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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the nozzle including wherein a cross-sectional area of an open space of the nozzle portion at any axial point along the central axis thereof is equal to a total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point of claim, 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 17-20 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 17, the examiner notes that the term “wherein a cross-sectional area of an open space of the nozzle portion at any axial point along the central axis thereof is equal to a total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point,” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification merely states exactly what the claim states without explaining it, and the drawings show something different.
From looking at figure 5, the examiner notes that for the first 3 to 4 rows of outlet holes 28, from the top, the conical member 27 does not reduce the internal cross sectional area of the nozzle at all. Therefore, at any point from the top of member 24 to the start of the conical member 27, the internal cross sectional area is the same. As you move down from the top of 24 towards the conical member, you pass the first set of holes 28 and the total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point decreases, but the internal cross sectional area remains the same. This happens again as you pass the second and third rows of orifices. This is contrary to the claimed limitation.
The two below figures shows an upper cross section 1 and a lower cross section 2. The internal cross sectional area of 24 at cross section 1 is the exact same as that of cross section 2, however, the total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall is downstream of cross section 1 is greater than the total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall is downstream of cross section 2. This does not meet the limitation “wherein a cross-sectional area of an open space of the nozzle portion at any axial point along the central axis thereof is equal to a total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point.” Upstream of the conical member, the total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point, decreases as you move down the nozzle portion, but the internal cross sectional area of the nozzle portion remains the exact same.
PNG
media_image1.png
653
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, after you pass the start of conical member 27, in the spaces between the rows of orifices 28, the internal cross sectional area decreases because the conical member takes up more space, but the total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point remains the same. This is also contrary to the claimed limitation.
As shown in figure 4, below the lower most row of outlet openings, the internal cross section of the nozzle portion still has a cross section that is greater than zero, however, there are no more outlet openings downstream of the lower most row of outlet openings, so that value is zero. At this axial location, the cross-sectional area of the nozzle portion is greater than to a total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point. This is not in line with the above limitation.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for depending from claims 1 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 15 is/are rejected and claim 17 is rejected, as best as understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibel (2,815,088).
Regarding claim 1, Gibel shows a nozzle assembly for a fire suppression system (it can be used for fire suppressing gas), comprising: a body (18) having a continuous wall bounding a space (fig 2, 4) and an inlet end for receiving a flow of fire extinguishing agent from the fire suppression system at an inlet pressure; a nozzle portion (22) extending from and contiguous with the body and having an interior cavity (22 is contagious with 19 because the touch); and a conical central body (12) located in the interior cavity, extending upstream from a base of the nozzle portion (fig 2), wherein a plurality of exit orifices (the lower 2 rows of 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 4 shows the orifices on the outer wall 22 below the body 18), wherein the conical central body includes an apex (the top of the central body is the apex), 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 (The top of the conical member is clearly below the quarter length of the nozzle portion and above the top of the second row of orifices 22a from the bottom of 22).
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 2).
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 4).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the inlet end of the body portion includes a metering orifice (opening between fins 16).
Regarding claim 17, as best as understood, Gibel shows A nozzle assembly for a fire suppression system (it can be used for fire suppressing gas), comprising: a body (18) having an inlet end for receiving a flow of fire extinguishing agent from the fire suppression system at an inlet pressure; a nozzle portion (24) axially aligned with the inlet end of the body along a central axis thereof; a conical central body (12) located in the interior cavity (fig 2), 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.
The examiner notes that Gibel teaches the limitation “wherein a cross-sectional area of an open space of the nozzle portion at any axial point along the central axis thereof is equal to a total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point,” in as much of a way as the present invention discloses the limitation. Please see the above 101 rejection.
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) 6-13, 18-20 is/are rejected and claims 18 -20 are rejected as best as understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibel (2,815,088) in view of Inoue et al. (2021/0252530).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Gibel shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose at least one perforated filter member positioned 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 nozzle portion, 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 Gibel, in order to have the gas flowing out of the nozzles be uniformly diffused as taught by Inoue et al. [0052].
The above combination still does not disclose that the perforated plates are spaced apart.
The examiner notes that there are two options, either have the perforated plates adjacent to each other or space them apart from each other.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the perforated plates spaced apart from each other as it would have been obvious to try having them spaced apart from each other since there are only two predicable solutions that will yield predictable results.
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 a cylindrical perforated filter member that 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 18, the above combination will have the at least one perforated filter member (42 Inoue et al.) positioned upstream from the exit orifices formed in the nozzle portion, for reducing the inlet pressure of the fire extinguishing agent.
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 (space between 16 or the opening of 15 of Gibel) 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 Gibel (2,815,088) in view of Tredinnick et al. (6,089,346)
Regarding claim 16, Gibel 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 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 make the size (and therefore diameter) of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical 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 filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s remarks concerning the 112 rejection, the examiner notes that the claim language states that “wherein a cross-sectional area of the open space of nozzle portion at any axial point along the central axis thereof is equal to a total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point.” That means that even at a location above the conical central body, a cross-sectional area of an open space of the nozzle portion is equal to a total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point. The examiner notes that above the conical central body, the cross-sectional area of an open space of the nozzle portion is constant as you travel in the downstream direction, but the total open area of the exit orifices formed in the cylindrical outer wall of the nozzle portion downstream from that axial point decreases as you pass a row of orifices. Also between rows of orifices, after the start of the conical central body, the conical central body takes up more of the cross sectional area of the nozzle portion as you travel downstream, but the cross sectional area of the outlets remains the same until you pass another row of outlets..
Regarding the 102 rejection of Gibel, the examiner notes that body 18 is in fact contagious with nozzle portion 22 as shown in figure 2. Body 18 touches nozzle 22 so they are contagious. Merriam-Webster defines contagious as being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point. This is the case for elements 22 and 18.
The applicant also argues that Gibel is silent as to the feature of a static pressure within the interior cavity of the nozzle portion will be maintained at a level that will ensure that fire extinguishing agent is uniformly fed to all of the exit orifices for the entire duration of the discharge. The examiner notes that this feature is not in the claims
The above rejections are being maintained
Conclusion
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 2/18/2026