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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
The term "when" in claims 1 and 11 is a term which renders the claim indefinite. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) often flags the term "when" in a claim because it can introduce ambiguity about whether the claim is describing a required condition, an optional event, or just a timeframe (see MPEP § 2173.05(b)) . Here it is not clear if “wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is disposed at an interface of the powder and the compressed gas when the vessel is in a filled state” in claim 1 is required or only if the vessel is filled the limitation should be met. This is similar in claim 11 with the same limitation. For examination it is not required when the vessel is not in a filled state, meaning it is not a required limitation.
Claim 11 is also recites “and the controller configured to indicate when a powder volume level falls below a minimum threshold value, the presence of powder is not detected, or when a condition of the powder in the vessel changes.” The language of claim is not clear if it is citing : the controller configured to indicate in response to a powder volume level falls below a minimum threshold value, the controller configured to indicate the presence of powder is not detected, or the controller configured to indicate in response to a condition of the powder in the vessel changes; or it means: the controller configured to indicate in response to : a powder volume level falls below a minimum threshold value, OR the presence of powder is not detected, or a condition of the powder in the vessel changes, or what? rendering claim indefinite. The claim language is alternative language, therefore, the limitation is met if prior art teaches and the controller configured to indicate in response to a powder volume level falls below a minimum threshold value.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected because of their dependency to claims 1 and 11.
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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FISHER , WO 2023129489 A1 in view of Watanabe, JP S61280525 A.
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 configured to contain a powder (102 :¶0136) and a compressed gas (¶0136, also e.g., ¶0013), the vessel 101 having an interior wall (101 has interior wall); and
a plurality of sensors disposed in the vessel (e.g., ¶0045), FISHER does not teach and wherein the sensors of the plurality of sensors are piezoelectric sensors, although FISHER does not teach wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is disposed at an interface of the powder and the compressed gas when the vessel is in a filled state (this is not required for the situation shown in fig.1 that is not filled), alternatively it is obvious over Watanabe3:
In the similar field of endeavor, Watanabe in e.g., figs.2 and 4 teaches a sensor (1) is disposed at an interface of the powder 6 and the gas (in 5). 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 sensor for FISHER’s powder level sensor wherein at least one sensor of the modified FISHER’s plurality of sensors is disposed at an interface of the modified FISHER’s powder and the compressed gas when the modified FISHER’s vessel is in a filled state, wherein the sensors of the modified FISHER’s plurality of sensors are piezoelectric sensors . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the level detection machine which can remove the fault of the conventional technology, can prevent Arriving-proof of a detected thing, etc., and can perform exact operation(see Description of Watanabe).
Claim 2
FISHER in view of Watanabe teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is 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 3
FISHER in view of Watanabe teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is spaced apart from the interior wall (such as level sensor cited in e.g., ¶0033,0130 or ¶0296).
Claim 4
FISHER in view of Watanabe teaches the apparatus of claim 3 and further comprising a hollow body 111,251 disposed in the vessel 101, the hollow body 251 having a plurality of apertures (e.g., ¶0139) configured to allow a flow between the vessel 101 and an interior of the hollow body 251, wherein the at least one sensor (e.g., ¶0130) is disposed in the interior of the hollow body 251.
Claim 5
FISHER in view of Watanabe teaches the assembly of claim 4, wherein the hollow body 251 is positioned near a top of the vessel 110.
Claim 6
FISHER in view of Watanabe teaches the assembly of claim 5, wherein the hollow body 251 extends longitudinally from a top to a bottom 101, regarding limitation “ and wherein the plurality of sensors are longitudinally spaced” 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 such as level or conditions are measured. The benefits of this modification include it places the device in a stable and ensures accurate readings.
Claim 7
FISHER in view of Watanabe 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 teaches the assembly of claim 4, wherein the hollow body 111 is cylindrical or semicylindrical.
Claim 10
FISHER in view of Watanabe teaches the assembly of claim 4, wherein the apertures have a diameter equal to or less than a diameter of a nozzle outlet through which the powder is delivered upon being discharged from the vessel (e.g., diameter of holes in ¶0134).
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FISHER , WO 2023129489 A1 in view of Kopschinski, US 20250249511 A1 and Langely, US20240096192A1
Claim 9
FISHER in view of Watanabe teaches the assembly of claim 8, wherein the hollow body 111 extends longitudinally from a top to a bottom and FISHER teaches 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 has been held that a mere rearrangement and orientation 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 and orientation of sensors in this case does not modify the operation of the device because there are many systems that intentionally place two different sensors perpendicular to each other. Perpendicular sensor arrangements are very common when a system needs for example a vector component measurement or depends on the application. See for example Langely, which teaches wherein a second sensor 108 of the plurality of sensors is disposed at the bottom of the hollow body 500 and oriented perpendicular to the first sensor 120. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Langely‘s sensors for the modified FISHER‘s wherein the at least one sensor is a first sensor and wherein a second sensor of the modified FISHER’s plurality of sensors is disposed at the bottom of the modified FISHER’s hollow body and oriented perpendicular to the modified FISHER’s first sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine different properties at the same time.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FISHER , WO 2023129489 A1 in view of Komatsu, US 5438393 A, and Kopschinski, US 20250249511 A1.
Claim 11
FISHER in e.g., Figs.1-3 teaches :
A dry powder fire suppressant monitoring system (intended use/ also ¶0296 teaches determining fluidity sensor and agglomerated particles in ¶0297 that can be used for monitoring fire suppression system) comprising:
a vessel 101 configured to contain a powder 102 and a compressed gas (¶0136, also e.g., ¶0013), the vessel 101 having an interior wall(101 has interior wall);
a plurality of sensors disposed in the vessel (e.g., ¶0045), wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is disposed at an interface of the powder and the compressed gas when the vessel is in a filled state (this is not required for the situation shown in fig.1 that is not filled), and
a controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors (e.g., ¶0013: the device is configured to operatively couple to at least one controller configured to facilitate flow of the material into and/or out of the container that inherently needs controller does the function if it is coupled to the sensors, which device is configured to transmit at least one signal to the at least one controller, the at least one signal indicative of the level of the material in the container), the controller configured to receive an output from the plurality of sensors (e.g., ¶0045: release of the powder from the housing is determined at least in part by one or more sensors, a powder level sensor, the valve is configured to control whether the powder is confined or is released from the housing based at least in part on a temperature threshold, the valve is configured to control whether the powder is confined or is released from the housing based at least in part on a schedule as cited above e.g., ¶0013,0045).
FISHER does not teach and wherein sensors of the plurality of sensors are piezoelectric sensors and the controller configured to indicate when a powder volume level falls below a minimum threshold value, the presence of powder is not detected, or when a condition of the powder in the vessel changes.
In the similar field of endeavor, Komatsu4 in e.g., fig.3 teaches piezoelectric power level sensor for detecting agglomeration state of the powder (e.g., Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Komatsu‘s piezoelectric sensor for FISHER‘s fluidity sensors wherein sensors of the modified FISHER’s plurality of sensors are piezoelectric sensors. One of ordinary skill in the art knows determining the state of powder using signals of related to the vibrating piezoelectric elements and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to high detection stability can be ensured irrespective of the type of toner and the condition of toner coagulation(col.3 lines 12-14 of Komatsu).
Furthermore,
In the similar field of endeavor, Kopschinski in e.g., fig.6 teaches the controller 107 configured to indicate when a powder volume level falls below a minimum threshold value (e.g., ¶0015,0013 also claim 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kopschinski ‘s controller for FISHER‘s system and the modified FISHER’s controller configured to indicate when a powder volume level falls below a minimum threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art knows alarming for powder systems in different states are required and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to for example ensuring that the powder flow through the powder outlet at the bottom of the powder vessel is not interrupted (e.g., ¶0015 Kopschinski).
Claim 12
FISHER in view of Komatsu and Kopschinski teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor is 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 temperature or pressure is measured. 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 13
FISHER in view of Komatsu and Kopschinski teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor is spaced apart from the interior wall (such as level sensor cited in e.g., ¶0033 or ¶0296).
Claim 14
FISHER in view of Komatsu and Kopschinski teaches the system of claim 13 and further comprising a hollow body 111,251disposed in the vessel 101, the hollow body 111,251 having a plurality of apertures (e.g., ¶0139) configured to allow a flow of powder between the vessel 101 and an interior of the hollow body 111,251, wherein the at least one sensor (e.g., ¶0130) is disposed in the interior of the hollow body 251.
Claim 15
FISHER in view of Komatsu and Kopschinski teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the hollow body 251 is positioned near a top of the vessel 110.
Claim 16
FISHER in view of Komatsu and Kopschinski teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the hollow body 251 extends longitudinally from a top to a bottom 101, regarding limitation “ and wherein the plurality of sensors are longitudinally spaced” 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 such as level or conditions are measured. The benefits of this modification include it places the device in a stable and ensures accurate readings.
Claim 17
FISHER in view of Komatsu and Kopschinski teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the hollow body 251,111 is disposed in a center of the vessel 101.
Claim 19
FISHER in view of Komatsu and Kopschinski teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the hollow body 111 is cylindrical or semicylindrical.
Claim 20
FISHER in view of Komatsu and Kopschinski teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the apertures have a diameter equal to or less than a diameter of a nozzle outlet through which the powder is delivered upon being discharged from the vessel (e.g., diameter of holes in ¶0134).
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FISHER , WO 2023129489 A1 in view of Komatsu, US 5438393 A, and Kopschinski, US 20250249511 A1and Langely, US20240096192A1
Claim 18
FISHER in view of Komatsu and Kopschinski teaches system of claim 17, wherein the hollow body 111 extends longitudinally from a top to a bottom and FISHER teaches 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 has been held that a mere rearrangement and orientation 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 and orientation of sensors in this case does not modify the operation of the device because there are many systems that intentionally place two different sensors perpendicular to each other. Perpendicular sensor arrangements are very common when a system needs for example a vector component measurement or depends on the application. See for example Langely, which teaches wherein a second sensor 108 of the plurality of sensors is disposed at the bottom of the hollow body 500 and oriented perpendicular to the first sensor 120. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Langely‘s sensors for the modified FISHER‘s wherein the at least one sensor is a first sensor and wherein a second sensor of the modified FISHER’s plurality of sensors is disposed at the bottom of the modified FISHER’s hollow body and oriented perpendicular to the modified FISHER’s first sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine different properties at the same time.
Conclusions
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Powell, US 20100259756 A1
Powell teaches : An assembly for detecting agglomeration of a powder for a fire suppression system, the assembly comprising:
a vessel 44/86 configured to contain a powder (from 40) and a compressed gas (from 42¶0026), the vessel 44 having an interior wall; and
a plurality of sensors (46¶0024) disposed in the vessel 44, wherein at least one sensor 24A of the plurality of sensors 46 is disposed at the vessel 44 is in a filled state.
Stumm, US 20150041158 A1
Stumm teaches : An assembly for detecting agglomeration of a powder for a fire suppression system, the assembly comprising:
a vessel 10 configured to contain a powder and a compressed gas (agent contain powder and gas e.g., ¶0013), the vessel 10 having an interior wall (met by any container such as 10); and
a plurality of sensors (18-22, 30a,b ¶0013,0014) disposed in the vessel, wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors 22 is disposed at the vessel 10 .
ZHAO , CN 217697726 U
ZHAO teaches : An assembly for detecting agglomeration of a powder for a fire suppression system, the assembly comprising:
a vessel 2 configured to contain a powder and a compressed gas (1), the vessel 2 having an interior wall (met by any container such as 2); and
a plurality of sensors (15,3).
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).
3 Prior art of record
4 Prior art of record
Prosecution Insights