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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on July 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an outlet extending through a center of said base wall” in lines 6-7. The claim fails to provide a reference to determine “a center.” The term center is defined as: the middle point, as the point within a circle or sphere equally distant from all points of the circumference or surface, or the point within a regular polygon equally distant from the vertices. Dictionary.com. The claim fails to recite a shape to determine “a center,” or the recitation “a center” implies a shape that is undefined by the claim rending the claim indefinite.
The term “adjacent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term adjacent is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. The interpretation of adjacent requires a subjective determination. What constitutes near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered near to another of ordinary skill in the art.
The term “adjacent” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term adjacent is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. The interpretation of adjacent requires a subjective determination. What constitutes near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered near to another of ordinary skill in the art.
The term “adjacent” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term adjacent is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. The interpretation of adjacent requires a subjective determination. What constitutes near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered near to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “an outlet extending through a center of said base wall” in line 9. The claim fails to provide a reference to determine “a center.” The term center is defined as: the middle point, as the point within a circle or sphere equally distant from all points of the circumference or surface, or the point within a regular polygon equally distant from the vertices. Dictionary.com. The claim fails to recite a shape to determine “a center,” or the recitation “a center” implies a shape that is undefined by the claim rending the claim indefinite.
The preamble of the claim 9 is inconsistent with that of its parent claim 1.
The preamble of the claim 10 is inconsistent with that of its parent claim 1.
The preamble of the claim 11 is inconsistent with that of its parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sundholm (6,263,974).
Sundholm discloses a fire suppression sprinkler defrosting assembly comprising:
a bucket 9 containing a fluid, said fluid comprising an antifreeze solution;
a tubing 4, 13 being coupled to said bucket and being in fluid communication with an interior of said bucket, wherein said fluid is passable through said tubing;
a valve (valve 17 and valve downstream of valve 17, above leader line 5) being coupled to said tubing, said valve being positionable from a closed position wherein said valve prevents flow of the fluid through the tubing to an open position wherein said valve permits flow of the fluid through the tubing; and
a pump 10 being coupled to said tubing and being in fluid communication with the interior of the bucket, wherein the pump is actuated to pump said fluid out from said bucket through said tubing when said valve is positioned to said open position, said pump being configured for being in fluid communication with an antifreeze loop 4, said antifreeze loop being configured for dispensing an antifreeze solution from a fire suppression sprinkler 15 to deice areas proximate to the fire suppression sprinkler, wherein said antifreeze solution is provided to said antifreeze loop when said pump is actuated.
Even if Sundholm’s container 9 cannot be considered a bucket, Sundholm discloses, in col. 4, ll. 56-58, that container 9 may differ. A bucket is well known container. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a bucket as the container of Sundholm to reduce cost by utilizing known parts/elements.
Sundholm further discloses the fire suppression sprinkler defrosting assembly wherein said bucket includes a base wall (inherent in a bucket) and a perimeter wall (inherent in a bucket) coupled to and extending upwardly from said base wall, a top edge (inherent in a bucket) of said perimeter wall defining an access into said bucket, an outlet extending through said base wall (Sundholm shows, in the figure, an outlet at the bottom of the container 9).
Sundholm further discloses the fire suppression sprinkler defrosting assembly wherein said tubing encloses a hollow space including a first end (upstream end of pipeline 13 that connects with container 9) and a second end (end of pipeline 13 that connects with the inlet of valve, above leader line 5), said first and second ends being open, said first end of said tubing being coupled to said outlet of said base wall.
Sundholm discloses the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a ball valve. A ball valve is well known. The structural details of the ball valve in claim 4 are inherent in a ball valve. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a ball valve as the valve in Sundholm to reduce cost by utilizing known parts/elements.
Sundholm differs from the claimed invention in the valve being downstream of the pump. Providing a valve upstream of the pump is mere duplication of parts (duplication of the valve above leader line 5) or a relocation of parts (relocation of the valve above leader line 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a ball valve upstream of the pump in Sundholm to isolate the container from the pump. MPEP 2144.04.VI.B-C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejections.
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 CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 O Hall can be reached on (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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK