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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 6/25/2026 after a final rejection was mailed 3/31/2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on June 25th 2026 is acknowledged. Four pages of amended claims were received on 6/25/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 13 have been amended. The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in the final rejection mailed 3/31/2026. Claim 9 is now objected to as noted below. Claims 3-4, 6-8, 11-12, and 14-16 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as noted below. Claims 9, 11-12, and 14-16 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Tension Indicating Species A (Figs. 3A-3B) in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 10/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 5 and 13 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 9 Lines 1-2, “a mechanical fire detection line” should be revised to “a mechanical fire detection line of the fire suppression system” to ensure clarity in the claim, since based on Claim 9 Line 5 stating “the mechanical fire detection line of the fire suppression system” it appears that the mechanical fire detection line is being positively recited as part of the claimed fire suppression system.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4, 6-8, 11-12, and 14-16 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.
Claims 3-4, 6, 11-12, and 14 are each indefinite because they each use the term “the tensioned line” and it is not clear if “the tensioned line” means “the first tensioned line”, “the second tensioned line”, “one of the first tensioned line or the second tensioned line” or something else. For the purpose of examination, each instance of “the tensioned line” in Claims 3-4, 6, 11-12, and 14 will be interpreted as meaning “one of the first tensioned line or the second tensioned line”.
Claims 7-8 depend from Claim 6, therefore Claims 7-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. Claims 15-16 depend from Claim 14, therefore Claims 15-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB-2021225-B to Dalferth et al. (“Dalferth”).
As to Claim 1, Dalferth discloses a tension indicating device (See Figs. 1-2) for a fire suppression system including a mechanical fire detection line (See Page 1 Lines 3-7. The device can be used in a system of cables. Thus, the tension indicating device is capable of use with some fire suppression system that includes some mechanical fire detection line), the tension indicating device comprising:
a body (#1) comprising a first end (See Annotated Fig. 1) configured to be operatively coupled to a corresponding first tensioned line of the mechanical fire detection line of the fire suppression system (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Page 1 Lines 118-119, the first end at #12 is capable of being operatively coupled to some first tensioned line of some mechanical fire detection line of some fire suppression system) and a second end (See Annotated Fig. 1);
a piston (#2, #3, and #5) configured to be slidably disposed along a length of the body (See Fig. 1, the piston is disposed along a majority of a length of #1), the piston comprising a piston head (#5) having a moveable indicator (#10) visible through an exterior surface of the body (See Fig. 2 and Page 1 Lines 80-86) and a connecting rod (#2 and #3) having a free end (#20) configured to be coupled to a second tensioned line of the mechanical fire detection line (See Page 1 Lines 118-119, the hook #20 is capable of being coupled to some second tensioned line of some mechanical fire detection line), wherein the piston head and the connecting rod are aligned along a direction of movement for the piston (See D1 in Annotated Fig. 1) and the connecting rod protrudes through the second end of the body (See Annotated Fig. 1); and
a reference indicator fixed on the body of the tension indicating device (See the arrow centered on the marker on #8 in Fig. 2); and
wherein responsive to one of the first tensioned line or the second tensioned line being provided with tension, the piston moves towards the second end of the body (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Page 1 Lines 80-90. Pulling a cable on #12 or #20 will move the piston towards the second end of the body), thereby causing the movable indicator to correspondingly move along the length of the body of the tension indicating device to indicate a tension in the corresponding one of the first tensioned line and second tensioned line of the fire suppression system (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 2. #10 will move with #5. A position of #10 relative to the arrow will indicate a tension in either tensioned line) and wherein when the movable indicator is in alignment with the reference indicator, the tension indicating device indicates that the mechanical fire detection line is correctly tensioned (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 2. A correct tension can be considered when #10 lines up with the arrow, and a user can determine what markers on #8 correspond to a correct tension.).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the tension indicating device of Dalferth as applied to Claim 1 above, Dalferth further discloses wherein when the movable indicator is not in alignment with the reference indicator, the tension indicating device indicates that the tensioned line is improperly tensioned (See Figs. 1-2 and Page 1 Lines 80-90, an “improper” tension can be considered when #10 does not line up with the arrow. A user can determine what markers on #8 corresponds to an incorrect tension.).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the tension indicating device of Dalferth as applied to Claim 1 above, Dalferth further discloses wherein the tension indicating device indicates that the tensioned line is having one of excessive tension and inadequate tension based on location of the movable indicator with respect to the reference indicator (See Figs. 1-2 and Page 1 Lines 80-90. When the movable indicator #10 moves below the arrow, it can be considered an excessive tension. When the movable indicator moves above the arrow, it can be considered an inadequate tension.).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the tension indicating device of Dalferth as applied to Claim 1 above, Dalferth further discloses the tension indicating device comprising a compressible element (#17, which is a spring) configured to be disposed between the piston head and the second end (See Annotated Fig. 1), wherein, responsive to the tensioned line being provided with tension, the piston moves towards the second end, thereby causing the compressible element to compress (See Annotated Fig. 1. When a line on #20 is tensioned, the piston will move towards the second end and compress #17).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the tension indicating device of Dalferth as applied to Claim 6 above, Dalferth further discloses wherein the compressible element is a helical spring (See Fig. 1 and Page 2 Lines 49-51).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the tension indicating device of Dalferth as applied to Claim 7 above, Dalferth further discloses the tension indicating device comprising a window (#9) provided on the body to allow visual inspection of a location of the movable indicator (See Fig. 2 and Page 1 Line 125 – Page 2 Line 2).
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 9, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalferth in view of US PGPUB 2007/0246234 A1 to Vegso (“Vegso”).
As to Claim 9, Dalferth discloses a system (See Page 1 Lines 3-4 disclosing a system of cables and See Page 2 Lines 10-11 disclosing a variety of applications) comprising a tension indicating device (See Figs. 1-2) for a mechanical fire detection line (See Page 1 Lines 3-7. The device can be used in a system of cables. Thus, the tension indicating device is capable of use with some fire suppression system that includes some mechanical fire detection line), the tension indicating device comprising:
a body (#1) comprising a first end (See Annotated Fig. 1) configured to be operatively coupled to a corresponding first tensioned line of the mechanical fire detection line (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Page 1 Line 118-119, the first end at #12 is capable of being operatively coupled to some first tensioned line of some mechanical fire detection line) and a second end (See Annotated Fig. 1);
a piston (#2, #3, and #5) configured to be slidably disposed along a length of the body (See Fig. 1, the piston is disposed along a majority of a length of #1), the piston comprising a piston head (#5) having a moveable indicator (#10) visible through an exterior surface of the body (See Fig. 2 and Page 1 Lines 80-86) and a connecting rod (#2 and #3) aligned with the piston head along a direction of movement of the piston (See D1 in Annotated Fig. 1) and having a free end (#20) extending through the second end of the body (See Annotated Fig. 1) and configured to be coupled to a second tensioned line of the mechanical fire detection line (See Page 1 Lines 118-119, the hook #20 is capable of being coupled to some second tensioned line of some mechanical fire detection line), wherein the piston head and the connecting rod are aligned along a direction of movement for the piston (See D1 in Annotated Fig. 1) and the connecting rod protrudes through the second end of the body (See Annotated Fig. 1); and
a reference indicator fixed on the body of the tension indicating device (See the arrow centered on the marker on #8 in Fig. 2); and
wherein responsive to one of the first tensioned line or the second tensioned line being provided with tension, the piston moves towards the second end of the body (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Page 1 Lines 80-90. Pulling a cable on #12 or #20 will move the piston towards the second end of the body), thereby causing the movable indicator to correspondingly move along the length of the body of the tension indicating device to indicate a tension in the corresponding one of the first tensioned line and second tensioned line of the system (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 2. #10 will move with #5. A position of #10 relative to the arrow will indicate a tension in either tensioned line), and
wherein when the movable indicator is in alignment with the reference indicator, the tension indicating device indicates that the mechanical fire detection line is correctly tensioned (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 2. A correct tension can be considered when #10 lines up with the arrow, and a user can determine what markers on #8 correspond to a correct tension.).
Regarding Claim 9, in reference to the system of Dalferth as applied to Claim 9 above, Dalferth does not specifically disclose wherein the system is a fire suppression system comprising the mechanical fire detection line (See Page 1 Lines 3-4 disclosing a system of cables and See Page 2 Lines 10-11 disclosing a variety of applications. While the tensioning device of Dalferth is capable of use in a fire suppression system having a mechanical fire detection line, Dalferth does not specifically disclose such a system).
However, Vegso discloses a fire suppression system (See Fig. 2) comprising a mechanical fire detection line (#120) having a first tensioned line and a second tensioned line (See sections on opposite sides of link #121 in Fig. 2 and See Paragraphs 0030-0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dalferth as applied to Claim 9 above such that the system of Dalferth is the fire suppression system of Vegso utilizing the tension indicating device of Dalferth between the first tensioned line and second tensioned line of Vegso in place of a link #121 of Vegso, since doing so would utilize substitution of components to yield the predictable result of indicating to a person when a proper tension load is applied on the mechanical fire detection line (See Dalferth Page 2 Lines 10-22 disclosing load indication under tension and See Paragraph 0032 of Vegso disclosing maintaining a line under tension, therefore using the tensioning device of Dalferth in the fire suppression system of Vegso will help a user know when a desired tension is applied).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the fire suppression system of Dalferth in view of Vegso as applied to Claim 9 above, Dalferth further discloses wherein when the movable indicator is not in alignment with the reference indicator, the tension indicating device indicates that the tensioned line is improperly tensioned (See Figs. 1-2 and Page 1 Lines 80-90, an “improper” tension can be considered when #10 does not line up with the arrow. A user can determine what markers on #8 correspond to an incorrect tension.).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the fire suppression system of Dalferth in view of Vegso as applied to Claim 9 above, Dalferth further discloses wherein the tension indicating device indicates that the tensioned line is having one of excessive tension and inadequate tension based on a location of the movable indicator with respect to the reference indicator (See Figs. 1-2 and Page 1 Lines 80-90. When the movable indicator #10 moves below the arrow, it can be considered an excessive tension. When the movable indicator moves above the arrow, it can be considered an inadequate tension.).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the fire suppression system of Dalferth in view of Vegso as applied to Claim 9 above, Dalferth further discloses the fire suppression system comprising a compressible element (#17, which is a spring) configured to be disposed between the piston head and the second end (See Annotated Fig. 1), wherein, responsive to the tensioned line being provided with tension, the piston moves towards the second end, thereby causing the compressible element to compress (See Annotated Fig. 1. When a line on #20 is tensioned, the piston will move towards the second end and compress #17).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the fire suppression system of Dalferth in view of Vegso as applied to Claim 14 above, Dalferth further discloses wherein the compressible element is a helical spring (See Fig. 1 and Page 2 Lines 49-51).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the fire suppression system of Dalferth in view of Vegso as applied to Claim 15 above, Dalferth further discloses wherein the tension indicating device comprises a window (#9) provided on the body to allow visual inspection of a location of the movable indicator (See Fig. 2 and Page 1 Line 125 – Page 2 Line 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
794
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights