Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-20 are pending and claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026. Examiner notes that applicants arguments with regards to species A-C are noted, as all claims are drawn to species A, the election between species is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8, and 10-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskaris (U.S. 2021/0046345) in view of Linsmeier (U.S. 2022/0074417).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Laskaris discloses a fire-fighting system (figure 1) comprising:
a pump (figure 1, #120);
a nozzle (figure 1, #156) for directing fluid flow from said pump towards a target area (area 180 sprays);
a nozzle component (remote component 180) coupled to said nozzle, said nozzle component comprising a first transceiver (paragraph 0038, indicates that the remote controller has a transceiver 178) and an indicator (paragraph 0054);
a fluid line (150) connecting said pump (120) to said nozzle (156); and
a discharge valve control assembly (figure 1, having 154 and 157) comprising:
a discharge valve (154) controlling fluid flow between said pump and said nozzle (as shown in figure 1);
a pressure sensor (157) coupled to said fluid line (figure 1, paragraph 0041); and
a second transceiver providing communication between said nozzle component and said discharge valve control assembly (being the transceiver of the nozzle valve control assembly that allows for communication with 178, see figure 2, 256 communicating with 178), said discharge valve control assembly configured to: receive
a request to charge a hose section of said fluid line (i.e. to open the valve from the nozzles controller, paragraph 0055); and
determine whether to open said discharge valve in response to receiving the request based on a fluid pressure detected by said pressure sensor (paragraphs 0057 and 0077, where the control valve operation is based off of the pressures sensed by 157) . Laskaris fails to disclose the pressure sensor coupled to said fluid line is between said pump and said discharge valve/upstream of the discharge valve, rather showing it after the valve 154. Specifically stating in paragraph 0041 that it is adjacent the valve but showing in figure 1 being after the valve.
Linsmeier, figure 7, discloses putting pressure sensors both before and after the valve having inlet pressure sensors 848 and outlet pressure sensor 850 to acquire pressure data regarding eh pressure or fluid entering and exiting the valve allowing for not only the pressure at their respective area of the fluid conduit but also pressure differential across the output valves themselves as well. This pressure differential allows for the system to further indicate if there are any leaks in the valve and any valve degradation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a pressure sensor between the pump and the discharge valve as disclosed by Linsmeier into the system Laskaris as the pressure sensor would not only function to tell the system of the line pressure as intended in Laskaris, but utilizing two of them on either side of the valve allow for the pressure differential to be known which can indicate if there are any leaks in the valve.
With respect to claim 2, Laskaris discloses the request to charge the hose section of said fluid line is transmitted from said nozzle component to said discharge valve control assembly by said first transceiver and by said second transceiver (being the transceiver on the nozzle communicating with the valve as what’s understood as being a transceiver on the valve to receive the signal from the controller on the nozzle, see figure 2).
With respect to claim 3, Laskaris discloses said nozzle component further includes a display and an interface (a user-interface screen 250, being a display and an interface), said interface being configured to receive a user-input (paragraph 0054), wherein said nozzle component transmits the request to charge the hose section of said fluid line in response to receipt of the user-input at the interface (paragraph 0058).
With respect to claim 4, Laskaris discloses said nozzle component is paired to said discharge valve control assembly via communication between said first transceiver and said second transceiver (as the nozzle’s controller and transceiver controls the valve control assembly, see figure 2, understanding that the valve control assembly has a transceiver to receiver requests to operate).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Laskaris discloses said discharge valve control assembly is communicatively connected to at least one device component of the fire-fighting system (as the discharge valve control assembly is communicably connected to the base controller 110 which is communicatively connected to various other devices in the system), wherein the at least one component includes at least one of a pump control component (control component of the pump 120, being that of base control 110 coupled to the pump 120), a tank sensor coupled to a tank of the fire-fighting system, a source valve actuator (being the valve actuator of 142), a recirculation valve actuator (132), and a tank supply valve actuator (134).
With respect to claim 7, Laskaris discloses said nozzle is a first nozzle, said nozzle component is a first nozzle component, said fluid line is a first fluid line, and said discharge valve assembly is a first discharge valve control assembly, wherein the fire-fighting system further comprises:
a second fluid line (160) connecting said pump to a second nozzle (166); and a second discharge valve control assembly (164 with 167), said second discharge valve control assembly being communicatively connected to the at least one device component (being connected to the devices listed in the rejection of claim 5 via the controller 110).
With respect to claim 8, Laskaris discloses said first discharge valve control assembly and said second discharge valve control assembly are each directly connected in communication with the at least one device component (as both 154 and 164 are connected to 110, paragraph 0044).
With respect to claims 10 and 16, Laskaris discloses comprising a second pressure sensor coupled between said discharge valve and said nozzle (as shown in figure 1, and disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 where a pressure sensor is both placed between the nozzle and valve and the valve and the pump).
With respect to claims 11 and 15, Laskaris discloses said discharge valve control assembly further comprises a controller (controller 110) including a processor (168) and a memory storing instructions (170) and a predefined pressure limit thereon (paragraph 0057, being the conditions and operating limits for the system 100, as a pressure limit exists for what the system can do), wherein said processor is configured to perform the steps of receiving the request to charge said hose section and determining whether to open said discharge valve (being the function of controller 110, paragraph 0057), wherein said processor is further configured to: compare the detected fluid pressure to the predefined pressure limit; if the detected fluid pressure is equal to or exceeds the predefined pressure limit, cause said discharge valve to be opened (paragraph 0057-0061); but fails to specifically disclose and if the detected fluid pressure is less than the predefined pressure limit, transmit an alert to said nozzle component.
Linsmeier discloses, paragraph 0063, disclosing an alert when aspects of the operation of the pumping system happens such as the discharge pressures.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Linsmeier of displaying the discharge pressures of the system into the system of Laskaris, allowing then the detected pressures being either over or under the limit to be displayed for a viewer to see. This would allow a user to know if the system is applying enough pressure as desired.
With respect to claim 17, Laskaris discloses said discharge valve control assembly is wirelessly paired to the nozzle component (paragraph 0038).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskaris and Linsmeier as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Christensen (U.S. 2011/0200461).
With respect to claim 6, Laskaris discloses said discharge valve control assembly is communicatively connected to the one or more device components, but fails doing so via a Controller Area Network ("CAN") of the fire-fighting system.
Christensen, paragraph 0022, discloses using a controller area network within a fire suppression system as such a controller system allows the controllers and devices to communicate with each other within a vehicle without a host computer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a CAN system as disclosed by Christensen into the system of Laskaris, allowing the various elements of the system to communicate with each other without the need for a host computer.
Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskaris and Linsmeier as applied to claims 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Trivelpiece (U.S. 2020/0188718).
With respect to claims 9 and 14, Laskaris discloses said second discharge valve control assembly and said discharge valve control assembly is communicatively connected to an additional discharge valve control assembly of the fire-fighting system, but fails that it is indirectly connected to the at least one device component through said first discharge valve control assembly.
Trivelpiece, paragraphs 0037-0039 and 0036-0098, discloses the use of a mesh network, where only one node is connected to the controller/server and the various elements, where a wireless mesh is a type of network that allows packets of data to transport to and from the plurality of wireless mesh nodes inside of the network. Because each wireless mesh node has the capacity to transmit and receive information, a single wireless mesh node may only need to be connected to a server. This allows a wireless system to be implemented throughout a building comprising of plurality of wireless mesh nodes. These wireless mesh nodes may be configured to transmit and receive radio signals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a mesh network as disclosed by Trivelpiece into the system of Laskaris, specifically allowing a mesh from the first valve control assembly to be what communicates with the at least one device component with the second valve control assembly communicating through it. As such mesh networks are well known and would allow for indirect communications of elements in the mesh network through other elements as a means for the system to communicate with itself, as such a substitution with a wireless network would still allow the system to function as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752