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 .
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation "water mist" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the limitation "water mist" is or is not a positive recited limitation because it is uncommon to positively claim material or article worked upon by the claimed apparatus, in this case, the system with sprinklers. However, last line of claim 2 appears to positively claim the water mist as droplets having a diameter below 1 mm (a must in the claimed invention)? If the "water mist" is not a positively recited limitation, then, the material or article worked (the upon also does not limit an apparatus claim but is rather an intended use of the apparatus.
See: MPEP §§ 2114, 2115; See also: In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer (EP0806225) in view of Silva, Jr. (US7559376. Silva hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Rainer discloses a car parking garage system (Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a floor deck (9) and a ceiling deck (10) spaced about a (horizontal) longitudinal axis extending parallel to the ceiling deck; and
a fire protection system (fire protection system excluding the garage) including:
a supply pipe system (15, 16, 17, 20) having a parallel portion disposed parallel to the longitudinal axis; and
a plurality of water mist sprinklers (21, 24 and 25) coupled to the parallel portion of the supply pipe system, each of the plurality of water mist sprinklers including:
a frame body (38) having an inlet (at 41) for (capable of) receipt of an extinguishing fluid from the supply pipe system, an outlet (47) with a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet, a seal assembly (53, 54) and a heat-responsive trigger (49) to support the seal assembly in the outlet; and
a deflector (dome end of 38) coupled to the frame body and spaced from the outlet for distribution of the extinguishing fluid;
wherein a height (from 9 to 10) between the floor deck and the ceiling deck in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is up to 4 meters (sprinkler of Rainer will provide some area coverage when install up to 4 meters).
Rainer fails to disclose an outlet with a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet to define a discharge coefficient of a nominal metric K-factor of below 32 [L/(min*bar1/2].
However, Silva teaches a fire protection system (Figs. 1-2) comprising a water mist sprinkler (10) coupled to a supply pipe system (not shown), the at least one water mist sprinkler including a frame body (16, 20, 251) having an inlet (at 16) for (capable of) receipt of an extinguishing fluid from the supply pipe system, an outlet (at 14) with a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet to define a discharge coefficient of a nominal metric K-factor of 5.6, and, can be 8.0, 11.2, 14.0, 16.8, 14.4 or 25.5 (Col. 9, line 4-8), a seal assembly (62) and a heat-responsive trigger (61) to support the seal assembly in the outlet; and a deflector (72) coupled to the frame body and spaced from the outlet for distribution of the extinguishing fluid.
Even though, Silva does not specifically teach a nominal metric K-factor of below 32 [L/(min*bar1/2] (Examiner’s note: K-factor of 32 [L/(min*bar1/2] is about K-factor of 2.24 in Imperial Units [gpm/(psi)1/2 ]). Silva teaches a range of K-factor from 5.6 to 25.5 and specifically teaches that the K-factor can be of any value (Col. 9, line 4-8) and K-factor allows for an approximation of flow rate to be expected from the outlet of a sprinkler based on the square root of the pressure of fluid fed into the inlet of the sprinkler (Col. 9, line 23-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a water mist sprinkler with smaller K-factor, as taught by Silva, to Rainer’s sprinkler, in order to achieve a desirable flowrate and sprinkler coverage based on the available pressure of the system (SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION section and Col. 9, line 4-38). The K-factor of below 32 [L/(min*bar1/2] is merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 2, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Rainer further discloses each of the plurality of water mist sprinklers coupled to the parallel portion of the supply pipe system (21, 24 and 25. Fig. 1).
Rainer and Silva fail to disclose the sprinklers coupled to the parallel portion of the supply pipe system provides water mist as droplets having a diameter below 1 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the water mist as droplets having a diameter below 1 mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, as admitted by the Applicant, making the water mist as droplets having a diameter below 1 mm is well known to persons skilled in the art. [0003].
With respect to claim 3, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Silva fails to teach wherein the passageway and the outlet of each of the plurality of the water mist sprinklers defines a nominal metric K-factor between 14 and 18 [L/(min*bar1/2)].
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a nominal metric K-factor between 14 and 18 [L/(min*bar1/2)], since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 5, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Silva further teaches the deflector comprising a central portion (at 72), an outer perimeter (defined by the ends of tines 74a) and a peripheral portion (tines 74a) located between the central portion and the outer perimeter, wherein the peripheral portion comprises three segments of different geometry (See Fig. 2 with additional annotations below).
With respect to claim 6, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Silva further teaches wherein the outer perimeter has a constant radius (at the ends of tines 74a. Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 7, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Silva further teaches wherein the outer perimeter is (zigzaggingly) continuous (defined by tines 74a. Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Silva further teaches wherein the central portion is planar (flat. Fig. 1A) and the peripheral portion is non-planar (tilting downward).
With respect to claim 9, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Silva further teaches wherein the three segments of the peripheral portion extend in sequence radially outwards and are adjacent to one another (See Fig. 2 with additional annotations below).
With respect to claim 10, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Silva further teaches wherein a third (middle) segment of the three segments (body of tines 74a) is a frustoconical member, approximating a frustum, with a planar profile.
With respect to claims 12-17, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Rainer further discloses wherein the height is greater than 2 and up to 4 meters (Claim 12); wherein the height is greater than 3 and up to 4 meters (Claim 13); wherein the height is between 3.3 and 4 meters (Claim 14); wherein the height is between 3.5 and 4 meters (Claim 15); wherein the height is between 3.5 and 3.7 meters (Claim 16); and wherein a difference between a minimum height of the ceiling deck and the height defines a height range differential, and wherein the height range differential is 2 meters (Claim 17). Rainer discloses the limitations in claims 12-17 because the sprinkler of Rainer can provide “fire protection” at the height recited in claims 12-17.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the height and height range differential recited in claims 12-17, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 18, Rainer discloses a method of car parking garage fire protection comprising:
obtaining a fire protection system (Figs. 1-5) comprising
a supply pipe system (15, 16, 17, 20) having a parallel (horizontal) portion disposed parallel to a longitudinal (horizontal) axis, and a plurality of water mist sprinklers (21, 24 and 25), each of the plurality of water mist sprinklers including a frame body (38) having an inlet (at 41) for (capable of) receipt of an extinguishing fluid from the supply pipe system, an outlet (47) with a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet;
a seal assembly (53, 54) and a heat-responsive trigger (49) to support the seal assembly in the outlet; and
a deflector (dome end of 38) coupled to the frame body and spaced from the outlet for distribution of the extinguishing fluid;
providing the plurality of water mist sprinklers for installation in a car parking garage between a floor deck (9) and a ceiling deck (10) of a car parking garage spaced about the longitudinal axis extending parallel to the ceiling deck, ,
wherein a height between the floor deck and the ceiling deck in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is up to 4 meters (sprinkler of Rainer will provide some area coverage when install up to 4 meters).
Rainer fails to disclose the outlet with a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet to define a discharge coefficient of a nominal metric K-factor of below 32 [L/(min*bar1/2)].
However, Silva teaches a fire protection system (Figs. 1-2) comprising a water mist sprinkler (10) coupled to a supply pipe system (not shown), the at least one water mist sprinkler including a frame body (16, 20, 251) having an inlet (at 16) for (capable of) receipt of an extinguishing fluid from the supply pipe system, an outlet (at 14) with a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet to define a discharge coefficient of a nominal metric K-factor of 5.6, and, can be 8.0, 11.2, 14.0, 16.8, 14.4 or 25.5 (Col. 9, line 4-8), a seal assembly (62) and a heat-responsive trigger (61) to support the seal assembly in the outlet; and a deflector (72) coupled to the frame body and spaced from the outlet for distribution of the extinguishing fluid.
Even though, Silva does not specifically teach a nominal metric K-factor of below 32 [L/(min*bar1/2] (Examiner’s note: K-factor of 32 [L/(min*bar1/2] is about K-factor of 2.24 in Imperial Units [gpm/(psi)1/2 ]). Silva teaches a range of K-factor from 5.6 to 25.5 and specifically teaches that the K-factor can be of any value (Col. 9, line 4-8) and K-factor allows for an approximation of flow rate to be expected from the outlet of a sprinkler based on the square root of the pressure of fluid fed into the inlet of the sprinkler (Col. 9, line 23-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a water mist sprinkler with smaller K-factor, as taught by Silva, to Rainer’s sprinkler, in order to achieve a desirable flowrate and sprinkler coverage based on the available pressure of the system (SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION section and Col. 9, line 4-38). The K-factor of below 32 [L/(min*bar1/2] is merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 19, Rainer discloses a method (Figs. 1-5) of car parking garage fire protection comprising:
installing a supply pipe system (15, 16, 17, 20) between a ceiling deck (10) and a floor deck (9) of a car parking garage spaced about a longitudinal (horizontal) axis extending parallel to the ceiling deck; and
coupling a plurality of water mist sprinklers to a parallel portion of the supply pipe system disposed parallel to the floor deck,
wherein each of the plurality of water mist sprinklers (21, 24 and 25) includes a frame body (38) having an inlet (at 41) for (capable of) receipt of an extinguishing fluid from the supply pipe system, an outlet (47) with a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet, a seal assembly (53, 54) and a heat-responsive trigger (49) to support the seal assembly in the outlet, and a deflector (dome end of 38) coupled to the frame body and spaced from the outlet for distribution of the extinguishing fluid,
wherein a height between the floor deck and the ceiling deck in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is up to 4 meters (sprinkler of Rainer will provide some area coverage when install up to 4 meters).
Rainer fails to disclose the passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet to define a discharge coefficient of a nominal metric K-factor of below 32 [L/(min*bar1/2].
However, Silva teaches a fire protection system (Figs. 1-2) comprising a water mist sprinkler (10) coupled to a supply pipe system (not shown), the at least one water mist sprinkler including a frame body (16, 20, 251) having an inlet (at 16) for (capable of) receipt of an extinguishing fluid from the supply pipe system, an outlet (at 14) with a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet to define a discharge coefficient of a nominal metric K-factor of 5.6, and, can be 8.0, 11.2, 14.0, 16.8, 14.4 or 25.5 (Col. 9, line 4-8), a seal assembly (62) and a heat-responsive trigger (61) to support the seal assembly in the outlet; and a deflector (72) coupled to the frame body and spaced from the outlet for distribution of the extinguishing fluid.
Even though, Silva does not specifically teach a nominal metric K-factor of below 32 [L/(min*bar1/2] (Examiner’s note: K-factor of 32 [L/(min*bar1/2] is about K-factor of 2.24 in Imperial Units [gpm/(psi)1/2 ]). Silva teaches a range of K-factor from 5.6 to 25.5 and specifically teaches that the K-factor can be of any value (Col. 9, line 4-8) and K-factor allows for an approximation of flow rate to be expected from the outlet of a sprinkler based on the square root of the pressure of fluid fed into the inlet of the sprinkler (Col. 9, line 23-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a water mist sprinkler with smaller K-factor, as taught by Silva, to Rainer’s sprinkler, in order to achieve a desirable flowrate and sprinkler coverage based on the available pressure of the system (SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION section and Col. 9, line 4-38). The K-factor of below 32 [L/(min*bar1/2] is merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 20, Rainer’s method modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Rainer further discloses wherein the height is greater than 3 and up to 4 meters. Rainer discloses the limitations in claim 20 because the sprinkler of Rainer can provide “fire protection” at the height greater than 3 and up to 4 meters.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the effective height range greater than 3 and up to 4 meters, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 21, Rainer and Silva disclose a water mist nozzle for car parking garage systems of claim 1, Silva further teach the deflector comprising a central portion (at 72), an outer perimeter (defined by the ends of tines 74a) and a peripheral portion (tines 74a) located between the central portion and the outer perimeter, wherein the peripheral portion comprises three segments of different geometry (See Fig. 2 with additional annotations below).
Claim(s) 4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer in view of Silva and in view of Polan et al. (US 6336509. Polan hereinafter).
