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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 7, 10-11, and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5-6, 9 and 11 are amended. Claims 3-4, 8, 14-20 are as previously presented. Claims 12 and 14-20 remain withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 14-21 are currently pending and claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 and 21 have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Existing 35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
Existing 35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
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 3-4 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 3 recites the limitation “one or more sensors” in lines 2 of claim 3, but claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one sensor” in lines 4 of claim 3. It is unclear if there are separate “sensors” or if these are the same “sensors”.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, therefore claims 3-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-6, 8-9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryczek (US 12,440,712).
Regarding claim 1 Regarding claim 1, Ryczek discloses a fire suppression system (Fig. 1, 100 & Fig. 10, 10) for use in a cooking appliance (Fig. 1, 120; Col. 6: Ln. 50-10 – “Fryer”), the fire suppression system comprising:
a control valve (Fig. 10, 30; Col. 13: Ln. 47-51) operatively coupled with a cylinder (Fig. 10, 12) containing a fire suppressant (Fig. 10, fire suppressant within volume 14; Col. 13: ln. 12-13; Col. 14: Ln. 4-11);
at least one sensor (Fig. 1, 116-117) configured to generate output signals (Col. 15: Ln. 23-35) related to one or more control parameters (Col. 6: Ln. 51-55; Intensity of light and temperature.); and
a controller (Fig. 10, 106) operatively coupled with the control valve (Col. 15: Ln. 23-35), wherein the controller is configured to:
command the control valve to open (Col. 15: Ln. 23-35), discharging a flow of the fire suppressant at a first flow rate (Fig. 3,
V
˙
1
for time period 304) when the one or more control parameters indicate a fire at the cooking appliance (Col. 7: Ln. 20-28; Col. 9: Ln. 4-10; A temperature over a predetermined temperature indicates a fire at the cooking appliance.); and
automatically adjust the flow of the fire suppressant to a second flow rate (Fig. 3,
V
˙
2
for time period 306) during the discharge based on the one or more output signals (Col. 10: Ln. 39-44), wherein the second flow rate is lower than the first flow rate (Fig. 3), the controller further configured to increase the flow rate of the discharge from the second flow rate to a third flow rate (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12;
V
˙
3
where
V
˙
3
>
V
˙
2
is the increased discharge from the second flow rate.) when the one or more control parameters indicate a re-ignition (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12 – “flare-up”), wherein the re-ignition is indicated by an increase in temperature, a smoke, a gas, and/or a flame (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12; Re-ignition is indicated by an increase in temperature by temperature sensor (117) as further evidenced in Fig. 4, 410 and Col. 11: Ln. 57-61).
Ryczek does not explicitly disclose automatically adjust the flow of the fire suppressant to a second flow rate during the discharge when the controller determines, based on the one or more output signals, a formation of a saponification layer (Underline to emphasize what is not explicitly disclosed by the prior art),
However, Ryczek teaches that when discharging a flow of the fire suppressant at a first flow rate a layer (crust) is formed cooling the heated element (Col. 3: Ln. 39-45; Col. 6: Ln. 57-59; As indicated above Col. 10: Ln. 39-44 describes automatically adjusting to the second flow rate when the light intensity and/or the temperature measured by optical sensor 116 and temperature sensor 117 go below a predetermined threshold value which indicates the formation of the saponification layer.), and then automatically adjusting to the second (lower) flow rate after significantly suppressing the fire (formation of the crust) facilitating a consistent crust formulation along a top surface of the oil, thereby reducing the likelihoods of flare-ups and re-ignitions (Col. 3: Ln. 39-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automatically adjust the flow of the fire suppressant to a second flow rate during the discharge when the controller determines, based on the one or more output signals, a formation of a saponification layer, to reduce the likelihoods of flare-ups and re-ignitions (Col. 3: Ln. 39-45), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, and further discloses the system comprising:
one or more sensors (Fig. 1, 116-117) configured to generate output signals conveying information related to fire conditions (Col. 6: Ln. 51-55; Intensity of light and temperature.); and wherein the controller is configured to:
determine the one or more control parameters based on the output signals (Col. 6: Ln. 51-55; Intensity of light and temperature.); and
adjust the first flow rate based on the one or more control parameters (Col. 10: Ln. 39-44).
Regarding claim 4, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the controller is configured to adjust the first flow rate based on one or more of the control parameters reaching a parameter threshold (Col. 10: Ln. 39-44; Predetermined threshold value.).
Regarding claim 5, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: adjust the second flow rate to a subsequent fourth flow rate (Col. 10: Ln. 50 to Col. 11: Ln. 12;
V
˙
3
where
V
˙
3
=
0.5
*
(
V
˙
2
), hereinafter
V
˙
4
. The second flow rate is adjusted to subsequent fourth flow rate (
V
˙
4
) when re-ignition (flare-up) is not detected.)
Regarding claim 6, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the subsequent fourth flow rate is lower than the second flow rate when an intensity of the fire is not increased above a predetermined level.
However, Ryczek teaches the second flow rate is adjusted to subsequent fourth flow rate (
V
˙
4
) when re-ignition (flare-up) is not detected from indications from the at least one sensor (Col. 10: Ln. 50 to Col. 11: Ln. 12), re-ignition (flare-ups) is indicated by an increase in temperature (Fig. 4, 410; Col. 11: Ln. 57-61), and the use of predetermined levels for the fire intensity of a fire (Col. 1: ln. 14-18; Col. 10: ln. 42-44; Col. 15: 29-35; Col. 20: Ln. 49-55).
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 wherein the subsequent fourth flow rate is lower than the second flow rate when an intensity of the fire is not increased above a predetermined level to reduce the quantity of fire suppressant agent that can be used to suppress the fire when a flare up is not detected (Col. 9: Ln. 66 to Col. 10: ln. 10) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the second flow rate is different than a flow rate resulting from a decay in pressure in the fire suppressant source (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Ryczek discloses a method for controlling delivery of fire suppressant supplied (Col. 3: Ln. 12-28) by a fire suppression system (Fig. 1, 100 & Fig. 10, 10), the fire suppression system including a control valve (Fig. 10, 30; Col. 13: Ln. 47-51), a fire suppressant source (Fig. 10, fire suppressant within volume 14; Col. 13: ln. 12-13; Col. 14: Ln. 4-11), and a controller (Fig. 10, 106), the method comprising:
detecting a fire (Col. 7: Ln. 20-25);
discharging a flow of the fire suppressant at a first flow rate (Fig. 3,
V
˙
1
for time period 304) when a fire is detected (Col. 1: Ln. 13-18; Col. 7: Ln. 20-28; Col. 9: Ln. 4-10; A temperature over a predetermined temperature indicates a fire at the cooking appliance.);
receiving output signals generated by at least one sensor (Fig. 1, 116-117; Col. 15: Ln. 23-35), where the output signals relate to one or more control parameters (Col. 6: Ln. 51-55; Intensity of light and temperature.);
automatically adjusting the flow of the fire suppressant to a second flow rate during the discharge (Fig. 3,
V
˙
2
for time period 306), wherein the second flow rate is lower than the first flow rate (Fig. 3); and
increasing the flow rate of the discharge from the second flow rate to a third flow rate (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12;
V
˙
3
where
V
˙
3
>
V
˙
2
is the increased discharge from the second flow rate.) when the one or more control parameters indicate a re-ignition (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12 – “flare-up”), wherein the one or more control parameters is-includes a formation of a saponification layer, an increase in temperature, a smoke, a gas, and/or a flame (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12; Re-ignition is indicated by an increase in temperature by temperature sensor (117) as further evidenced in Fig. 4, 410 and Col. 11: Ln. 57-61).
Ryczek does not explicitly disclose determining, based on the one or more output signals, formation of a saponification layer; and upon determining formation of a saponification layer.
However, Ryczek teaches that when discharging a flow of the fire suppressant at a first flow rate a saponification layer (crust) is formed cooling the heated element (Col. 3: Ln. 39-45; Col. 6: Ln. 57-59; As indicated above Col. 10: Ln. 39-44 describes automatically adjusting to the second flow rate when the light intensity and/or the temperature measured by optical sensor 116 and temperature sensor 117 go below a predetermined threshold value which indicates the formation of the saponification layer.), and then automatically adjusting to the second (lower) flow rate after significantly suppressing the fire (formation of the crust) facilitating a consistent crust formulation along a top surface of the oil, thereby reducing the likelihoods of flare-ups and re-ignitions (Col. 3: Ln. 39-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include determining, based on the one or more output signals, formation of a saponification layer; and upon determining formation of a saponification layer, automatically adjusting the flow of the fire suppressant to the second flow rate during the discharge, to reduce the likelihoods of flare-ups and re-ignitions (Col. 3: Ln. 39-45), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first flow rate is configured to allow the suppressant to form a saponification layer (Col. 7: Ln. 31-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 7-8, that “Ryczek fails to teach or suggest the specific closed-loop sensor feedback claimed. In Ryczek, the transition from the first flow rate to the second flow rate is primarily driven by a predetermined time interval (t1) or a simple temperature threshold,” the examiner respectfully disagrees because as outlined in the office action and in Col. 10: Ln. 39-44 “the value of t1 is determined based on measurements sensed by optical sensor 116 and/or temperature sensor 117”. The applicant further argues that “Ryczek treats this crust formation merely as a result of the timed or temperature-based discharge. In contrast, the amended claims require the controller to actively determine "a formation of a saponification layer" based on the output signals from the sensors, and to use that specific physical determination as the trigger to adjust to the second flow rate. Ryczek does not utilize the actual state or formation of the saponification layer itself as a dynamic control parameter to dictate the flow adjustment,” and the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Col. 3: Ln. 39-45 recites, “the first quantity of the fire suppressant agent is provided to the heated element to initially form a crust over the heated element and initially cool the heated element” and thus the controller determines the saponification layer (crust), has been formed by the control parameters (temperature) as further outlined in the office action above.
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 8, that “Ryczek's reliance on static time intervals or simple temperature thresholds to drop the flow rate does not teach or suggest utilizing the formation of the saponification layer as a measured variable to trigger automatic flow adjustments," and the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Ryczek explicitly discloses in Col. 11: Ln. 6-12 “the volumetric flow rate may increase relative to a value of a previously provided volumetric flow rate of the fire suppressant agent (e.g., the volumetric flow rate may increase from
V
˙
2
to
V
˙
3
where
V
˙
3
>
V
˙
2
in response to controller 106 receiving an indication from optical sensor 116 and/or temperature sensor 117 that a flare-up has occurred” and as further outlined in the office action above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752
June 15, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights