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 1-7, 9-15, and 17 are pending, claims 8 and 16 are cancelled, and claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 17 are amended.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayher (U.S. 3,824374) in view of Kjellman (U.S. 2020/0338376).
With respect claims 1, 9, and 17 Mayher discloses A hood assembly/A fire suppression system comprising a hood assembly/ and a method of assembling a hood assembly comprising:
a housing (42) having first and second walls (the walls of 42 that are vertically aligned on the left and right side) arranged opposite to each other to define a space (the space of housing 42), the first and second walls being vertically oriented with respect to a floor on which the hood assembly is placed (as seen in figure 1);
a mechanical fire detection line (62) configured to detect presence of a fire within the housing (via fusible link 40), the mechanical fire detection line disposed between the first and second walls (as seen in figure 1), and extending beyond the second wall (the second wall being where 66 passes); and
a restricting element (46, having within element 46), such that the mechanical fire detection line extends beyond the second wall of the hood assembly by passing through the restricting element (passing through the hole of 46 and coming into contact with 68),
wherein the restricting element is adapted to allow movement of the mechanical fire detection line along a first direction (as the spring is taunt in figure 1, it can release and go in a direction), and restrict movement of the mechanical fire detection line along a second direction opposite (as it restricts movement in a direction against the force of the spring) to the first direction (being the opposite direction the spring is affecting 54). Mayher fails to disclose the restricting element is disposed on the second wall or within the space.
Kjellman discloses, figures 2 and 3 and paragraph 0033 where the control mechanism can be fixed relative to a housing or within the housing as shown in figures 2. Noting such a system with the control mechanism and actuator as claimed reduces cost, complexity, and installing of complex systems. This is understood that the housing and the defined space, would include the space shown in figure 2, where the restricting element is moved to be within the housing as the rest of the cable (thus saving complexity and installation casts).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the restricting element (being that of 214 of Kjellman as the 220/232 restricts the movement of the cable and keeps it taunt) within or affixed to the housing as shown by Kjellman into the system of Mayher into the same space of the housing, such placement would utilize the restricting element disposed either inside the hood, saving on complexity and installation costs by incorporating it into the singular housing (and utilizing the restricting system shown in Kjellman, being simpler in its complexity . Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involve sonly routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI-C). Please note applicant has given no criticality for the placement of the restricting element, just that it restricts movement of the cable in a direction to keep it taunt.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, Mayher as modified discloses the first direction is along a length of the mechanical fire detection line towards the second wall (being the direction towards the wall the cable is passing through), and wherein the second direction is along the length of the mechanical fire detection line towards the first wall (the wall in which the cable is noted affixed, as the cable is able to move once the fusible link is broken, but is taunt other while, furthermore 54 can’t act against 38, because it blocks it as seen in figure 1).
With respect to claims 3 and 11, Mayher as modified discloses the second wall comprises a through hole through which the mechanical fire detection line passes (as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 4 and 12, Mayher as modified discloses the restricting element comprises a through hole (as seen in figure 1, where the through hole of 46 has 66 passing through), wherein the restricting element is disposed on the second wall such that the through hole of the restricting element is coaxial with the through hole on the second wall (as seen in figure 1), and wherein the mechanical fire detection line further passes through the through hole on the restricting element (as seen in figure 1).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Mayher as modified discloses the second wall and a through hole (see figure 1), but fails to disclose the second wall comprises a recess, and wherein the second wall comprises a through hole at the recess. 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 space (such as a recess) in the hood, since it has been held that the inclusion of a recess to place the restricting element integrated with the hood would have been an obvious, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (VIC)), and creating a space to locate the elements with the hood would have been obvious. Note that the applicant has given no criticality in their specification for why the recess itself is necessary other then to locate the restricting element in one (for no given critical reason that could be found).
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Mayher as modified discloses the restricting element (and placing it within or fixed relative to the hood and its second wall), but fails to disclose the restricting element is disposed on the second wall at a recess. 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 space (such as a recess) in the hood and to place the restricting element there, since it has been held that the inclusion of a recess to place the restricting element integrated with the hood would have been an obvious, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (VIC)), and creating a space to locate the elements with the hood would have been obvious. Note that the applicant has given no criticality in their specification for why the recess itself is necessary other then to locate the restricting element in one (for no given critical reason that could be found).
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Mayher as modified discloses the mechanical fire detection line further comprises an output (said output being the end of the line as it meets 54), wherein the mechanical fire detection line terminates at the output after it extends beyond the second wall of the hood assembly (as seen in figure 1, where the combination places 46 against the second wall of 42).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (11/05/2025) has been entered. Currently claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17 are pending, claims 8 and 16 are cancelled, and claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 17 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (08/05/2025).
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argument relies on the primary and secondary reference failing to disclose the restricting element in the space defined between the first and second wall of the housing. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kjellman, figure 2, discloses the restricting section (as shown separate in figure 3) being included in a singular housing. The combination is utilizing the restricting mechanism placement as taught by Kjellman, being within the same space as the cable and its distal attached end into the system of Mayher.
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 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
Prosecution Insights