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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s reply filed January 2, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-9, 11-18 and 20-22 remain pending and are addressed below.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 claim 18, the limitation recited therein contradicts the scope of independent claim 8, from which the claim indirectly depends. More specifically, claim 8 was amended to distinguish the claim from one or more prior art rejections made of record in the Office action mailed October 2, 2025, by essentially reciting that the “cap”, when in the “second position”, is “spaced from the first position and disconnected from the cover and the nozzle head”. However, claim 18 specifies that the “cap is fixedly coupled to the nozzle head” which, when interpreted in light of the originally-filed specification regarding this limitation (see paragraph [0026]), clearly contradicts the “disconnected” from the nozzle head limitation of claim 8.
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 1-9, 11, 15-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee, USPN 2,493,982.
As to claim 1, Lee shows a nozzle assembly (see Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 5) configured to selectively provide fire suppression agent to a space, comprising: a cover (10 in Figs. 1 and 2; and 52 in Figs. 4 and 5); a cap (22 in Figs. 1 and 2; and 61 in Figs. 4 and 5) coupled to the cover to define a cavity (as shown in Fig. 1 and in Fig. 4); and a nozzle head (referred to in the specification as “nozzle 23” regarding Figs. 1 and 2, although reference number “23” is not shown; and referred to in the specification as “nozzle 54” regarding Figs. 4 and 5, although reference number “54” is also not shown) received within the cavity (see Fig. 3), the nozzle head being configured to provide the fire suppression agent to a hazard area, wherein the cap is coupled to the cover at a location which is below the nozzle head (see again, Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 5); wherein the cap is disconnected from the cover and the nozzle head responsive to a pressure formed by release of the fire suppression agent by the nozzle head into the cavity exceeding a threshold pressure, the pressure acting directly on the cap (see: column 2, lines 44-50; and column 3, lines 40-51).
As to claim 2, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 1, and wherein the nozzle head is in fluid communication with the hazard area after the cap is decoupled from the cover (see Figs. 2 and 5).
As to claim 3, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 2, and wherein the nozzle head is configured to release the fire suppression agent from within the cover (see Figs. 1 and 4; and see again: column 2, lines 44-50; and column 3, lines 40-51).
As to claim 4, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 1, and wherein the nozzle head is positioned behind a surface (16; see Fig. 2).
As to claim 5, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 1, and further, it is noted that the recitation limiting “the fire suppression agent” as being “an inert gas” represents nothing more than an intended use of the claimed “nozzle assembly”. Thus, the claim is anticipated, because it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d, 1647 (1987). Also, there is nothing which would preclude one from using an inert gas fire suppression agent with the nozzle assembly shown by Lee; and it should further be noted that Applicant’s own disclosure (see paragraphs [0021]-[0022]) does not set forth any criticality with respect to using inert gas with the disclosed nozzle assembly, as opposed to other known extinguishing agents, such as “foam, water, etc.”
As to claim 6, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 1, and further comprising a pipe coupling assembly (see Figs. 4 and 5), wherein the pipe coupling assembly includes an inner pipe portion (51) and an outer pipe portion (50), and wherein the inner pipe portion is configured to slide relative to the outer pipe portion when the nozzle assembly is actuated (see Fig. 5).
As to claim 7, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 1, and wherein the cap is coupled to the cover via at least one of an adhesive or a friction fitting (see Figs. 1 and 4; and see: column 2, lines 44-47; and column 3, lines 40-51).
As to claim 8, Lee shows a nozzle assembly (see Figs. 4 and 5) configured to selectively provide fire suppression agent to a space, comprising: a pipe coupling assembly (50, 51) structured to change in length (the assembly of 50 and 51 extends in length as shown in Fig. 5, as compared to Fig. 4); a nozzle head (referred to in the specification as “nozzle 54” regarding Figs. 4 and 5, although reference number “54” is not shown) coupled to the pipe coupling assembly; a cover (52); and a cap (61) releasably coupled to the cover and defining a cavity (as shown in Fig. 4) therebetween, wherein the cap is movable from a first position (see Fig. 4) in which the cap engages the cover to a second position (see Fig. 5) in which the cap is spaced from the first position and disconnected from the cover and the nozzle head; wherein in an unactuated configuration (see again, Fig. 4), the nozzle head is received within the cavity and not visible from within the space; and wherein in an actuated configuration (see again, Fig. 5), the pipe coupling assembly increases in length and the nozzle head extends at least partially out from the cavity and is visible from within the space.
