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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on December 7, 2022 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “820” has been used to designate two distinct method steps in the flow chart depicted in Fig. 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In conjunction with appropriate correction(s) in response to the drawing objection set forth above in paragraph 3 of the instant Office action, corresponding correction(s) should be made to the specification, since reference number “820” has been used in the specification (see paragraphs [0067] and [0070]) to designate each of the two distinct method steps shown in Fig. 8.
On line 7 of paragraph [0086], reference number “1136” should be replaced with --1236--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9, 11 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 9, the last two lines of the claim refer to “a second pressure” which corresponds with “a second threshold”. Claim 8, from which claim 9 directly depends, makes no expressed reference to any “pressure” or corresponding “threshold”, which renders claim 9 unclear, because it raises the question as to whether or not claims 8 and/or 9 should be construed as operating with another “pressure” (i.e. a “first pressure”) with another corresponding “threshold” (i.e. a “first threshold”).
Regarding claim 11, the last three lines of the claim refer to “a second pressure” which corresponds with “a second pressure threshold”. Claim 8, from which claim 11 directly depends, makes no expressed reference to any “pressure” or corresponding “threshold”, which renders claim 11 unclear, because it raises the question as to whether or not claims 8 and/or 11 should be construed as operating with another “pressure” (i.e. a “first pressure”) with another corresponding “pressure threshold” (i.e. a “first pressure threshold”).
Regarding claim 12, on lines 4-6, the claim refers to “a second pressure” which corresponds with “a second pressure threshold”. Claim 8, from which claim 12 directly depends, makes no expressed reference to any “pressure” or corresponding “threshold”, which renders claim 12 unclear, because it raises the question as to whether or not claims 8 and/or 12 should be construed as operating with another “pressure” (i.e. a “first pressure”) with another corresponding “pressure threshold” (i.e. a “first pressure threshold”). It should be noted that the last two lines of claim 12 refer to “a third pressure” with a corresponding “third threshold”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,257,466 in view of Shea, USPN 3,785,440.
As to claim 1, patented claim 1 includes a sprinkler accelerator, comprising: at least one accelerator opening that couples with at least one pipe, the at least one pipe coupled with at least one sprinkler, a gas including at least one of air and nitrogen in the at least one pipe; a vent; an actuator (“actuator assembly”) that moves, responsive to a rate of change of a first pressure applied by gas in the at least one accelerator opening satisfying a pressure rate threshold, to couple the at least one accelerator opening with the vent; and an orifice (“at least one orifice”) coupled with the at least one pipe to adjust the rate of change of the first pressure responsive to the at least one sprinkler changing to an open state. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite inclusion of a filter coupled with the orifice to filter fluid passing from the at least one pipe through the orifice. Shea shows a sprinkler accelerator (see Figs. 1 and 2) for a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, including an orifice (66) and a filter (82) coupled with the orifice to filter fluid passing from a corresponding pipe of the sprinkler system through the orifice (see column 6, line 44, through column 7, line 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filter, as taught by Shea, with the accelerator of the patented claims, thereby excluding “all foreign matter” carried into the accelerator.
As to claim 2, while the patented claims are silent as to details of an “accelerator body”, it follows that such a body exists with the accelerator of the patented claims. Further, as shown by Shea (see again, Figs. 1 and 2), it was known for an accelerator body (10) to receive an orifice (66).
As to claim 4, while the patented claims are silent as to the accelerator including a diaphragm receiver between the at least one accelerator opening and the actuator; and a diaphragm between the diaphragm receiver and the actuator, such is shown in the accelerator construction of Shea. As shown by Shea in Fig. 1, the accelerator includes a diaphragm receiver (the portions of “10” and “12” between which is located “diaphragm 26”) between the corresponding accelerator opening (70) and the corresponding actuator (40); and a diaphragm (26) between the diaphragm receiver and the actuator.
As to claim 5, with the inclusion of the filter (82) taught by Shea, the device of the patented claims includes the filter comprising a filter chamber (the location within the accelerator of the patented device downstream of the “at least one accelerator opening” where the filter taught by Shea would be located (corresponding to the location where “filter 82” is located in Shea) and a filter element (82), with the filter chamber being fluidly coupled with the at least one accelerator opening and the orifice, and with the filter member being removably received in the filter chamber.
As to claim 6, while the patented claims do not expressly recite that the orifice is a “drilled” orifice, such is merely a product-by-process limitation, which essentially defines the “orifice” element by the process for creating the orifice. Since the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, and since the product in the product-by-process claim at hand is the same as or an obvious variant from the product in the patented claims, the claim is unpatentable even though the patented product may have been made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
As to claim 7, see patented claim 8.
As to claim 8, patented claim 1 includes at least one sprinkler (implicitly included); at least one pipe coupled with the at least one sprinkler (implicitly included), a gas including at least one of air and nitrogen in the at least one pipe; and an accelerator comprising: at least one accelerator opening that couples with at least one pipe; a vent; an actuator (“actuator assembly”) that moves to couple the at least one accelerator opening with the vent; and an orifice (“at least one orifice”) coupled with the at least one pipe. However, the patented claims do not expressly recite inclusion of a filter coupled with the orifice to filter fluid flowing from the at least one pipe through the orifice. Again, Shea shows a sprinkler accelerator (see Figs. 1 and 2) for a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, including an orifice (66) and a filter (82) coupled with the orifice to filter fluid flowing from a corresponding pipe of the sprinkler system through the orifice (see column 6, line 44, through column 7, line 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filter, as taught by Shea, with the accelerator of the patented claims, thereby excluding “all foreign matter” carried into the accelerator.
As to claim 9, see patented claim 2.
As to claim 10, see patented claim 3.
As to claim 11, see patented claim 4.
As to claim 12, see patented claim 5.
As to claim 13, see patented claim 6.
As to claim 14, see patented claim 8.
As to claim 15, see patented claim 9.
As to claim 16, see patented claim 2.
As to claim 17, the recited method steps of configuring a sprinkler system would follow with the construction of the patented system, as modified by the teachings of Shea and applied above to (at least) claims 8, 9 and 10 of the instant application.
As to claim 18, see patented claims 4 and 5.
As to claim 19, see patented claim 5.
As to claim 20, see patented claim 6.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly, USPN 6,752,217, in view of Shea, USPN 3,785,440.
As to claim 1, Reilly (see Figs. 1 and 2) shows a sprinkler accelerator (1), comprising: at least one accelerator opening (at “7”) that couples with at least one pipe (50), the at least one pipe coupled with at least one sprinkler (52), a gas including at least one of air and nitrogen in the at least one pipe (see column 6, lines 62-65); a vent (at “19”); an actuator (12) that moves, responsive to a rate of change of a first pressure applied by gas in the at least one accelerator opening satisfying a pressure rate threshold, to couple the at least one accelerator opening with the vent (see column 7, line 26, through column 8, line 11); and an orifice (14) coupled with the at least one pipe to adjust the rate of change of the first pressure responsive to the at least one sprinkler changing to an open state (see column 8, lines 12-62). However, Reilly does not show or describe inclusion of a filter coupled with the orifice to filter fluid passing from the at least one pipe through the orifice. Shea shows a sprinkler accelerator (see Figs. 1 and 2) for a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, including an orifice (66), and Shea teaches including a filter (82) coupled with the orifice to filter fluid passing from a corresponding pipe of the sprinkler system through the orifice (see column 6, line 44, through column 7, line 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filter, as taught by Shea, with the accelerator of Reilly, thereby excluding “all foreign matter” carried into the accelerator.
As to claim 2, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler accelerator of claim 1; and Reilly also shows an accelerator body (2) that defines the at least one accelerator opening, and the accelerator body receives the orifice (see Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 4, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler accelerator of claim 1; and Reilly also shows a diaphragm receiver (the interface between the two portions forming “housing 2”) between the at least one accelerator opening and the actuator (the receiver, as applied above, is located between the opening at “7” and at least portion “70” of the actuator); and a diaphragm (10) between the diaphragm receiver and the actuator (see Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 5, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler accelerator of claim 1; and with the inclusion of the filter (82) taught by Shea, the device of Reilly includes the filter comprising a filter chamber (the location within the accelerator of Reilly downstream of the “at least one accelerator opening” where the filter taught by Shea would be located (corresponding to the location where “filter 82” is located in Shea) and a filter element (82), with the filter chamber being fluidly coupled with the at least one accelerator opening and the orifice, and with the filter member being removably received in the filter chamber.
As to claim 6, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler accelerator of claim 1. However, while it is possible that the orifice of Reilly is reasonably a “drilled” orifice, Reilly is silent as to such. It is noted that the “drilled” limitation in claim 6 is merely a product-by-process limitation, which essentially defines the “orifice” element by the process for creating the orifice. Since the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, and since the product in the product-by-process claim at hand is the same as or an obvious variant from the product in the patented claims, the claim is unpatentable even though the patented product may have been made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
As to claim 7, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler accelerator of claim 1; and the orifice of Reilly causes a rate of pressure decay in the sprinkler accelerator to decrease (see column 8, lines 12-62).
As to claim 8, Reilly (see Figs. 1 and 2) shows and describes a sprinkler system, comprising: at least one sprinkler (52); at least one pipe (50) coupled with the at least one sprinkler, a gas including at least one of air and nitrogen in the at least one pipe (see column 6, lines 62-65); and an accelerator (1) comprising: at least one accelerator opening (at “7”) that couples with the at least one pipe; a vent (at “19”); an actuator (12) that moves to couple the at least one accelerator opening with the vent (see column 7, line 26, through column 8, line 11); and an orifice (14) coupled with the at least one pipe. However, Reilly does not show or describe inclusion of a filter coupled with the orifice to filter fluid flowing from the at least one pipe through the orifice. Shea shows a sprinkler accelerator (see Figs. 1 and 2) for a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, including an orifice (66), and Shea teaches including a filter (82) coupled with the orifice to filter fluid flowing from a corresponding pipe of the sprinkler system through the orifice (see column 6, line 44, through column 7, line 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filter, as taught by Shea, with the accelerator of Reilly, thereby excluding “all foreign matter” carried into the accelerator.
As to claim 10, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler system of claim 8; and Reilly also shows a flow control valve (C) comprising: a valve inlet (where “102” connects thereto) coupled with a fluid supply (A); a valve outlet (represented at the side of “C”, opposite from the valve inlet) coupled with a connection point (D) of the at least one pipe between the at least one sprinkler and the accelerator; and a valve port (represented at the bottom of “C”) coupled with the vent of the accelerator (see Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 13, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler system of claim 8; and Reilly discloses that the gas in the at least one pipe is pressurized to at least 15 pounds per square inch (see column 4, lines 40-44).
As to claim 14, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler accelerator of claim 8; and the orifice of Reilly causes a rate of pressure decay in the sprinkler accelerator to decrease (see column 8, lines 12-62).
As to claim 15, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler system of claim 8; and Reilly also shows a spring (17) that biases the actuator towards a state in which the at least one pipe is not connected with the vent.
As to claim 16, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler system of claim 8; and Reilly shows the orifice being a first orifice (14), the sprinkler system comprising a second orifice (element “7” is referred to as a “restricted gas orifice”) between the accelerator and the at least one sprinkler.
As to claim 17, Reilly (see Figs. 1 and 2) shows and describes a method of configuring a sprinkler system, comprising: coupling at least one accelerator opening (at “7”) of an accelerator (1) with at least one pipe (50), the at least one pipe coupled with at least one sprinkler (52), a gas including at least one of air and nitrogen in the at least one pipe (see column 6, lines 62-65); coupling a flow control valve (C) with a fluid supply (A) and the at least one pipe; and coupling at least one orifice (14) with the at least one pipe. However, Reilly does not show or describe coupling a filter of the accelerator with the at least one pipe. Shea shows a sprinkler accelerator (see Figs. 1 and 2) for a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, including an orifice (66), and Shea teaches including a filter (82) coupled with the orifice to filter fluid flowing from a corresponding pipe of the sprinkler system through the orifice (see column 6, line 44, through column 7, line 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of coupling a filter of the accelerator with the at least one pipe, as taught by Shea, with the method of Reilly discussed above, thereby ensuring exclusion of “all foreign matter” carried into the accelerator.
As to claim 20, Reilly, as modified above, shows the method of claim 17; and Reilly discloses that the gas in the at least one pipe is pressurized to at least 15 pounds per square inch (see column 4, lines 40-44).
Claims 9, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly, as modified by Shea and applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and further in view of Williams et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0147433.
As to claim 9, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler system of claim 8, and further, Reilly shows the sprinkler system including a flow control valve (C) comprising: a valve inlet (where “102” connects thereto) coupled with a fluid supply (A); and a valve outlet (represented at the side of “C”, opposite from the valve inlet) coupled with the at least one pipe. However, Reilly is silent as to the construction details of the flow control valve, whereby it necessarily includes a diaphragm chamber between the valve inlet and the valve outlet; and a diaphragm that moves in the diaphragm chamber to connect the valve inlet with the valve outlet, wherein the diaphragm moves responsive to a pressure in the diaphragm chamber decreasing below a threshold, although such is quite possible, as such a construction of a flow control valve in a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system was known before the effective filing date of the instant application. Indeed, Williams (see Figs. 1A-2B and 4-7B) shows a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, which includes a diaphragm-type flow control valve (20), wherein the flow control valve comprises: a valve inlet (22a) coupled with a corresponding fluid supply; a valve outlet (22b) coupled with a corresponding at least one pipe; a diaphragm chamber (24) between the valve inlet and the valve outlet; and a diaphragm (26) that moves in the diaphragm chamber to connect the valve inlet with the valve outlet, wherein the diaphragm moves responsive to a pressure in the diaphragm chamber decreasing below a threshold. Therefore, 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 diaphragm-type flow control valve, such as that taught by Williams, for the non-descript flow control valve of the sprinkler system shown by Reilly, since the flow control valve construction shown by Williams was well-known in the art of dry-pipe fire sprinkler systems before the effective filing date of the instant application, and there would be a reasonable expectation of success using such a diaphragm-type flow control valve with the Reilly system.
As to claim 11, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler system of claim 8. However, Reilly is silent as to including a pilot actuator comprising a first actuator port coupled with the at least one pipe, a second actuator port coupled with a flow control valve, and a drain, wherein the pilot actuator couples the second actuator port with the drain responsive to a pressure applied by gas in the first actuator port decreasing below a pressure threshold to control operation of the flow control valve. It is noted that inclusion of a pilot actuator in dry-pipe fire sprinkler system was known before the effective filing date of the instant application, as such enables faster and more reliable activation of the corresponding (main) flow control valve of the system during a fire event. Indeed, Williams (see Figs. 4-7B) shows a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, which includes a pilot actuator (82) comprising a first actuator port coupled with a corresponding at least one pipe, a second actuator port coupled with a flow control valve (20), and a drain (the ports and drain of “pilot actuator 82” can be seen in at least Figs.7A and 7B), wherein the pilot actuator couples the second actuator port with the drain responsive to a pressure applied by gas in the first actuator port decreasing below a pressure threshold to control operation of the flow control valve. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pilot actuator, as taught by Williams, with the sprinkler system of Reilly, thereby enabling a faster and more reliable activation of the flow control valve of the system during a fire event.
As to claim 12, Reilly, as modified above, shows the sprinkler system of claim 8. However, Reilly is silent as to including a pilot actuator comprising a first actuator port coupled with the at least one pipe, a second actuator port coupled with a flow control valve, and a drain, wherein the pilot actuator couples the second actuator port with the drain responsive to a pressure applied by gas in the first actuator port decreasing below a pressure threshold to control operation of the flow control valve; and Reilly is also silent as to including a reset actuator comprising: a third actuator port coupled with a first fluid supply; a fourth actuator port coupled with the flow control valve, the fourth actuator port in fluid communication with the third actuator port; a fifth actuator port coupled with the pilot actuator; and a seal that moves to connect the third actuator port and the fourth actuator port with the pilot actuator, wherein the seal moves responsive to a pressure in the fifth actuator port decreasing below a threshold. It is noted that inclusion of a pilot actuator in dry-pipe fire sprinkler system was known before the effective filing date of the instant application, as such enables faster and more reliable activation of the corresponding (main) flow control valve of the system during a fire event. It is also noted that inclusion of a reset actuator in a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system was well known before the effective filing date of the instant application, as such enables the corresponding (main) flow control valve to be reset externally, quickly and easily after it has tripped, which reduces maintenance and system downtime. Indeed, Williams (see Figs. 4-7B) shows a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, which includes a pilot actuator (82) comprising a first actuator port coupled with a corresponding at least one pipe, a second actuator port coupled with a flow control valve (20), and a drain (the ports and drain of “pilot actuator 82” can be seen in at least Figs.7A and 7B), wherein the pilot actuator couples the second actuator port with the drain responsive to a pressure applied by gas in the first actuator port decreasing below a pressure threshold to control operation of the flow control valve; and Williams (see Figs. 3A-3F, 7A and 7B) also shows the system including a reset actuator (30, 38) comprising: a third actuator port (36d) coupled with a first fluid supply; a fourth actuator port (36a) coupled with the flow control valve, the fourth actuator port in fluid communication with the third actuator port; a fifth actuator port (36b) coupled with the pilot actuator; and a seal (35) that moves to connect the third actuator port and the fourth actuator port with the pilot actuator, wherein the seal moves responsive to a pressure in the fifth actuator port decreasing below a threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pilot actuator, as taught by Williams, with the sprinkler system of Reilly, thereby enabling a faster and more reliable activation of the flow control valve of the system during a fire event; and to include a reset actuator, as also taught by Williams, thereby enabling the flow control valve to be reset externally, quickly and easily after it has tripped, which reduces maintenance and system downtime.
As to claim 18, Reilly, as modified above, shows the method of claim 17. However, Reilly is silent as to also including a step of coupling a pilot actuator with the at least one pipe and the flow control valve. As previously noted, inclusion of a pilot actuator in dry-pipe fire sprinkler system was known before the effective filing date of the instant application, as such enables faster and more reliable activation of the corresponding (main) flow control valve of the system during a fire event. Indeed, Williams (see Figs. 4-7B) shows a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, which includes a pilot actuator (82) coupled with a corresponding at least one pipe and a corresponding flow control valve (20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of coupling a pilot actuator, as taught by Williams, with the at least one pipe and the flow control valve of the Reilly system, when performing the method of configuring the sprinkler system of Reilly, thereby enabling a faster and more reliable activation of the flow control valve of the system during a fire event.
As to claim 19, Reilly, as modified above, shows the method of claim 17. However, Reilly is silent as to also including: a step of coupling a pilot actuator with the at least one pipe and the flow control valve; and a step of coupling a reset actuator between the flow control valve and the pilot actuator. As previously noted, inclusion of a pilot actuator in dry-pipe fire sprinkler system was known before the effective filing date of the instant application, as such enables faster and more reliable activation of the corresponding (main) flow control valve of the system during a fire event. As also previously noted, inclusion of a reset actuator in a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system was known before the effective filing date of the instant application, as such enables the corresponding (main) flow control valve to be reset externally, quickly and easily after it has tripped, which reduces maintenance and system downtime. Indeed, Williams (see Figs. 4-7B) shows a dry-pipe fire sprinkler system, which includes a pilot actuator (82) coupled with a corresponding at least one pipe and a corresponding flow control valve (20); and a reset actuator (30, 38) located between the flow control valve and the pilot actuator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of coupling a pilot actuator, as taught by Williams, with the at least one pipe and the flow control valve of the Reilly system, when performing the method of configuring the sprinkler system of Reilly, thereby enabling a faster and more reliable activation of the flow control valve of the system during a fire event; and to also include a step of coupling a reset actuator, as taught by Williams, between the flow control valve and the pilot actuator of the (modified) Reilly system, when performing the method of configuring the sprinkler system of Reilly, thereby also enabling the flow control valve to be reset externally, quickly and easily after it has tripped, which reduces maintenance and system downtime.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents to Tyden, Herkimer and Reilly, and US Patent Application Publication to Archibald et al., are cited as of interest.
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