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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 6, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19 are cancelled, claims 1-5, and 17, 20 are withdrawn, and elected claims 7-11, 14-15, 21, 22 are addressed below.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-11, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil (US 20020053440) in view of Muller (US20190083833).
Regarding claim 7, Gil discloses a sprinkler system (figs. 11-19), comprising:
a sprinkler (H) to be electronically activated to change that changes from a first state (unactivated) to prevent fluid flow through the sprinkler to a second state (activated) to allow fluid flow through the sprinkler responsive to a control signal (from C, C1-C4 and associated transmission lines; fig. 18; par. 51-54),
the sprinkler (H as shown in fig. 15) comprising an outlet (opening closed up by valve plate 3; par. 48), a seal (3) to seal the outlet in the first state of the sprinkler (see fig. 15), a seal support (ampoule 200 and bolt 5; par. 48) coupled with the seal, and an actuator (120) coupled with the seal support (5 and 200), the sprinkler comprising a control interface (140, 142),
a trigger device (components listed below) coupled with the control interface to control operation of the actuator
a sensor (TS) that detects a parameter (temperature; par. 50) corresponding to a fire condition (par. 67, step S60);
a comparator circuit (sprinkler head controller C; par. 51) that determines that the fire condition is present based on a value of the parameter meeting or exceeding a threshold (par. 60, par. 67: “Upon determining at step S70 that the sensed current temperature exceeds the predetermined threshold value, the sprinkler head controller C recognizes that a fire has occurred”);
a power source (dc power source 92); and
a trigger comprising one or more transistors (49, 47, 43; par. 60, 62, 63), the trigger receives power from the power source (92) and provides the control signal (step S120, “actuate sprinkler”) using the power to the actuator of the sprinkler responsive to the comparator circuit determining that the fire condition is present (par. 62-63).
Gil is silent regarding a controller is decoupled from the control interface, and the trigger device operable to control the actuator independent of the controller.
Muller discloses a comparable sprinkler (fig. 2) having an outlet at 4, seal 5, seal support at 6 and 8 coupled to the seal 5, an actuator 9 (par. 29), a control interface 14 (fig. 4; par. 29) and a trigger device 10 and power source 11 that can power the actuator responsive to the fire condition (par. 31) and determine fire condition using a current below the set threshold. Muller further discloses a higher-level system (par. 11) for controlling active remote triggering that is decoupled (i.e. not physically connected via wiring) from the control interface 14 (par. 11: “a wireless communications interface thus enables the sprinkler head according to the invention to be integrated into a higher-level fire extinguishing system without wiring with respect to data lines or bus lines”).
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 have modified Gil to incorporate the teachings of Muller to provide a controller is decoupled from the control interface, and the trigger device operable to control the actuator independent of the controller. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating wireless communication with higher-level control system for cost reduction and simplified installation in retrofitting with existing sprinkler system (see paragraph 5).
(Note 2: all references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the primary reference, unless otherwise stated.)
Regarding claim 8, Gil, as modified above, discloses the sprinkler system of claim 7, comprising: a wire (8, 9) that connects the trigger with a control interface (140, 142) of the sprinkler (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 9, Gil, as modified above, discloses the sprinkler system of claim 7, comprising: the actuator (120) is triggered responsive to the control signal to change the sprinkler from the first state to the second state (par. 63).
Regarding claim 10, Gil, as modified above, discloses the sprinkler system of claim 7, comprising: one or more pipes (33) that connect the sprinkler with a fluid supply (par. 46: “an extinguishing liquid storage tank”), the sprinkler is connected with the one or more pipes while connected with the trigger device (figs. 11, 17).
Regarding claim 11, Gil, as modified above, discloses the sprinkler system of claim 7, comprising: the trigger device is connected with the sprinkler while the sprinkler is disconnected (no physical wiring for data lines or bus lines; see Muller – par. 11) from the controller, a fire control panel comprises the controller (Muller’s higher-level system, 11; see the rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 14, Gil, as modified above, discloses the sprinkler system of claim 7, but fails to teach a printed circuit board that comprises the comparator circuit and the trigger.
Muller discloses a comparable sprinkler system having a printed circuit board (PCB 10; par. 29) that comprises a comparator circuit (monitoring status of element 8; par. 31) and the trigger (chip 12).
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 have modified Gil to incorporate the teachings of Muller to provide a printed circuit board that comprises the comparator circuit and the trigger. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating monitoring desired status and condition of the sprinkler and associated surrounding with the desired triggering and wireless communication capability.
Regarding claim 15, Gil, as modified above, discloses the sprinkler system of claim 7, comprising: the power source comprises at least one of a battery (Muller – battery 11, fig. 2, par. 29) and an interface to a remote power source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No additional reference was found to show obviousness against the subject matter of claims 21-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights