller coupled to the liquid based pump and the fire detection sensor and activating the liquid based pump based on the fire detection sensor [page 3, col. 2, line 5-8]). Therefore, controller 125 controls fluid flow to sprinklers, which determines whether a pop-up sprinkler 32 is in a deployed state and said line is in extended position. “The head 36 of sprinkler 32 may extend or pop-up from base when liquid is projected from the head 36”, par.0019).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 2009/0266563) in view of Smagac et al. (US 5165482) and further in view of Menard (US 2016/0051850).
Regarding claim 7, Wright et al. and Smagac et al. fail to disclose said nozzle of each said sprinkler being a plurality of nozzles, said line of each said sprinkler being fluidically coupled to each said nozzle of said plurality of nozzles.
However, Menard teaches said nozzle (43) of each said sprinkler (distributor 13) being a plurality of nozzles (43A, B), said line (32) of each said sprinkler being fluidically coupled to each said nozzle of said plurality of nozzles (fig. 3, and nozzles 43 coupled to body 40, fig. 4, detailed view of distributor 13).
The substitution of one known element (nozzle in Wright) for another (distributor as shown in Menard) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the distributor shown in Menard would have yielded predictable results, namely, a distributor in Menard to “adequately distribute water or other material over a large area” (par. 0018).
Regarding claim 8, Wright et al. and Smagac et al. fail to disclose said line of each said sprinkler being elongated between said base and said distal end, said nozzle facing away from a central longitudinal axis of said line.
However, Menard teaches said nozzle (43) of each said sprinkler (distributor 13) being a plurality of nozzles (43A, B), said line (32) of each said sprinkler being fluidically coupled to each said nozzle of said plurality of nozzles (fig. 3, and nozzles 43 coupled to body 40, fig. 4, detailed view of distributor 13), and said line of each said sprinkler being elongated between said base and said distal end, said nozzle (Menard - 43 A, B, fig. 4) facing away from a central longitudinal axis of said line (Menard - annotated fig. 5).
The substitution of one known element (nozzle in Wright) for another (distributor as shown in Menard) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the distributor shown in Menard would have yielded predictable results, namely, a distributor in Menard to “adequately distribute water or other material over a large area” (par. 0018).
Regarding claim 9, Wright et al.’s system modified by Smagac et al.’s secondary sprinklers and further modified by Menard, Menard further teaches said line of each said sprinkler being elongated between said base and said distal end, each said nozzle facing away from a central longitudinal axis of said line (Menard - annotated fig. 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
630
699
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 2009/0266563) in view of Lemme (US 5,240,182), further in view of Menard (US 2016/0051850) and Lalouz (US 2010/0071917) and further in view of Smagac et al. (US 5165482).
Regarding claim 16, Wright et al. discloses a fire protection system (System for Large Scale Outdoor Fire Retardation, title) comprising:
a structure (60);
a first fire retardant fluid (par. 0013);
a second fire retardant fluid;
a primary tank (170) containing said first fire retardant fluid (par. 0013);
a secondary tank (annotated fig. 4, par. 0013) containing said second fire retardant fluid (par. 0015, annotated fig. 4) (system 20 may include one or more storage tanks or towers 170. The reference contains at least one or more tanks, and is capable of containing a primary fire retardant in one tank, and a secondary retardant in another tank, annotated fig. 4 below);
PNG
media_image5.png
536
800
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a plurality of sprinklers (sprinklers 30, 31, 32), each said sprinkler having a base being configured to (capable of) be embedded below said ground surface (see annotated fig. 7B, demonstrating sprinkler base embedded below said ground surface), each said sprinkler having a line (see annotated fig. 7A, 7B, equated to applicant’s “line” 28 as disclosed on p. 4 of applicant’s specification) telescopically (per definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/telescoping, “to become forced together lengthwise with one part entering another as the result of collision”, fig. 7B shows a retracted state where sprinkler 32 is retracted or telescoping into said ground surface (“one part entering another” dictionary definition)) coupled to said base and extending outwardly away from said base (annotated fig. 7B), said line being movable between a retracted position and an extended position (annotated fig 7B and 7A, The head 36 of sprinkler 32 may extend or pop-up from base when liquid is projected from the head 36, par. 0019), said line being configured to (capable of) be positioned entirely under said ground surface in said retracted position (annotated fig. 7B show line fully retracted into ground surface).
Wright et al. fails to disclose said line being configured to be positioned entirely above said ground surface in said extended position.
However, Lemme teaches said line (cylindrical housing 14, fig. 1) of each said line (14, fig. 1) being positioned entirely above said ground surface in said extended position (extended position shown in fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
249
352
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the sprinkler and line component of Wright et al. by making it fully retract underground and fully extend above ground as taught by Lemme for the benefit of being hidden from view when not in use.
Wright et al. fails to disclose each said sprinkler having a plurality of nozzles at a distal end of said line relative to said ground surface, said line being fluidically coupled to each said nozzle of said plurality of nozzles and said base,
However, Menard discloses each said sprinkler (distributor 13, fig. 5) having a plurality of nozzles (43A, B, fig. 4) at a distal end of said line relative to said ground surface (annotated fig. 5 below), said line (annotated fig. 5 below) being fluidically coupled (annotated fig. 5, showing fluid connection of nozzle, line and base with connected “piping”, par. 0035) to each said nozzle of said plurality of nozzles and said base (fig. 3, and nozzles 43 coupled to body 40, fig. 4, detailed view of distributor 13), said line being elongated between said base and said distal end (annotated fig. 5 below), each said nozzle facing away from a central longitudinal axis of said line (annotated fig. 5, showing axis, with nozzle facing away and located at distal end, relative base).
The substitution of one known element (nozzle in Wright) for another (distributor as shown in Menard) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the distributor shown in Menard would have yielded predictable results, namely, a distributor in Menard to “adequately distribute water or other material over a large area” (par. 0018).
PNG
media_image6.png
630
715
media_image6.png
Greyscale
said plurality of sprinklers comprising a plurality of primary sprinklers and a plurality of secondary sprinklers (annotated fig. 2, showing primary/secondary sprinklers), said plurality of said secondary sprinklers being positioned along a secondary boundary surrounding said structure (annotated fig. 2, showing secondary boundary where secondary sprinklers are located), said plurality of said primary sprinklers being positioned along a primary boundary surrounding said structure and said secondary boundary (annotated fig. 2, showing structure and boundaries);
a primary pump (pump station 20) being fluidically coupled to said primary tank (par. 0013) and said plurality of primary sprinklers, said primary pump selectively pumping said first fire retardant fluid to said base of each said primary sprinkler (par. 0012) and through each said primary sprinkler such that said first fire retardant fluid is dispensed onto an outer portion of said ground surface surrounding said structure (par. 0013);
Wright et al. teaches a plurality of secondary sprinklers (annotated fig. 2).
Wright et al. fails to disclose a secondary pump being fluidically coupled to said secondary tank and said plurality of secondary sprinklers, said secondary pump selectively pumping said second fire retardant fluid to said base of each said secondary sprinkler and through each said secondary sprinkler such that said second fire retardant fluid is dispensed onto an inner portion of said ground surface surrounding said structure and onto a top side of said structure (annotated fig. 1, showing fire retardant fluid being dispensed onto an inner portion of said ground surface surrounding said structure and onto a top side of said structure);
PNG
media_image7.png
476
744
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Lalouz teaches a secondary pump (102, annotated fig. 1 above) being fluidically coupled to said secondary tank (110, annotated fig. 2) and said plurality of secondary sprinklers, said secondary pump selectively pumping said second fire retardant fluid (“a zonal version of the system and method employs a plurality of outdoors residential fire-suppression system that can be activated individually or collectively”, abs. The reference is capable of being selectively activated individually or collectively), to said base of each said secondary sprinkler and through each said secondary sprinkler such that said second fire retardant fluid is dispensed onto an inner portion of said ground surface surrounding said structure and onto a top side of said structure (annotated fig. 1, showing fire retardant fluid being dispensed onto an inner portion of said ground surface surrounding said structure and onto a top side of said structure);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the Fire retardation system of Wright et al. by adding a secondary pump being fluidically coupled to said secondary tank and said plurality of secondary sprinklers, said secondary pump selectively pumping said second fire retardant fluid such that said second fire retardant fluid is dispensed onto an inner portion of said ground surface surrounding said structure and onto a top side of said structure as taught by Lalouz for the benefit of having “a back up source” (par. 0039) referring to the secondary fire retardant source which said secondary pump is responsible for pumping, and having a “preventive measure to create a fire barrier” abs., in regards to the benefit of fluid dispersion on ground and structure.
a central processing unit (CPU) (fig. 9, 382 and par. 0020 where article 380 includes CPU 382) being operationally coupled to said primary pump (CPU 382 is part of system 20, further par. 0024, explains pump station 20 in relation to software)
said CPU (fig. 9, 382 and par. 0020 where article 380 includes CPU 382) being operationally coupled to said plurality of sprinklers and said secondary pump (CPU 382 is part of system 20, further par. 0024, explains pump station 20 in relation to software), said CPU selectively moving said line of each said sprinkler between said retracted position and said extended position (pump station 20 includes controller 125, fig. 3. “pump station 20 may enable water supplied by a water company or local municipality to be pumped through the system 20 piping 40 to the sprinklers 30”, and “The head 36 of sprinkler 32 may extend or pop-up from base when liquid is projected from the head 36”. Therefore, the pump station 20, and by extension the controller 125, determines whether the sprinkler is in a retracted or extended position and also whether a sprinkler is activated and dispensing fire retardant fluid);
a plurality of primary heat sensors (fire detection sensors 80, may include a temperature, par. 0016), each said primary heat sensor being positioned proximate a respective primary sprinkler of said plurality of primary sprinklers (annotated fig. 2 below), each said primary heat sensor being operationally and signally coupled to said CPU (page 3, col. 2, line 5-8 [claim 3]), each said primary heat sensor being configured for generating a primary actuation signal if detecting a first predetermined rate of heat (fire detection sensor 80 may include a temperature sensor, par. 0016), said CPU being operable to move said line of each said primary sprinkler to said extended position (pump station 20 includes controller 125, fig. 3. “pump station 20 may enable water supplied by a water company or local municipality to be pumped through the system 20 piping 40 to the sprinklers 30”, and “The head 36 of sprinkler 32 may extend or pop-up from base when liquid is projected from the head 36”. Therefore, the pump station 20, and by extension the controller 125, determines whether the sprinkler is in a retracted or extended position), and actuate said primary pump when one of said primary heat sensors (80) generates said primary actuation signal (the pump station further including a controller coupled to the liquid based pump and the fire detection sensor and activating the liquid based pump based on the fire detection sensor [page 3, col. 2, line 5-8]); and
PNG
media_image8.png
493
689
media_image8.png
Greyscale
a plurality of secondary heat sensors, each said secondary heat sensor being positioned proximate a respective secondary sprinkler of said plurality of secondary sprinklers (annotated fig. 2 below),
PNG
media_image9.png
493
689
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Wright et al. discloses each said secondary heat sensor being operationally and signally coupled to said CPU (fig. 9, 382 and par. 0020 where article 380 includes CPU 382)(par. 0024), each said secondary heat sensor being configured for generating a secondary actuation signal (when a first sensor 80 is triggered, the algorithm may require a second sensor 80 to be triggered before activating fire retardant distribution, par. 0017) if detecting a second predetermined rate of heat, said CPU (fig. 9, 382 and par. 0020 where article 380 includes CPU 382) being operable to move said line of each said secondary sprinkler to said extended position (pump station 20 includes controller 125, fig. 3. “pump station 20 may enable water supplied by a water company or local municipality to be pumped through the system 20 piping 40 to the sprinklers 30”, and “The head 36 of sprinkler 32 may extend or pop-up from base when liquid is projected from the head 36”. Therefore, the pump station 20, and by extension the controller 125, determines whether the sprinkler is in a retracted or extended position)
Wright et al. discloses secondary heat sensors generates said secondary actuation signal (the pump station 20 further including a controller 125 coupled to the liquid based pump and the fire detection sensor 80 (per annotated fig. 2 above there are primary and secondary sprinklers and heat sensors) and activating the liquid based pump based on the fire detection sensor [page 3, col. 2, line 5-8]). Therefore, controller 125 controls fluid flow to sprinklers, which determines whether a pop-up sprinkler 32 is in a deployed state and said line is in extended position. “The head 36 of sprinkler 32 may extend or pop-up from base when liquid is projected from the head 36”, par.0019).
Wright et al. only fails to disclose a secondary pump.
However, Lalouz teaches a secondary pump (102, annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
476
744
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the Fire retardation system of Wright et al. by adding a secondary pump as taught by Lalouz for the benefit of having “a back up source” (par. 0039), referring to the secondary fire retardant source which said secondary pump is responsible for pumping.
Wright et al. fail to disclose said plurality of said secondary sprinklers being positioned along a secondary boundary which encompasses said structure, said plurality of said primary sprinklers being positioned along a primary boundary which encompasses said structure and said secondary boundary; and said second fire retardant fluid is dispensed onto along said secondary boundary and onto a top side of said structure.
However, Smagac et al. teach a fire protection system (Figs. 1-5) comprising: a structure (residential structure R); a first fire retardant fluid (in 9. Fig. 1); a second fire retardant fluid (recycled water in 7. Fig. 2); a primary tank (9, fig. 1) containing said first fire retardant fluid; a secondary tank (7. Fig. 2) containing said second fire retardant fluid; a plurality of sprinklers (11, 14-17), wherein said plurality of sprinklers comprising a plurality of primary sprinklers (11 and 14) and a plurality of secondary sprinklers (15-17), said plurality of said secondary sprinklers being positioned along a secondary boundary (around the structure) which encompasses said structure, said plurality of said primary sprinklers being positioned along a primary boundary (further from the structure. Fig. 1) which encompasses said structure and said secondary boundary; said second fire retardant fluid is dispensed along said secondary boundary and onto a top side of said structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a plurality of primary sprinklers and a plurality of secondary sprinklers, as taught by Smagac et al., to Wright et al.’s system, in order to reduces the probability of local fires caused by wind-borne embers and reduce the combustibility of these materials to assist conventional firefighting efforts (Abstract, lines 11-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 15 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference or combination of references 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 ARTHUR O. HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. CT..
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.
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