With respect to claim 4, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Rainer and Silva fail to disclose wherein the heat-responsive trigger has a metric response time index between 50 and 80 (m*s)1/2.
However, Polan teaches a water sprinkler (10. Figs. 1-13) with a heat-responsive trigger (30) has a metric response time index between 50 and 80 (m*s)1/2 (response time indices (RTI) of less than 100 meter½sec ½. Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a water sprinkler with metric response time index between 50 and 80 (m*s)1/2, as taught by Polan, to Rainer’s sprinkler, in order to improve low pressure fast response sprinkler system (Abstract).
With respect to claim 22, Rainer and Silva disclose the water mist nozzle of claim 21, Silva further teaches wherein the outer perimeter is continuous and has a constant radius (phantom line of 52. Fig. 4), the three segments of the peripheral portion extend in sequence radially outwards and are adjacent to one another (See Fig. 4 with additional annotations below), a third (middle) segment of the three segments (64f and 66f) is a frustoconical member, approximating a frustum, with a planar profile, the peripheral portion comprises multiple openings (64h and 66h) with internal tines (64f and 66f).
Rainer and Silva fail to disclose the heat-responsive trigger has a metric response time index between 50 and 80 (m*s)1/2.
However, Polan teaches a water sprinkler (10. Figs. 1-13) with a heat-responsive trigger (30) has a metric response time index between 50 and 80 (m*s)1/2 (response time indices (RTI) of less than 100 meter½sec ½. Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a water sprinkler with metric response time index between 50 and 80 (m*s)1/2, as taught by Polan, to Rainer’s sprinkler, in order to improve low pressure fast response sprinkler system (Abstract).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer in view of Silva and in view of Wancho et al. (US 20030201341. Wancho hereinafter).
With respect to claim 11, Rainer’s car parking garage system modified by Silva’s sprinkler, Rainer and Silva fail to disclose wherein the peripheral portion comprises multiple openings with internal tines.
However, Wancho teaches a fire protection system (Figs. 1-10) comprising a water mist sprinkler (10) coupled to the parallel portion of the supply pipe system (horizontal pipe (not shown) connecting sprinklers 10 in Fig. 10), the at least one water mist sprinkler including a frame body (12) having an inlet (at 16) for (capable of) receipt of an extinguishing fluid from the supply pipe system, an outlet (at 26) with a passageway (22) extending between the inlet and the outlet to define a discharge coefficient of a nominal metric K-factor of below 32 (K14.0. Fig. 9), a seal assembly (40, 42, 44) and a heat-responsive trigger (46) to support the seal assembly in the outlet; and a deflector (14) coupled to the frame body and spaced from the outlet for distribution of the extinguishing fluid; wherein the outer perimeter has a constant radius (phantom line of 52. Fig. 4); wherein the outer perimeter is continuous (defined by the phantom line of 52. Fig. 4); wherein the central portion is planar (flat. Fig. 8) and the peripheral portion is non-planar (Fig. 7); wherein the three segments of the peripheral portion extend in sequence radially outwards and are adjacent to one another (See Fig. 4 with additional annotations below); wherein the third segment (64f and 66f) is a frustoconical member, approximating a frustum, with a planar profile. Wancho further teaches wherein the peripheral portion comprises multiple openings (64h and 66h) with internal tines (64f and 66f).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of adding opposite cutouts to the deflector, as taught by Wancho, to Rainer and Silva’s deflector, in order to produce a predetermined spray pattern (Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
334
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the Applicant argument that Rainer fails to disclose heat-responsive trigger. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As clearly elaborated in the detailed rejections above, Rainer’s plurality of water mist sprinklers (21, 24 and 25) including: a frame body (38) having an inlet (at 41) for (capable of) receipt of an extinguishing fluid from the supply pipe system, an outlet (47) with a passageway extending between the inlet and the outlet, a seal assembly (53, 54) and a heat-responsive trigger (49) shown in Fig. 5 of Rainer. The heat-responsive trigger is the glass barrel 49 that is designed to burst when the glass vial 49 is heated until it reaches its excitation temperature. Third paragraph in page 5 of the EP0806225 with English translation by Google Patents.
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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights