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
The response filed on June 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 刘伟增, Liu et al. (CN110279963. Liu hereinafter) in view of Magnone et al. (US 10870024. Magnone hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Liu discloses a fire protection system (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising: at least one gas detector (6) positioned to (capable of) detect a gas outputted by at least one energy storage device (batteries in the battery compartment 4) of a plurality of energy storage devices (Fig. 2) each in an enclosure (5) and output a detection signal (electrical fire extinguishing signal and be sent to GAFES. Page 3, lines 10-19) responsive to detecting the gas; a plurality of outlets (downstream outlet ends of 10 and 1 that is capable of carries out aerosol fire-extinguishing and “fluid injection.” Page 5, last three lines to page 6, line 5) positioned in or above the enclosure to output water on the at least one energy storage device; and one or more processors (control system. Figs. 1 and 2) that: receive the detection signal; determine that a fire condition is present responsive to the detection signal; identify, using an identifier (of 6, 7, 8 and 9) of the at least one gas detector from which the detection signal is received and a device database (in system control. 控制系統) storing one or more entries indicating one or more associations between the plurality of sprinklers and the at least one gas detector, at least one outlet of the plurality of outlets based on a location of the at least one gas detector from which the detection signal is received (Page 5, eighth paragraph); and transmit the control signal to the actuator (Figs. 2A and 2B) of the identified at least one outlet to cause the identified at least one outlet to output the water on the at least one energy storage device based on the determination that the fire condition is present (page 4, line 44 to page 5, line 39).
Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of outlets is a plurality of sprinklers positioned in or above the enclosure to output water on the plurality of energy storage devices, each sprinkler of the plurality of sprinklers comprising a body defining an inlet and an outlet, one or more frame arms extending from the outlet, a deflector coupled with the one or more frame arms, the deflector structured to output fluid from the outlet according to a target spray pattern, a seal support coupled with a seal in the outlet, and an actuator to cause the seal support to change from a first state in which the seal support maintains the seal in the outlet to a second state to allow release of the seal, based at least on a control signal.
However, Magnone teaches a fire protection system (Figs. 1-20), comprising: at least one fire detector (130) in an enclosure (10) and output a detection signal (CS in Fig. 2) responsive to detecting the fire; a plurality of sprinklers (Fig. 2A) and each sprinkler of the plurality of sprinklers comprising a body defining an inlet and an outlet, one or more frame arms (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention) extending from the outlet, a deflector coupled with the one or more frame arms, the deflector structured to (capable of) output fluid from the outlet according to a target spray pattern, a seal support (above the thermally responsive glass bulb trigger) coupled with a seal in the outlet, and an actuator (110y) to cause the seal support to change from a first state (Fig. 2A) in which the seal support maintains the seal in the outlet to a second state (Fig. 2B) to allow release of the seal, based at least on a control signal.
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 sprinklers with deflector and actuator, as taught by Magnone, to Liu’s the plurality of outlets, in order to allow water to flow through the head, where it is directed by a deflector into a predetermined spray pattern and to control the discharge from the device frame (Co. 2, lines 49-59 and Fig. 2B). Furthermore, 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 plurality of sprinklers because these media/devices are well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the plurality of sprinklers because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the plurality of sprinklers because such a change is a mere alternative and functionally equivalent fluid outlet dispensing device. And because such a change would only produce an expected result, i.e, dispensing fluid. The use of alternative and functionally equivalent fluid outlet dispensing device would have been desirable to those of ordinary skill in the art based on the economics and availability of components.
With respect to claim 2, Liu’s fire protection system modified by Magnone’s sprinklers with deflector, Liu further discloses the fire protection system of claim 1, comprising: the identified at least one sprinkler includes an electronically (electric driver) activated sprinkler (Solid thermal aerosol generating device under the driving of electric driver for carrying out aerosol re-extinguishing. Page 4 last paragraph).
With respect to claim 3, Liu’s fire protection system modified by Magnone’s sprinklers with deflector, Liu further discloses the fire protection system of claim 1, comprising: the at least one gas detector detects at least one of a presence of the gas and a concentration of the gas (page 3, last four lines to page 4, line 2).
With respect to claim 4, Liu’s fire protection system modified by Magnone’s sprinklers with deflector, Liu further discloses the fire protection system of claim 1, comprising: the at least one gas detector outputs the detection signal responsive to determining that at least one of (i) a concentration of the gas is greater than a threshold concentration and (ii) a rate of increase of the concentration is greater than a threshold rate of increase (“Control system is used for when current smokescope and environment temperature exceed preset range, generates electrical fire fire extinguishing letter Number and be sent to GAFES; As CO current in battery compartment2, H2Work as at least one in VOC gas concentration, lithium battery When preceding temperature, lithium battery Current Temperatures climbing speed and smokescope exceed preset range, battery fire fire extinguishing signal is generated And it is sent to the corresponding water filing fire extinguishing system of battery compartment.” page 3, last four lines to page 4, line 2).
With respect to claim 5, Liu’s fire protection system modified by Magnone’s sprinklers with deflector, Liu further discloses the fire protection system of claim 1, comprising: the one or more processors determine the fire condition to be present responsive to at least one of (i) a concentration of the gas is greater than a threshold concentration and (ii) a rate of increase of the concentration is greater than a threshold rate of increase (“Control system is used for when current smokescope and environment temperature exceed preset range, generates electrical fire fire extinguishing letter Number and be sent to GAFES; As CO current in battery compartment2, H2Work as at least one in VOC gas concentration, lithium battery When preceding temperature, lithium battery Current Temperatures climbing speed and smokescope exceed preset range, battery fire fire extinguishing signal is generated And it is sent to the corresponding water filing fire extinguishing system of battery compartment.” page 3, last four lines to page 4, line 2).
With respect to claim 9, Liu’s fire protection system modified by Magnone’s sprinklers with deflector, Liu further discloses the fire protection system of claim 1, comprising: an actuator (2) that causes the identified at least one sprinkler to change to an open state responsive to a control signal transmitted by the one or more processors responsive to determining the fire condition to be present (page 5, first paragraph and Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Magnone and further in view of Jeon 전용식 et al. (KR102045489. Jeon hereinafter).
With respect to claims 7, 8 and 10, Liu and Magnone disclose the fire protection system of claim 1, comprising: the at least one gas detector is a first gas detector (6); except for the one or more processors, responsive to receiving the detection signal from the first gas detector, trigger an alert mode in which at least one of (i) the one or more processors increase a rate of requesting detection data from a second gas detector adjacent to the first gas detector and (ii) cause the second gas detector to increase a rate of outputting detection data (Claim 7), the one or more processors determine that the fire condition is present without using temperature data (Claim 8) and the one or more processors transmit a signal to at least one of a switch coupled with the at least one energy storage device and a battery management system coupled with the at least one energy storage device to disconnect the at least one energy storage device (Claim 10).
However, Jeon teaches a fire protection system (Figs. 1-6) comprising the at least one gas detector (50a to 50c) is a first gas detector (50a); one or more processors (PMS, EMS), responsive to receiving the detection signal from the first gas detector, trigger an alert mode in which at least one of (i) the one or more processors increase a rate of requesting detection data from a second gas detector adjacent to the first gas detector and (ii) cause the second gas detector to increase a rate of outputting detection data; the one or more processors determine that the fire condition is present without using temperature data and the one or more processors transmit a signal to at least one of a switch coupled with the at least one energy storage device and a battery management system coupled with the at least one energy storage device to disconnect the at least one energy storage device (Page 11, fourth to sixth paragraph and figures 1, 4: when gas detection is detected, command is transmitted to a PCS and a battery to stop an operation of the PCS and cell balancing of the battery, and in a smoke/ignition state, if a flame is detected a power control device and the fire extinguishing device are driven to cut off a power of each device, and at the same time fire extinguishing gas is ejected).
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 second gas detector without using temperature data and a cut off switch, as taught by Jeon, to Liu’s fire protection system, in order to a targeted extinguish fire to a specific area (Abstract).
With respect to claim 21, Liu and Magnone disclose the fire protection system of claim 1 comprising: the at least one gas detector comprises a plurality of gas detectors; and the one or more processors are to: receive the detection signal from a first gas detector of the plurality of gas detectors; and responsive to the determination that the fire condition is present, at least one of (i) cause a second gas detector of the plurality of gas detectors adjacent to the first gas detector to increase a rate of detection of the gas and (ii) at least one of the first gas detector and the second gas detector decrease a threshold responsive to which detection data is outputted.
However, Jeon teaches a fire protection system (Figs. 1-6) comprising the at least one gas detector (50a to 50c) is a first gas detector (50a); one or more processors (PMS, EMS), are to: receive the detection signal from a first gas detector of the plurality of gas detectors; and responsive to the determination that the fire condition is present, at least one of (i) cause a second gas detector of the plurality of gas detectors adjacent to the first gas detector to increase a rate of detection of the gas and (ii) at least one of the first gas detector and the second gas detector decrease a threshold responsive to which detection data is outputted (Page 11, fourth to sixth paragraph and figures 1, 4: when gas detection is detected, command is transmitted to a PCS and a battery to stop an operation of the PCS and cell balancing of the battery, and in a smoke/ignition state, if a flame is detected a power control device and the fire extinguishing device are driven to cut off a power of each device, and at the same time fire extinguishing gas is ejected).
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 second gas detector without using temperature data and a cut off switch, as taught by Jeon, to Liu’s fire protection system, in order to a targeted extinguish fire to a specific area (Abstract).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Magnone and further in view of Jackson (US 20060243459).
With respect to claim 22, Liu and Magnone disclose the fire protection system of claim 1 except for the at least one sprinkler is to output a fluid that includes the water and at least one of a wetting agent and a foam.
However, Jackson teaches a fire protection system (Figs. 1-6c) comprising fire extinguishing fluid, wherein the fluid includes at least one of a wetting agent ([0041], [0058]) and a foam ([0003], [0021], [0038], [0041]).
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 wetting agent and foam as the fire extinguishing fluid, as taught by Jackson, to Liu’s fire protection system, in order to extinguish fire in a cold or refrigerated storage environments ([0001]- [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference and/or the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 O. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights