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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-10, 12, 14, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, there is no support for the term “the valve sensor to detect that the solenoid valve is not in the operational state based on interaction with the at least one of the valve body and the coil in a radially inward direction towards the axis,” in the originally filed disclosure. The specification does not disclose how the sensor interacts with the valve body or the coil, it certainly doesn’t provide support for the sensor interacting in a radially inward direction towards the axis. The figures do not appear to show any interaction between the sensor and the coil and they certainly do not show any interaction between the senor and the valve body. It is unclear from figure 2 if the sensor even touches the coil.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for depending from claim 7.
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 14 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.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, these claims require the valve sensor to cause the alarm to be triggered, but claim 7, from which they depend, requires the solenoid valve to trigger the alarm. It is unclear if the solenoid valve and/or the sensor triggers the alarm, or if there are two separate alarms.
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(s) 7-10, 12 and 21 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwobe et al (2017/0328492) in view of Banick et al. (5,032,812)
Regarding claim 7, Schwobe et al teaches a sprinkler system, comprising: one or more pipes (40) that receive fluid from a fluid supply (20); at least one fluid distribution device (col 4, line 20) coupled with the one or more pipes; a solenoid valve (136) coupled with the one or more pipes between the fluid supply and the at least one fluid distribution device, the solenoid valve selectively allows fluid to flow from the fluid supply to the at least one fluid distribution device the solenoid valve extending along an axis (fig 2); the solenoid valve to trigger an alarm responsive to detecting that the solenoid valve is not in an operational state (by the limit switch 159, col 7,lines 33-35)
But fails to disclose
a valve sensor radially outward from the solenoid valve relative to the axis, that triggers the solenoid valve to trigger an alarm responsive to detecting that the solenoid valve is not in an operational state, the valve sensor comprising at least one of a contact sensor, an optical sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, a radio frequency sensor, a capacitive sensor, a resistive sensor, and an ultrasonic sensor, the valve sensor to detect that the solenoid valve is not in the operational state based on interaction with the solenoid valve in a radially inward direction towards the axis; a bracket comprising a first end that couples with the solenoid valve and a second end that attaches with the valve sensor, the second end radially outward from the first end relative to the solenoid valve, the bracket comprising a bend between the first end and the second end to position the valve sensor in a sensor position at which the valve sensor is expected to detect the solenoid valve at a target position in which the solenoid valve is in the operational state; and a fastener to secure the first end of the bracket to the solenoid valve.
Banick et al. shows a solenoid valve (fig 1), the solenoid valve having a valve sensor (50) radially outward from the solenoid valve relative to the axis (fig 1), the valve sensor comprising an electromagnetic sensor (magnetic flux sensor is an electromagnetic sensor), the valve sensor to detect that the solenoid valve is not in the operational state based on interaction with the solenoid valve in a radially inward direction towards the axis (fig 3 and 4); a bracket (36) comprising a first end that couples with the solenoid valve and a second end that attaches with the valve sensor (fig 2), the second end radially outward from the first end relative to the solenoid valve (fig 2), the bracket comprising a bend between the first end and the second end to position the valve sensor in a sensor position at which the valve sensor is expected to detect the solenoid valve at a target position in which the solenoid valve is in the operational state (fig 2); and a fastener (42 or 24) to secure the first end of the bracket to the solenoid valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the solenoid vale and sensor of Banick et al. in the system of Schwobe et al. in order to determine the position of the valve as taught by Banick et al. (abstract).
Regarding claim 8, an alarm (the device that provides the above alarm signal) that outputs an indication of an alarm condition responsive to the valve sensor triggering the alarm.
Regarding claim 9, a fire detector (50 includes a fire sensor) that outputs a detection signal responsive to detecting a fire condition; and a controller (50) that causes the solenoid valve to change from a closed state to an open state responsive to the detection signal to allow the fluid from the fluid supply to flow to the at least one fluid distribution device (col 4, lines 24-35).
Regarding claim 10, a fire control panel (50) that causes the solenoid valve to change from a closed state to an open state responsive to detecting a fire condition to allow the fluid from the fluid supply to flow to the at least one fluid distribution device, the fire control panel outputs an indication of an alarm condition responsive to the valve sensor triggering the alarm (col 7, lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 12, the solenoid valve comprises a core (29, 24 Banick ) and a coil (20, Banick) that surrounds the core in the operational state, and the fastener secures the first end of the bracket to the coil (the fastener secures 36 to 35 which therefore secures 36 to the coil ).
Regarding claim 21, the fastener removably couples the first end of the bracket with the solenoid valve (fig 2, Banick) such that the second end of the bracket is to be attached with the valve sensor while the first end of the bracket is decoupled from the solenoid valve (fig 2).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwobe et al (2017/0328492) as modified by Banick et al. (5,032,812) above, further in view of Hagen et al. (2002/0108759)
Regarding claim 14, Schwobe et al as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1 including that the alarm is triggered responsive to detecting that the solenoid valve is not in the operational state while the solenoid valve is receiving an electrical current (switch 159 which works in this way)
But fails to disclose that the valve sensor triggers the alarm.
Hagen et al. teaches a fire sprinkler system where there is an alarm triggered when the vale opens [0040][0041]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the valve sensor of Schwobe et al as modified above trigger an alarm that indicates that the valve is open, in order to let people know that sprinkler system is activated..
Regarding claim 16, Schwobe et al as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1 including that the alarm is triggered by at least one of outputting an electrical signal responsive to detecting that the solenoid valve is not in the operational state and discontinuing output of the electrical signal responsive to detecting that the solenoid valve is not in the operational state (switch 159 which works in this way)
But fails to disclose that the valve sensor triggers the alarm.
Hagen et al. teaches a fire sprinkler system where there is an alarm triggered when the vale opens [0040][0041]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the valve sensor of Schwobe et al as modified above trigger an alarm that indicates that the valve is open, in order to let people know that sprinkler system is activated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 7/7/2026
Prosecution Insights