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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 18/08/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-8,11-24 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. The previous objections and 112 rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn due to amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered, the argument is on limitation “wherein each of the plurality of apertures has a diameter equal to or less than a diameter of the outlet orifice”, as noted during interview the limitation is obvious over FISHER. More specifically: FISHER discloses that its material conveyance system includes a pressure container from which a mixture of particulate material and pressurized gas is conveyed, under dense-phase pneumatic conveying, through a material conveying channel to a downstream target (FISHER, ¶0224: "the particulate material from the pressure container to an apparatus in the processing chamber... is being conveyed across the pressure gradient"). FISHER further discloses material conveying channels having openings/ports through which the powder-gas mixture exits the pressure vessel (FISHER, ¶0218–0220, describing a material port and outlet port on the pressure container). FISHER discloses that the apertures/holes of the hollow member have a fundamental length scale (FLS, e.g., diameter) that is a recognized, tunable design parameter, bounded on the lower end by the need to permit free ingress/egress of the particulate material and on the upper end by the need to retain confinement of the propagating electromagnetic radiation, with an exemplary range of about 0.002 cm to about 3 cm (FISHER, ¶0134). Although FISHER does not expressly disclose sizing these apertures relative to the diameter of a downstream discharge orifice, but first FISHER teaches that the hollow member's aperture size is a tunable, result-effective variable governing what may pass into and out of the hollow member (FISHER ¶0134), secondly it is well known in art that in a fluid discharge nozzle assembly, the individual perforations of an upstream inlet strainer/screen — provided to prevent debris and particulate matter from reaching and clogging the discharge orifice — must be smaller than that of the orifice. As an evidence, Fischer, US5392993A discloses that in a fluid discharge nozzle assembly, the individual perforations of an upstream inlet strainer/screen — provided to prevent debris and particulate matter from reaching and clogging the discharge orifice — must be smaller than that of the orifice (Fischer, col.5 lines 61 to col.6 first para; describing strainer perforations 48 relative to orifice 50). Fischer further explains that orifice diameter and strainer perforation size are interrelated, result-effective parameters selected together to avoid clogging of the orifice while avoiding unnecessarily small, costly strainer perforations (Fischer, col. 3, lines 37-44, orifice sized "equal to or larger than 0.10 inch" so that a strainer sized to protect it "will not require unusually small and costly perforations").
A PHOSITA, having FISHER's teaching that the hollow member's aperture size is a tunable, result-effective variable governing what may pass into and out of the hollow member (FISHER ¶0134), and further having Fischer's teaching that in a pressurized particulate/fluid discharge system, upstream screening apertures must be sized at or below the diameter of the downstream discharge orifice specifically to prevent clogging of that orifice (Fischer), would have found it obvious to size FISHER's hollow-member apertures to be equal to or less than the diameter of the discharge nozzle's outlet orifice. Doing so would predictably yield the expected result of preventing agglomerated powder particles too large to pass through the discharge orifice from being conveyed toward it, consistent with Fischer's express rationale, and would represent nothing more than the application of a known technique (aperture ≤ orifice sizing to prevent clogging) to a known device (FISHER's apertured hollow member/pressure vessel) ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(C)–(D).
To the extent FISHER's channel/port structure is not considered a "nozzle... comprising an outlet orifice" as claimed, Fischer discloses a nozzle for a fire protection/suppression system having a base defining an orifice, fluidically connected via an inlet section/conduit to receive fire-retardant fluid, the orifice sized to discharge the fluid in a controlled spray pattern (Fischer, Abstract; claims 1–2). A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to configure FISHER's pressure-container outlet as a nozzle having an outlet orifice in the manner taught by Fischer, since both references are directed to discharging a pressurized flowable material (powder-gas mixture, or fluid) from a pressurized vessel through a sized opening, and nozzles with discrete orifices were a conventional, well-understood means in the art for controllably discharging pressurized particulate or fluid mixtures. Therefore, Argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FISHER , WO 2023129489 A1 in view of Watanabe, JP S61280525 A , as evidenced by Fischer, US5392993A.
Claim 1
FISHER1 in e.g., Figs.1-3 teaches :
An assembly for detecting agglomeration of a powder for a fire suppression system (intended use2/also ¶0296 teaches determining fluidity by sensor and teaches agglomerated particles in ¶0297 that can be used for fire suppression system), the assembly comprising:
a vessel 101 including an interior wall enclosing a powder (102 :¶0136) and a compressed gas (¶0136, also e.g., ¶0013), the vessel 101 having an interior wall (101 has interior wall);
a nozzle fluidically connected to the vessel to receive a mixture of the power and compressed gas and comprising an outlet orifice sized to discharge the powder and compressed gas (FISHER discloses that its material conveyance system includes a pressure container from which a mixture of particulate material and pressurized gas is conveyed, under dense-phase pneumatic conveying, through a material conveying channel to a downstream target:¶0224: "the particulate material from the pressure container to an apparatus in the processing chamber... is being conveyed across the pressure gradient", also discloses material conveying channels having openings/ports through which the powder-gas mixture exits the pressure vessel : ¶0218–0220, describing a material port and outlet port on the pressure container);
a hollow body 111 disposed in the vessel 101, the hollow body 111 having a plurality of apertures configured to allow a flow between the vessel and an interior of the hollow body111,
and
a plurality of sensors (¶0045,0296,0297) disposed in the vessel 101, , wherein a first sensor of the plurality of sensors is disposed in the hollow body 111 at a location corresponding to an interface of the powder and the compressed gas in an initial filled state of the vessel (a first (level) sensor of this plurality is disposed within the hollow member/waveguide: Fig. 1, elements 109–111, at a position configured to sense the reflection from interface 104, the interface between the powder 102 and the gas atmosphere 103 within the container in a filled state, as the powder level changes over time relative to that fixed sensing position:¶0130–0132, ¶0136, because the claim requires only that "a first sensor of the plurality of sensors" be disposed at the interface location — and does not require every sensor of the plurality to be so positioned or to be a level-type sensor — FISHER's disclosure of a level sensor positioned at the powder-gas interface within the hollow member, together with at least one additional sensor, e.g., a temperature sensor, associated with the same housing/vessel per ¶0045 and ¶0296–0297, discloses a plurality of sensors disposed in the vessel meeting this limitation), although FISHER does not expressly teach wherein each of the plurality of apertures has a diameter equal to or less than a diameter of the outlet orifice; this is obvious over FISHER, because FISHER teaches the size or holes is tunable and it is common knowledge in the art to use holes has a diameter equal to or less than a diameter of the outlet orifice to prevent clogging of that orifice, for example, see Fischer (e.g., col.5 lines 61 to col.6 first para). FISHER does not teach and wherein the sensors of the plurality of sensors are piezoelectric sensors, Watanabe discloses a level detector for detecting the level of a powder, fluid, or particulate object within a storage container, the detector comprising a piezoelectric ceramic plate mounted, at its outer periphery, to a solid surface of the container (e.g., an inner wall of the storage container), the plate being electrically driven to mechanically vibrate, with the presence of the object to be detected (e.g., powder) at that location suppressing the mechanical vibration and its absence permitting free vibration, such that a level detection signal voltage output by the piezoelectric element varies according to whether the sensed location is occupied by the powder/fluid or not (Watanabe, Abstract; Description, "Means for solving problems" and "Example" sections). Watanabe's disclosed operating principle — suppression versus free vibration of a piezoelectric plate depending on powder/fluid contact at its mounted location — is not dependent on the particular identity or shape of the surface to which the plate is affixed, but only on whether the object to be detected is present at, and in mechanical contact with, the sensing location. Watabe's piezoelectric level detector is thus a known, art-recognized alternative sensing technology, generally mountable to any solid surface within a powder/fluid storage environment, for performing the same function as FISHER's level-sensing device — namely, detecting the presence, absence, or level of a powder or particulate material at a given location within a storage vessel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Watanabe‘s piezoelectric sensors for the modified FISHER‘s plurality of sensors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to apply Watanabe's piezoelectric sensing principle across the additional sensor(s) of FISHER's disclosed plurality (¶0045, ¶0296–0297) as a matter of consistent design choice within a single assembly. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results); MPEP § 2143(I)(B), (II) (reasonable expectation of success does not require certainty).
Claim 2
FISHER in view of Watanabe , as evidenced by Fischer teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors further comprises at least one sensor disposed on the interior wall (for example temperature or pressure sensors disclosed in e.g., ¶0045). Although it does not explicitly cite sensor on the interior wall, however, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the property is measured in spite of the location of sensor being on the interior wall. The benefits of this modification include it places the device in a stable, representative environment. This protects it from extreme external conditions and ensures accurate readings.
Claim 5
FISHER in view of Watanabe , as evidenced by Fischer teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the hollow body 251 is positioned near a top of the vessel 110 and extends into the poweder102.
Claim 6
FISHER in view of Watanabe , as evidenced by Fischer teaches the assembly of claim 5, wherein the hollow body 111 extends longitudinally from a top to a bottom and FISHER teaches a second sensor of plurality of sensors, plurality of sensors wherein the at least one sensor is a first sensor(e.g., ¶0130) and although FISHER does not explicitly teach wherein a second sensor of the plurality of sensors is disposed at the bottom of the hollow body and oriented perpendicular to the first sensor, however, it is rejected based on obviousness, more specifically: FISHER discloses that the hollow member/waveguide is an elongated structure extending along its longitudinal (vertical) axis from a top portion, coupled to the container lid and sensing electronics (portion 109), toward an opposing end disposed lower in the container, along the gravitational vector (FISHER, ¶0133: "The waveguide may be elongated in one direction... may comprise an elongated column"; ¶0136: radiation propagates "in a direction 112... to an opposing end of the waveguide along gravitational vector 190"). This discloses a hollow body extending longitudinally from a top to a bottom, as claimed. wherein the second sensor is disposed at the bottom of the hollow body: i.e., FISHER discloses that a plurality of sensors, of potentially differing types, may be associated with the same vessel/housing: ¶0045, ¶0296–0297, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and also discloses the first sensor positioned at the powder-gas interface within the hollow body. FISHER does not expressly disclose a second sensor positioned specifically at the bottom of the hollow body, it would have been an obvious matter of routine design choice to a POSITA to position an additional sensor of FISHER's already-disclosed sensor plurality at the bottom of the hollow body, rather than solely at the interface location, because doing so is merely a rearrangement/relocation of an already-taught element (a sensor of the disclosed plurality) to another location on an already-taught structure (the hollow body), and FISHER's own disclosure evidences that sensing at multiple locations and of multiple types (e.g., ¶0296–0297's temperature, weight, level, gas, and humidity sensors) was contemplated for a single vessel. The mere relocation of a known element to a different, predictable location on a known structure, absent a showing of new or unexpected results flowing from that particular location, is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023 (C.C.P.A. 1950) (shifting the position of an element in a device involves only routine skill in the art where doing so would not modify the operation of the device); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) (rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as an obvious modification absent a demonstration of criticality or unexpected results tied to the particular rearrangement). Positioning a sensor at the bottom of the hollow body, in particular, would have been an obvious choice for a POSITA seeking to monitor a location distinct from the interface — for example, to detect conditions at or near the base of the powder column, where the effects of settling, bridging, or compaction are known to be most pronounced due to the gravitational loading of overlying material, consistent with the general understanding in the particulate-handling art.
FISHER does not expressly disclose the relative orientation of a second sensor to the first sensor, as no second sensor is expressly disclosed as such. However, orienting the second sensor perpendicular to the first sensor is likewise an obvious matter of routine engineering choice, involving only the rearrangement/reorientation of a known sensing element, and the claim does not identify, nor does the specification appear to attribute, any new, unexpected, or unpredictable result flowing specifically from a perpendicular (as opposed to any other) relative orientation. A POSITA implementing a second, bottom-positioned sensor distinct in function from the interface-positioned first sensor (e.g., a sensor oriented to sense a load/pressure condition at the base of the hollow body, as opposed to the first sensor's orientation along the vertical propagation/sensing axis of the waveguide) would, through nothing more than routine engineering judgment, select an orientation suited to the second sensor's intended sensing function and location, and a perpendicular orientation is one of a finite, easily-enumerated set of predictable relative orientations (e.g., parallel, perpendicular, or some other angle) a POSITA would have considered and found obvious to select, particularly here where a perpendicular orientation naturally results from mounting a sensor to sense along the transverse/horizontal cross-section at the bottom terminus of an elongated, vertically-extending hollow body, as opposed to the longitudinal/vertical sensing orientation of the first sensor positioned along the waveguide's gap. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d at 1023; see also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (relocation of an element, and the choice of a location therefor, is not ordinarily sufficient to distinguish over the prior art absent a showing that the relocation was significant); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 421 (2007) (a combination of known elements according to known methods, or the mere arrangement of old elements each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than predictable results, is obvious; where there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSITA has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp).
Claim 7
FISHER in view of Watanabe , as evidenced by Fischer teaches the assembly of claim 5, wherein the hollow body 251,111 is disposed in a center of the vessel 101.
Claim 8
FISHER in view of Watanabe , as evidenced by Fischer teaches the assembly of claim 4, wherein the hollow body 111 is cylindrical or semicylindrical.
Claim 23
FISHER in view of Watanabe , as evidenced by Fischer teaches the assembly of claim 6, FISHER discloses that the sensor(s) associated with the vessel/container may comprise a "weight sensor," in addition to a powder level sensor, among the types of sensors contemplated for a single housing (FISHER, ¶0296–0297: "The sensor may comprise... a temperature sensor, weight sensor, powder level sensor, gas sensor, or humidity sensor"). This establishes that a load/weight-responsive sensor, distinct from (though potentially used together with) a level-type sensor, was known and contemplated within the same vessel/housing. As cited before, Watabe further discloses that a piezoelectric sensing element inherently generates its output in response to the mechanical load or contact condition of the powder/fluid at its mounted location — the piezoelectric ceramic plate mechanically vibrates when unloaded (i.e., when not contacted by the powder) and has its vibration suppressed when contacted/loaded by the powder or fluid at the sensing location, such that the resulting output signal (level detection signal voltage) is a direct transduction of the mechanical load condition sensed at that location (Watabe, Abstract; "Means for solving problems" section). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, a POSITA would have found it obvious to implement FISHER's sensor(s) — including both the first sensor (positioned at the powder-gas interface per claim 1) and the second sensor (positioned at the bottom of the hollow body per claim 6) — as piezoelectric sensors of the type taught by Watabe, and would have been motivated to apply Watabe's piezoelectric sensing principle across the additional sensor(s) of FISHER's disclosed plurality as a matter of consistent design choice within a single assembly. Because each piezoelectric sensor so implemented outputs a signal that is a direct transduction of the mechanical load/contact condition of the powder at its respective mounted location, a POSITA would have understood — and it would have been obvious — that the first sensor (at the interface) and the second sensor (at the bottom of the hollow body) each respectively detect and output a powder load reading specific to their respective locations, i.e., a first powder load and a second powder load, consistent with FISHER's teaching that weight/load-type sensor output is a recognized sensor output type for such a vessel (¶0296–0297).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FISHER , WO 2023129489 A1 in view of Watanabe, JP S61280525 A , as evidenced by Fischer and US Tan, 20170259093 A1, and Blanco, WO 2024038147 A1.
Claim 22
FISHER in view of Watanabe , as evidenced by Fischer teaches the assembly of claim 1, FISHER discloses further comprising a controller communicatively coupled with the plurality of sensors to receive an output from the plurality of sensors (e.g., fig.15, ¶0331-0339,0295,0045), the output corresponding to a powder load, indicating at least one of a presence, a volume level, and a condition of the powder in the vessel (FISHER discloses that the sensor output received by the control system corresponds to, and is used to determine, the presence and/or level (volume) of powder material in the vessel: ¶0130–0132: the material level detection system determines "the distance (to a reflective interface between materials)"; ¶0296: sensors may comprise a "powder level sensor"). FISHER does not expressly disclose that the sensor output also corresponds to, or is used to determine, a "condition" of the powder (e.g., its flowability or agglomeration state), as opposed to merely its level or presence),
the combination does not teach and the controller configured to generate an indication for maintenance or replacement of the vessel in response to: the powder volume level falling below a minimum threshold value, the powder not being present, and the condition of the powder in the vessel changing from free flowing to agglomerated.
Blanco discloses a device and method for characterizing the condition of a powder sample — specifically, whether the powder is in a free-flowing (non-cohesive) state or a cohesive/agglomerated state — by receiving sensor/imaging output at a computer means and processing that output to determine the powder's flow characteristics (Blanco, Description: "a 'cohesive or moderately cohesive' material is understood as a powder sample with poorer flow properties... while a 'non-cohesive' material is understood as a material with better flow properties"; further disclosing that the computer means (16) "controls... the image acquisition means" and processes the resulting output to characterize flow behavior, and that the imaging technique is useful "for detecting agglomerates"). Blanco further discloses that its computer means may additionally receive and analyze information from other sensor types, such as "humidity or temperature sensors," alongside the flow-characterization output (Blanco, Description), evidencing that a controller/computer means processing multiple sensor output types to characterize powder condition, in combination with other load parameters, was known in the art.
A POSITA would have found it obvious to configure FISHER's control system to additionally process sensor output corresponding to a condition of the powder (e.g., a free-flowing versus agglomerated state), in the manner taught by Blanco, because both references are directed to processing sensor/measurement output from a powder-containing vessel or chamber to characterize attributes of the powder relevant to system operation, and Blanco demonstrates that flow-condition characterization via a controller/computing means, based on sensor output, was a known and desirable capability in powder-handling systems generally. FISHER discloses that its control system uses threshold-based comparisons of sensor input to trigger control actions and alarms (FISHER, ¶0307: the control scheme comprises "one or more comparisons with an input parameter and/or threshold... The threshold may comprise a calculated : “e.g., predicted” threshold “e.g., setpoint” value"; ¶0179: the control system can interpret signals and generate outputs including alarms”. FISHER further discloses that its machine interface processor allows monitoring of, among other parameters, the "amount of particulate material remaining in the reservoir" and can output an "alarm" or "message notification" based on machine/printing status: FISHER, ¶0358–0359).
To the extent FISHER does not expressly tie a below-threshold powder level determination to an indication specifically for "maintenance or replacement," Tan discloses a fire extinguisher checking system in which a sensed insufficiency of the extinguishing agent (dry powder or liquid) present in the vessel automatically triggers a warning: "a warning about insufficient liquid amount is sent out using a travel controller" (Tan, Abstract). Tan's Background section further establishes that the purpose of checking the fire extinguisher's fill condition is to ensure the extinguisher can be relied upon in a fire event, and that undetected deficiencies "may make nonreasonable control on the fire tendency, hereby serious consequences may be possibly caused" (Tan, ¶0002) — i.e., that an insufficient-amount determination is understood in the art as indicating a need for the extinguisher to be serviced (recharged/refilled) or replaced before further reliance.
A POSITA would have found it obvious to configure FISHER's threshold-based control scheme, as applied to a fire-suppression vessel, to generate an indication for maintenance or replacement of the vessel when the sensed powder volume level falls below a minimum threshold, in the manner taught by Tan, because Tan demonstrates that automatically warning of an insufficient extinguishing-agent amount in a fire-suppression vessel is a known, art-recognized safety practice, and because a POSITA would have understood that such a warning, in the context of a fire suppression system, serves to prompt maintenance or replacement of the vessel/its contents, consistent with Tan's own stated rationale for periodic checking of fire extinguishers.
FISHER's material level detection system is configured to determine, based on sensor signal, whether material is present at a given location, and its absence would correspondingly be reflected in the sensor output and control system determination (FISHER, ¶0130–0132, ¶0296). Tan further discloses checking whether the fire extinguisher contains a sufficient amount of extinguishing agent, including the limiting case where agent is depleted, and automatically generating a corresponding warning (Tan, Abstract; ¶0030: checking "whether the weight is sufficient"). For the same reasons discussed above with respect to the volume-threshold limitation, a POSITA would have found it obvious to configure the FISHER/Tan combination such that a determination of powder absence — an extreme case of a below-threshold condition — likewise triggers a maintenance/replacement indication. Tan discloses that a central purpose of checking a fire extinguisher is to determine "whether the internal dry powder of the fire extinguisher is condensed" (Tan, ¶0002), and that its remote checking function enables determination of "whether the flowability of the dry powder is good or not" (Tan, ¶0030), further noting that conventional fire extinguishers cannot be checked for powder condensation without releasing pressure and disassembly — underscoring that a change in the powder's condition from free-flowing to agglomerated/condensed is a recognized, safety-relevant failure mode specifically in the fire-suppression-powder field that warrants inspection and, per Tan's problem statement, remedial action.
Blanco discloses the specific mechanism by which such a free-flowing-to-agglomerated change may be detected and quantified: a computer means receiving sensor/image output and characterizing the powder sample as cohesive/agglomerated versus non-cohesive/free-flowing based on that output (Blanco, Description, discussed above), including detection of agglomerates via image-based analysis.
A POSITA, motivated by Tan's teaching that a change in fire-suppression powder condition from free-flowing to condensed/agglomerated is a known, safety-critical condition requiring detection and response in a fire-suppression vessel, would have looked to Blanco for a known technique by which a controller/computing means, receiving sensor output, determines whether a powder sample's condition has changed from free-flowing to agglomerated. A POSITA would have applied this technique within FISHER's control system architecture, configuring the controller to generate a maintenance/replacement indication upon detecting such a condition change, consistent with Tan's express recognition that condensed/agglomerated powder renders a fire extinguisher unreliable and in need of servicing.
A POSITA designing a controller for a fire-suppression powder assembly, having FISHER's teaching of a control system architecture that receives sensor output and applies threshold-based logic to generate alarms/notifications, would have been motivated to consult Tan — a reference in the same field of endeavor (fire extinguishers) — for the specific triggering conditions and purposes relevant to that field: namely, that an insufficient amount of extinguishing agent and a condensed/agglomerated (non-free-flowing) condition of dry powder extinguishing agent are both recognized deficiencies that warrant an automatically generated warning, understood in the art as indicating a need for maintenance or replacement of the extinguisher. A POSITA would have further been motivated to consult Blanco for the specific means by which a controller/computing means can determine, from sensor or imaging output, whether a powder's condition has changed from free-flowing to agglomerated, since Blanco is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of characterizing powder flowability/agglomeration state via automated sensor-output processing — the same problem Tan identifies as relevant to fire extinguisher checking, and the same general problem addressed by FISHER's and Watabe's sensor and controller architecture as applied in claim 1. The combination of FISHER, Tan, and Blanco therefore renders obvious a controller configured to generate a maintenance/replacement indication in response to each of the three recited conditions, as each reference contributes a known solution — general threshold-based control logic (FISHER), field-specific triggering conditions and their maintenance/replacement significance (Tan), and automated flow-condition characterization (Blanco) — to the same overall problem of monitoring and reporting the operational adequacy of powder contained in a pressurized vessel.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FISHER , WO 2023129489 A1 in view of Watanabe, JP S61280525 A , as evidenced by Fischer , and Cecala, US6979116B2.
Claim 24
FISHER in view of Watanabe , as evidenced by Fischer teaches the assembly of claim 23, wherein the first powder load is indicative of powder level (FISHER discloses that the first sensor, positioned within the hollow body at the powder-gas interface, is configured to sense the level of the powder material by detecting the interface between the powder and the gas atmosphere as it changes over time relative to the sensor's fixed position : e.g., ¶0130–0132, ¶0136, as discussed above , accordingly, the first sensor's output — the first powder load, per claim 23 — is indicative of powder level), but does not teach and the second powder load is indicative of powder compaction.
