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 § 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) 1-13, 15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIntire (4,213,567) in view of Inoue et al. (2021/0252530).
Regarding claim 1, McIntire shows a nozzle assembly for a fire suppression system (it can be used for fire suppressing), comprising: a body (12) having a continuous wall bounding a space (fig 3) and an inlet end for receiving a flow of fire extinguishing agent from the fire suppression system at an inlet pressure; a nozzle portion (30) extending from and contiguous with the body and having an interior cavity (inside 30); and a conical central body (40a) located in the interior cavity, extending upstream from a base of the nozzle portion (fig 5), wherein a plurality of exit orifices (22a) are formed in an outer wall of the nozzle portion, in communication with the interior cavity, for vectoring the flow of fire extinguishing agent exiting therefrom, the plurality of exit orifices disposed only on the outer wall and below the body (fig 5), wherein the conical central body includes an apex (the top 40a), the apex disposed between a quarter of a length of the nozzle portion and a highest point of the plurality of exit orifices so as to direct the flow of fire extinguishing agent in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the nozzle portion (fig 5),
but fails to disclose at least one cylindrical perforated filter member positioned within the body upstream from the exit orifices formed in the nozzle portion, the perforated filter member configured for reducing the inlet pressure of the fire extinguishing agent, wherein the at least one perforated filter member includes a plurality of perforated filter members positioned within the interior cavity of the nozzle portion in spaced apart relationship along a central axis thereof.
However, Inoue et al. teaches a nozzle that includes at least one cylindrical perforated filter member (41) positioned upstream from the exit orifices (6) formed in the body, the perforated filter member configured for reducing the inlet pressure of the fire extinguishing agent (it will inherently reduce pressure), wherein the at least one perforated filter member includes a plurality of perforated filter members (41, 42) positioned within the interior cavity of the nozzle portion along a central axis thereof (fig 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add the plurality of perforated filter members (41, 42) of Inoue et al. to the nozzle of McIntire, in order to have the fluid flowing out of the nozzles be uniformly diffused as taught by Inoue et al. [0052].
In the above combination, the interior cavity defines a direct flow path from the at least one cylindrical perforated filter member to the plurality of exit orifices.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the nozzle portion has a cylindrical outer wall (fig 4), and wherein the exit orifices are defined in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion (fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion are oriented at an angle that is perpendicular to the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion (fig 4).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the inlet end of the body portion is axially aligned with the nozzle portion along a central axis thereof (fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion are oriented at an angle that is perpendicular to the central axis of the nozzle portion (fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the at least one perforated filter member is formed from a perforated metal plate ([0050], Inoue et al.).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the at least one perforated filter member is coaxially positioned within the cylindrical nozzle portion (Inoue et al., fig 1A)
Regarding claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of perforated filter members has the same porosity ([0051], Inoue et al.).
Regarding claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of perforated filter members has a different porosity ([0051], Inoue et al.).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the plurality of perforated filter members decrease in porosity in a downstream direction along the central axis of the nozzle portion ([0051], Inoue et al.).
Regarding claim 13, wherein a porous metal foam insert is positioned upstream from the at least one perforated filter member (41 is being considered the porous foam insert and 42 the perforated filter member).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the inlet end of the body portion includes a metering orifice (the narrow portion 18).
Regarding claim 17, McIntire shows A nozzle assembly for a fire suppression system (it can be used for fire suppressing), comprising: a body (12) having an inlet end for receiving a flow of fire extinguishing agent from the fire suppression system at an inlet pressure; a nozzle portion (30) axially aligned with the inlet end of the body along a central axis thereof; a conical central body (40a) located in the interior cavity (fig 5), extending upstream from a base of the nozzle portion, wherein a plurality of exit orifices (22a) are formed in a cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion for vectoring the flow of fire extinguishing agent exiting therefrom.
but fails to disclose at least one perforated filter member positioned within the body upstream from the exit orifices formed in the nozzle portion, the perforated filter member configured for reducing the inlet pressure of the fire extinguishing agent, wherein the at least one perforated filter member includes a plurality of perforated filter members positioned within the interior cavity of the nozzle portion in spaced apart relationship along a central axis thereof.
However, Inoue et al. teaches a nozzle that includes at least one perforated filter member (41) positioned upstream from the exit orifices (6) formed in the body, the perforated filter member configured for reducing the inlet pressure of the fire extinguishing agent (it will inherently reduce pressure), wherein the at least one perforated filter member includes a plurality of perforated filter members (41, 42) positioned within the interior cavity of the nozzle portion along a central axis thereof (fig 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add the plurality of perforated filter members (41, 42) of Inoue et al. to the nozzle of McIntire, in order to have the fluid flowing out of the nozzles be uniformly diffused as taught by Inoue et al. [0052].
In the above combination, the interior cavity defines a direct flow path from the at least one cylindrical perforated filter member to the plurality of exit orifices.
Regarding claim 19, wherein a porous metal foam (41 Inoue et al.) insert is positioned upstream from the at least one perforated filter member.
Regarding claim 20 wherein a metering orifice (inlet opening in 18) is positioned upstream from the at least one perforated filter member.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected and claims 18 -20 are rejected as best as understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIntire (4,213,567) as modified by Inoue et al. (2021/0252530) above, further in view of Tredinnick et al. (6,089,346)
Regarding claim 16, McIntire as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion vary in diameter along the central axis of the nozzle portion in a downstream direction.
However, Tredinnick et al. teaches two rows of exit orifices (42) that vary in size along the central axis of the nozzle portion in a downstream direction (fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add an additional row of orifices and make the size (and therefore diameter) of the exit orifices formed in the outer wall of the nozzle portion vary in diameter along the central axis of the nozzle, in order to provide maximum flow as taught by Tredinnick et al. (col 5, lines 3-23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 is allowed because of the limitation wherein a plurality of porous metal foam inserts are positioned upstream from each perforated filter member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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 6/3/2026
Prosecution Insights