As to claim 9, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 8, and wherein the pipe coupling assembly comprises an outer pipe portion (50) and an inner pipe portion (51) slidably coupled to the outer pipe portion (see again, Figs. 4 and 5).
As to claim 11, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 9, and wherein the outer pipe portion comprises a first flange (56) and the inner pipe portion comprises a second flange (58), wherein engagement of the first flange and the second flange limits a range of movement of the inner pipe portion relative to the outer pipe portion (see again, Figs. 4 and 5).
As to claim 15, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 8, and wherein the nozzle head is positioned within the cavity and behind a surface (“ceiling surface 16”, which is shown in the embodiment of Fig. 2, and although not shown in Figs. 4 or 5, it would similarly exist in the embodiment of Figs. 4 and 5, as per column 3, lines 40-51) in the unactuated configuration (see Fig. 4), and outside of the cavity and in front of the surface in the actuated configuration (see Fig. 5).
As to claim 16, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 8, and wherein the cap is released from the cover by force on the cap formed by a pressure within the cavity due to a release of the fire suppression agent (see: column 2, lines 44-50; and column 3, lines 40-51).
As to claim 17, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 8, and wherein the cap is released from the cover by a force exerted on the cap due to movement of the nozzle head (at the very least, movement of the nozzle head results from pressurized fluid entering the assembly, which results in a force being exerted on the cap due to movement of the nozzle head, which results in the cap being released from the cover; and it is reasonable to expect the outer end portion of the nozzle head shown by Lee to also physically contact the inner surface of the cap with a measurable force when the nozzle head moves towards the actuated configuration shown in Fig. 5).
As to claim 18, with the indefiniteness issue raised in paragraph 5 of the instant Office action aside, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 17, and wherein the cap is fixedly coupled to the nozzle head (the cap, as shown in Fig. 4, is fixedly coupled to the entire nozzle assembly, and is thus indirectly fixedly coupled to the nozzle head via the other elements of the nozzle assembly).
As to claim 20, Lee shows a method for releasing a fire suppression agent from a nozzle assembly (see Figs. 4 and 5) into a space, comprising: coupling the nozzle assembly to a distribution piping (represented at reference number 12, which is shown in the embodiment of Fig. 2, and although not shown in Figs. 4 or 5, the piping would similarly exist in the embodiment of Figs. 4 and 5, as per column 3, lines 40-51), wherein the nozzle assembly comprises a nozzle (referred to in the specification as “nozzle 54” regarding Figs. 4 and 5, although reference number “54” is not shown), a cover (52), a cap (61), and a pipe coupling assembly (50, 51), the pipe coupling assembly being partially translatable relative to the distribution piping (see Figs. 4 and 5); supplying a cavity (as shown in Fig. 4) defined between the cover and the cap with the fire suppression agent via the distribution piping; forming a pressure within the cavity due to introduction of the fire suppression agent (see: column 2, lines 44-50; and column 3, lines 40-51); disconnecting the cap from the cover and the nozzle (see Fig. 5) and moving the cap downward (movement, as shown from Fig. 4 to Fig. 5, when the nozzle is installed in a ceiling surface, as expressly stated in column 3, lines 40-52) in response to the pressure exerting a threshold pressure directly on the cap (see again: column 2, lines 44-50; and column 3, lines 40-51); moving the nozzle out of the cavity to an actuated position below the cover (see Fig. 5); and releasing the fire suppression agent into the space via the nozzle while in the actuated position (see again, Fig. 5).
As to claim 21, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 8, and wherein the cap is spaced below the first position when in the second position, and wherein the nozzle head extends below the cavity in the actuated configuration (see Fig. 5).
As to claim 22, Lee shows the nozzle assembly of claim 8, and wherein the cap is configured to move from the first position to the second position responsive to a pressure acting directly on the cap exceeding a threshold pressure (see: column 2, lines 44-50; and column 3, lines 40-51).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Lee shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 8. Also, it is abundantly clear that when the nozzle assembly of Lee is in the actuated configuration (see Fig. 5), the nozzle head is spaced more than 0 inches from the cover. Further, while it is extremely likely that the nozzle head of Lee is also spaced less than 12 inches from the cover in the actuated configuration, such cannot definitively be said.
It should first be noted that Applicant’s specification does not set forth any criticality with respect to the recited spacing range, as the specification merely mentions such as being exemplary. Regardless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the nozzle assembly of Lee in a manner commensurate with the intended installation of the assembly in order to provide the most appropriate effluent spray for the installation, including making the nozzle assembly to exhibit a particular scale such that the nozzle head is spaced within the range of 0 to 12 inches from the cover in the actuated configuration (even though there is little chance that the Lee nozzle assembly doesn’t already meet the recited spacing range), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the components of the device, and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Khazova, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0304663.
Lee shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 11, and Lee also shows the outer pipe portion, the inner pipe portion, the first flange, and the second flange defining a second cavity (see Fig. 4). However, while the second cavity of Lee (at least in the unactuated configuration) presumably comprises air (which is a compressible fluid), the air within the second cavity of Lee is (likely) not configured to appreciably dampen movement of the inner pipe portion relative to the outer pipe portion upon release of the fire suppression agent from the nozzle head. Also, Lee does not show or describe inclusion of a first seal positioned on the first flange and a second seal positioned on the second flange to form a fluid seal between the first flange and the second flange.
It should first be noted that Applicant’s originally filed drawings do not show the recited “first seal” and “second seal” positioned on the first flange and the second flange, respectively, as set forth in claim 13. Thus, it appears that such are merely ancillary features of the disclosed device, as compared to the purported inventive concepts of the instant application. Regardless, Khazova shows a pipe coupling assembly (see Figs. 3 and 4) for a concealed fire suppression nozzle (5) which includes an outer pipe portion (2) and an inner pipe portion (1) slidably coupled to the outer pipe portion in a manner which is functionally similar to the pipe coupling assembly of Lee, wherein the outer pipe portion comprises a first flange (no reference number, but clearly shown) and the inner pipe portion comprises a second flange (no reference number, but clearly shown), such that engagement of the first flange and the second flange (see again, Fig. 4) limits a range of movement of the inner pipe portion relative to the outer pipe portion; wherein the outer pipe portion, the inner pipe portion, the first flange, and the second flange define a cavity comprising a fluid (clearly the cavity between the flanges of Khazova represents a sealed cavity which contains at least air, which is a compressible fluid) configured to dampen movement of the inner pipe portion relative to the outer pipe portion, and wherein a first seal (6) is positioned on the first flange and a second seal (6) is positioned on the second flange to form a fluid seal between the first flange and the second flange. Thus, it is clear that the pipe coupling assembly of Khazova is similar in function and effect as compared to that shown by Lee, and there would be a reasonable expectation of success if the pipe coupling assembly of Khazova were to be adapted to the nozzle assembly of Lee, as creating a sealed second cavity with the nozzle assembly of Lee would allow for a dampening effect in the second cavity when the inner pipe portion moves relative to the outer pipe portion. 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 pipe coupling assembly of the Lee nozzle assembly, such that the range of movement-limiting arrangement comprises opposing sealed flanges, as taught by Khazova, rather than the unsealed flanges shown by Lee, since the Khazova pipe coupling arrangement represents a functionally equivalent translating pipe coupling arrangement, as compared to that of Lee, and the teachings of Khazova would permit a measurable amount of dampening effect when the inner pipe portion moves relative to the outer pipe portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed January 2, 2026, with respect to amended claims 1, 8 and 20, have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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