In the similar field of endeavor, Cecala discloses an apparatus for metering dry bulk material from a silo, comprising a weight sensor (51 which may be a digital load cell, in communication with a processor, wherein the processor calculates an "actual bulk density" of the material: from the weight sensor's output and compares this actual bulk density to an "expected weight" derived from the known quantity of material metered into the system (Cecala, claims 11–12: "said processor varies the speed of said motor to vary the quantity of dry material metered into said tank in accordance with the actual bulk density calculated from said at least one weight sensor as compared to the expected weight loss"). Cecala further discloses that the processor activates a vibration-inducing device specifically "when a predetermined difference is detected between the actual bulk density calculated from said at least one weight sensor as compared to the expected weight" (Cecala, claim 15), the vibration-inducing device being provided "to prevent bridging of the dry material contained in said silo" (Cecala, claim 14). Cecala thus expressly teaches that a discrepancy between a load/weight sensor's actual output and an expected value is used by a processor/controller to detect and respond to bridging — i.e., compaction — of the stored dry material, as distinct from a mere level or presence determination.
A POSITA, having FISHER's modified with Watabe's teaching of a load-responsive (piezoelectric) second sensor positioned at the bottom of the hollow body, and further having Cecala's teaching that a load/weight sensor's output, when it diverges from an expected value, is understood in the art of dry bulk material handling as indicative of compaction/bridging of the material (as opposed to level or presence), would have found it obvious to configure the second sensor's output (second powder load) to be indicative of powder compaction. A POSITA would have been motivated to make this combination because both Cecala and the claimed assembly address the same underlying problem — detecting an undesirable compacted or bridged state of a stored particulate material via a load-type sensor reading, as distinct from the level-type determination already provided by the first sensor — and because positioning the load-responsive second sensor at the bottom of the hollow body (per claim 6), beneath the bulk of the settling/settled powder, is a location a POSITA would recognize as well-suited to sensing the load effects of compaction, consistent with the general understanding in the art (reflected in Cecala) that compacted or bridged bulk powder exhibits altered load/bulk-density characteristics detectable by a load-responsive sensing element, particularly toward the bottom of a storage structure where compaction effects are most pronounced due to gravitational loading of overlying material.
A POSITA designing a powder-monitoring assembly for a fire suppression vessel, having FISHER's teaching of a plurality of sensors including both level-type and weight/load-type sensors associated with a single vessel (¶0296–0297), and Watabe's teaching of piezoelectric sensing as a known, load-responsive sensing modality, would have looked to Cecala— directed to the closely related problem of monitoring dry bulk material in a storage vessel via a load/weight sensor to detect bridging/compaction — for the specific functional relationship between a load sensor's output and a compaction determination. Cecala's teaching that a processor compares actual load-derived bulk density against an expected value to detect bridging provides a POSITA with an art-recognized basis for configuring the second (bottom-positioned) sensor's load output to indicate powder compaction, complementing the first (interface-positioned) sensor's level-indicative output, consistent with the general design principle — evident from FISHER's disclosure of multiple, functionally distinct sensor types on a single vessel — of using different sensors positioned at different locations to monitor different, complementary aspects of the powder's condition.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
Regarding claim 11, The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious a dry powder fire suppressant monitoring system wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is disposed at a location corresponding to an interface of the powder and the compressed gas in an initial filled state of the vessel, such that a face of the at least one sensor is partially covered by the powder, a controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors, the controller configured to receive an output from the plurality of sensors, the output corresponding to a powder load, indicating at least one of a presence, a volume level, and a condition of the powder in the vessel, and the controller configured ,based on the output from the plurality of sensors, to generate: in response to the powder volume level falling below a minimum threshold value, an alert indicating powder compaction and/or agglomeration; in response to no longer detecting the presence of powder, an alert indicating powder compaction and/or agglomeration; and in response to detecting movement of powder, an indication of freely flowing powder, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 12-20 are allowed due to the dependency to allowed claim.
Claims 21 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. Claims 23-24 depend on claim 21 would be allowable at least because of their dependencies to claim 21.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious an assembly comprising: a third sensor disposed at a location on the interior wall corresponding to the interface of the powder and the compressed gas in the initial filled state of the vessel, such that a face of the third sensor is partially covered by the powder; and a fourth sensor disposed at a location on the interior wall below the powder level in the initial filled state of the vessel, such that a face of the fourth sensor is fully disposed in the powder, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Conclusions
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 Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Prior art of record
2 If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II).
