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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 4-6 and 8 are original. Claims 2, 7, 10-11 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, and 9 are amended. Claims 21 is new. Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn.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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The amendment filed on 09/09/2025 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the existing 112(b) rejections.
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 1, 3-6, 8-9, 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.
Claim 1 recites “automatically adjust the flow of the fire suppressant to a second flow rate during the discharge when the one or more control parameters indicate that the fire has been tamped to a predetermined level, wherein the second flow rate is lower than the first flow rate” in lines 9-10 of claim 1. The examiner finds that the specification does describe decreasing or increasing the fire suppressant based on control parameters (Para. 0020 & 0047), and further describes various threshold parameters such as “increase the flow rate (from the second flow rate) in response to saponification/foam not reaching a predetermined level, and/or in response to one or more parameters not reaching a threshold parameter (e.g., temperature, flame, smoke, gas, etc.)” recited in Para. 0052. However, the Examiner did not find any support in the application for the limitation “indicate that the fire has been tamped to a predetermined level, wherein the second flow rate is lower than the first flow rate” and therefore this limitation is new matter that 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the controller further configured to increase the discharge from the second flow rate when the one or more control parameters indicate that an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level, wherein the one or more parameters is a formation of a saponification layer, an increase in temperature, a smoke, a gas, and/or a flame” in lines 10-14 of claim 1. The Examiner finds that the specification does recite “the control parameters may indicate presence of fire/flames, likelihood/risk of fire ignition, and/or likelihood/risk of fire re-ignition. As described above, the control parameters may include one or more of fire conditions parameters, environmental parameters, time, fire suppressant parameters, and/or other parameters” in para. 0042 with similar disclosures in para. 0036 and 0047-0048 and various threshold parameters in para. 0045 which recites “a parameter threshold (e.g., temperature threshold, smoke threshold, flame threshold, gas threshold, and/or other control parameter thresholds).” However, the Examiner did not find any support in the application for the limitation “one or more control parameters indicate that an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level” and therefore this limitation is new matter that 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 3-6, 8, and 21 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 3-6, 8, and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim 9 recites “automatically adjusting the flow of the fire suppressant to a second flow rate during the discharge when the fire has been tamped to a predetermined level, wherein the second flow rate is lower than the first flow rate” in lines 6-8 of claim 9. The examiner finds that the specification does describe decreasing or increasing the fire suppressant based on control parameters (Para. 0020 & 0047), and further describes various threshold parameters such as “increase the flow rate (from the second flow rate) in response to saponification/foam not reaching a predetermined level, and/or in response to one or more parameters not reaching a threshold parameter (e.g., temperature, flame, smoke, gas, etc.)” recited in Para. 0052. However, the Examiner did not find any support in the disclosure for the limitation “the fire has been tamped to a predetermined level, wherein the second flow rate is lower than the first flow rate” and therefore this limitation is new matter that 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 9 recites, “increasing the discharge from the second flow rate when an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level, wherein the one or more parameters is a formation of a saponification layer, an increase in temperature, a smoke, a gas, and/or a flame” in lines 9-11 of claim 9. The Examiner finds that the disclosure does recite “the control parameters may indicate presence of fire/flames, likelihood/risk of fire ignition, and/or likelihood/risk of fire re-ignition. As described above, the control parameters may include one or more of fire conditions parameters, environmental parameters, time, fire suppressant parameters, and/or other parameters” in para. 0042 with similar disclosures in para. 0036 and 0047-0048 and various threshold parameters in para. 0045 which recites “a parameter threshold (e.g., temperature threshold, smoke threshold, flame threshold, gas threshold, and/or other control parameter thresholds).” However, the Examiner did not find any support in the application for the limitation “increasing the discharge from the second flow rate when an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level” and therefore this limitation is new matter that 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 21 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 “discharging a flow of the fire suppressant at a first flow rate… adjust the flow of the fire suppressant to a second flow rate during the discharge… to increase the discharge from the second flow rate” in lines 6-11 of claim 1. Firstly, the first instance of discharge namely, discharging, is a verb that appears to be using the definition of “something that discharges or releases” as defined by the Britannica Dictionary, and explicitly describes “a first flow rate” and the second and third instance of discharge appears is a noun and is defined as “to send out (a liquid, gas, or waste material)” by the Britannica Dictionary, and only the second instance of discharge refers to “a second flow rate.” It is unclear how the third instance of discharge is increasing because the term “discharge” by itself does not indicate flow rate of any kind. Secondly, the claim recites “increasing the discharge from the second flow rate,” but does not indicate what the discharge is going to. The examiner will interpret this “to increase the discharge from the second flow rate” as “during the discharge increasing the flow of fire suppressant from the second flow rate to a higher third flow rate.”
Claims 3-6, 8 and 21 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 3-6, 8 and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the subsequent flow rate is lower than the second flow rate” in lines 1-2 of claim 6, and claim 5 recites “wherein the controller is configured to: adjust the second flow rate to a subsequent flow rate” in lines 1-2 of claim 5. However, claim 1 recites “increase the discharge from the second flow rate when the one or more control parameters indicate that an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level” in lines 11-12 and it is unclear as to how the controller is configured to “increase the discharge from the second flow rate when the one or more control parameters indicate that an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level” and “adjust the second flow rate to a subsequent flow rate wherein the subsequent flow rate is lower than the second flow rate.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “wherein the subsequent flow rate is lower than the second flow rate when an intensity of the fire is not increased above the predetermined level.”
Claim 9 recites “discharging a flow of the fire suppressant at a first flow rate… adjusting the flow of the fire suppressant to a second flow rate during the discharge… increasing the discharge from the second flow rate” in lines 5-9 of claim 9. Firstly, the first instance of discharge namely, discharging, is a verb that appears to be using the definition of “something that discharges or releases” as defined by the Britannica Dictionary, and explicitly describes “a first flow rate” and the second and third instance of discharge appears is a noun and is defined as “to send out (a liquid, gas, or waste material)” by the Britannica Dictionary, and only the second instance of discharge refers to “a second flow rate.” It is unclear how the third instance of discharge is increasing because the term “discharge” by itself does not indicate flow rate of any kind. Secondly, the claim recites “increasing the discharge from the second flow rate,” but does not indicate what the discharge is going to. The examiner will interpret “increasing the discharge from the second flow rate” as “during the discharge increasing the flow of fire suppressant from the second flow rate to a higher third flow rate.”
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, 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, 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); 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 a one or more control parameters (Col. 8: Ln. 50-53 – “temperature”) indicate a fire at the cooking appliance (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.); 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 when the one or more control parameters indicate that the fire has been tamped to a predetermined level (Col. 10: Ln. 39-65; The temperature below a predetermined threshold value.), wherein the second flow rate is lower than the first flow rate (Fig. 3),
the controller further configured to increase the discharge from the second flow rate (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12;
V
˙
3
is the increased discharge from the second flow rate.) when the one or more control parameters indicate that an intensity of the fire is increased (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12), wherein the one or more parameters is an increase in temperature (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12; An indication that a flare up has occurred results in an increase in temperature as measured by the temperature sensor.).
Ryczek does not explicitly disclose the controller further configured to increase the discharge from the second flow rate when the one or more control parameters indicate that an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level.
However, Ryczek teaches activating the system at a predetermined level (Col. 7: 20-28; The predetermined level is a temperature.) and providing a flow of a fire suppressant at a first flow rate (Fig. 3,
V
˙
1
for time period 304), reducing the flow of fire suppressant rate to a lower second flow rate (Col. 10: Ln. 39-65; Fig. 3,
V
˙
2
for time period 306) after the first flow rate when a predetermined level is met (Col. 10: Ln. 39-49) or when a fire is fully suppressed (Col. 10: Ln. 7-8), and increasing the flow from the second flow rate to a higher third flow rate when there is an indication that a flare up has occurred (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when faced with the teachings of Ryczek to increase the discharge from the second flow rate when the one or more control parameters indicate that an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level because it would indicate that the fire is not fully suppressed and indicate that a flare up is possible or occurring with a reasonable expectation of success, namely to suppress a fire and prevent or suppress a subsequent flareup.
Regarding claim 3, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, and further teaches the system comprising:
one or more sensors (Fig. 1, 117) configured to generate output signals conveying information related to fire conditions (Col. 15: Ln. 23-35; A signal from the temperature sensor conveys information related to fire conditions.); and wherein the controller is configured to:
determine the one or more control parameters based on the output signals (Col. 15: Ln. 23-35 – “temperature”); and
adjust the first flow rate based on the one or more control parameters (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12; Col. 10: Ln. 39-65).
Regarding claim 4, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 3, and further teaches, 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. 39-65; The temperature below a predetermined threshold value.; Fig. 3,
V
˙
2
for time period 306).
Regarding claim 5, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
adjust the second flow rate to a subsequent flow rate (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12;
V
˙
3
is the subsequent flow rate.).
Regarding claim 6, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 5, and further teaches wherein the subsequent flow rate is lower than the second flow rate (Col. 10: Ln. 64 to Col. 11: Ln. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when faced with the teachings of Ryczek to adjust the second flow rate to a subsequent flow rate wherein the subsequent flow rate is lower than the second flow rate when an intensity of the fire is not increased above the predetermined level to reduce the required amount of fire suppressant agent needed to suppress a fire and reduce flare-ups (Col. 10: Ln. 19-21), and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire and reducing flare-ups.
Regarding claim 8, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, and further teaches 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 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.); and
automatically adjusting the flow of the fire suppressant to a second flow rate (Fig. 3,
V
˙
2
for time period 306) during the discharge when the fire has been tamped to a predetermined level (Col. 10: Ln. 39-65; The temperature below a predetermined threshold value.), wherein the second flow rate is lower than the first flow rate (Fig. 3): and increasing the discharge from the second flow rate (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12;
V
˙
3
is the increased discharge from the second flow rate.) when an intensity of the fire is increased wherein the one or more parameters is an increase in temperature (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12; An indication that a flare up has occurred results in an increase in temperature as measured by the temperature sensor.)
Ryczek does not explicitly disclose increasing the discharge from the second flow rate when an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level.
However, Ryczek teaches activating the system at a predetermined level (Col. 7: 20-28; The predetermined level is a temperature.) and providing a flow of a fire suppressant at a first flow rate (Fig. 3,
V
˙
1
for time period 304), reducing the flow of fire suppressant rate to a lower second flow rate (Col. 10: Ln. 39-65; Fig. 3,
V
˙
2
for time period 306) after the first flow rate when a predetermined level is met (Col. 10: Ln. 39-49) or when a fire is fully suppressed (Col. 10: Ln. 7-8), and increasing the flow from the second flow rate to a higher third flow rate when there is an indication that a flare up has occurred (Col. 11: Ln. 1-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when faced with the teachings of Ryczek to increasing the discharge from the second flow rate when an intensity of the fire is increased above the predetermined level because it would indicate that the fire is not fully suppressed and indicate that a flare up is possible or occurring with a reasonable expectation of success, namely to suppress a fire and prevent or suppress a subsequent flareup.
Regarding claim 21, Ryczek teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first flow rate is configured to allow the agent to form a saponification layer (Col. 7: Ln. 31-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-9 on pages 6-7 of the applicant’s arguments 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 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
January 29, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752