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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the respective spray patterns of the at least two first fluid distribution devices overlapping at a level between the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the stored commodity of claims 57, 68 and 74 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 57-76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnone et al. (2017/0113078) in view of Pounder et al. (2006/0060361) and Silva, JR. et al. (WO 2016/19136836)
Regarding claim 57, Magnone et al. shows a fire protection system (100), comprising: a plurality of parallel fluid supply pipes (150) disposed beneath a ceiling of a storage occupancy and above a stored commodity in the storage occupancy (fig 1, 1a, 2a), the stored commodity comprising one or more rows of racks (12a-c), a clearance between the ceiling and the stored commodity is less than 5 feet ([0053]); and a plurality of fluid distribution devices (110) disposed between the ceiling and the stored commodity (fig 1a), the plurality of fluid distribution devices comprising at least two first fluid distribution devices coupled to a first fluid supply pipe of the plurality of parallel fluid supply pipes and at least two second fluid distribution devices coupled to a second fluid supply pipe of the plurality of parallel fluid supply pipes spaced from the first fluid supply pipe (fig 1), the first fluid supply pipe, the second fluid supply pipe, the at least two first fluid distribution devices, and the at least two second fluid distribution devices are positioned such that the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the at least two second fluid distribution devices have a device-to-device spacing greater than or equal to 8 feet by 8 feet and less than or equal to 12 feet by 12 feet ([0050]), all of the plurality of fluid distribution devices are between the ceiling and the stored commodity such that none of the plurality of fluid distribution devices are in-rack sprinklers (fig 1a), each fluid distribution device of the plurality of fluid distribution devices has: a body ( 12 of the sprinkler on 8,176,988 incorporated by reference) that includes an internal passageway between an inlet and an outlet such that the fluid distribution device has a K-factor greater than or equal to 11 GPM/(PSI)1/2 ([0033]) a frame (22, of 8,176,988) coupled with the body, the frame including a pair of arms that extend from the outlet and converge at a mount, a deflector (38 of 8,176,988) coupled with the mount, and a minimum operating pressure greater than or equal to 7 psi and less than or equal to 25 psi ([0050]).
But fails to disclose the deflector positioned above the outlet relative to the stored commodity such that the fluid distribution device is upright,
the deflector having a planar central region, a peripheral region, and an arcuate annulus region between the planar central region and the peripheral region,
a trigger assembly coupled with the outlet, the trigger assembly having a temperature rating greater than or equal to 135 degrees Fahrenheit and less than or equal to 225 degrees Fahrenheit, the trigger assembly having a response time index (RTI) less than or equal to 160
Pounder et al. shows an upright sprinkler, having a K factor above 11 GPM/(PSI)1/2 (abstract) the deflector positioned above the outlet relative to the stored commodity such that the fluid distribution device is upright (fig 1), the sprinkler having a trigger assembly (60) coupled with the outlet, the trigger assembly having a temperature rating greater than or equal to 135 degrees Fahrenheit and less than or equal to 225 degrees Fahrenheit [0047], the trigger assembly having a response time index (RTI) less than or equal to 160 [0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the upright sprinkler of Pounder et al,. in the sprinkler system of Magnone et al. in order to provide an upright, early suppression, fast response sprinkler as taught by Pounder et al. [0014].
The above combination fails to tech the deflector having a planar central region, a peripheral region, and an arcuate annulus region between the planar central region and the peripheral region.
However, Silva, JR. et al. teaches a sprinkler deflector (100) having a planar central region, a peripheral region, and an arcuate annulus region between the planar central region and the peripheral region (fig 3, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to shape the deflector of the above combination similar to that of Silva, JR. et al., having a planar central region, a peripheral region, and an arcuate annulus region between the planar central region and the peripheral region, in order to generate a desired spray pattern as taught by Silva, JR. et al.,
The examiner notes that in since the above combination discloses the same sprinkler spacing, distance above the stored commodity and sprinkler deflector configurations as the claimed present invention, the above combination will inherently perform the function of: respective spray patterns of the at least two first fluid distribution devices overlap at a level between the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the stored commodity in the same way the claimed present invention will.
Additionally, the claims doe not recite a higher end of the operating pressure. If the pressure was to be increased beyond the claimed minimum operating pressure the sprinklers would overlap higher than they would under the claimed minimum operating pressure.
Regarding claim 58, the deflector of each fluid distribution device of the plurality of fluid distribution devices is symmetric about a sprinkler axis that extends through the internal passageway and a center of the deflector (fig 1, Pounder)
Regarding claim 59, the at least two two first fluid distribution devices and the at least two second fluid distribution devices are in a rectangular arrangement and the at least two second fluid distribution devices are positioned to generate spray patterns that overlap with each other (fig 1 1, 2b, Pounder).
Regarding claim 60, the ceiling has a height less than or equal to 20 feet [0052].
Regarding claims 61 and 75, the above combination fails to disclose that the deflector of each of the two first fluid distribution devices and the two second fluid distribution devices is disposed to have a deflector-to-ceiling distance of 6 inches.
However, Pounder et al. does teach that the distance between the center of the trigger 63 and the ceiling is between 4 and 13 inches. A deflector to ceiling distance of 6 inches is within the disclosed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to locate the deflector so that it is 5 inched from the ceiling as taught by Pounder et al. since the sprinklers of Pounder et al are the ones being used in the above combination.
Regarding claim 62, the above combination fails to disclose a distance from the outlet to the mount is 1.25 inches.
However, Pounder et al. does teach a distance from the outlet to the mount is 1.25 inches to be 2.1 inches [0016]. The examiner notes that the distance between the deflector and the outlet is a result effective variable. The closer the deflector to the outlet, the further the fluid is defected and vice versa. This is because the fluid hots the deflector at a higher velocity when it is closer to the outlet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the deflector 1.25 inches from the outlet, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the deflector 1.25 inches from the outlet, in order to decrease the overall height of the sprinkler.
Regarding claim 63, the peripheral region has a plurality of spaced apart planar surfaces each angled outwardly with respect to a sprinkler axis (fig 3, Silva, JR. et al., ) through the outlet and the deflector to define a maximum diameter of the deflector.
Regarding claim 64, the sprinkler of the above combination is an early suppression fast, response (ESFR) sprinkler (pounder (abstract)
Regarding claim 65, the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the at least two second fluid distribution devices are positioned less than four feet from the stored commodity (Magnone et al. teaches that the ceiling to storage distance can be less than 4 feet, so the sprinklers have to be less than 4 feet from the stored commodity).
Regarding claim 66, a diameter of the outlet of each fluid distribution device is greater than a diameter of the planar central region of each fluid distribution device (since the diameter of the planar region has not been defined by the claims, the examiner notes that the diameter of the planar region can be chosen to be just a verry small portion of the actual planar region).
Regarding claim 67, the peripheral region of each fluid distribution device forms a discontinuous edge (Griffiths).
Regarding claims 68-73, in its use the fire protection sprinkler system of the above combination inherently performs the method steps of the claims.
Regarding claim 74, the above combination shows a fire protection sprinkler, comprising: a body (of Pounder) that includes an internal passageway between an inlet and an outlet such that the fire protection sprinkler has a K-factor greater than or equal to 11 GPM/(PSI)1/2 (Pounder Abstract) the inlet coupled with a first fluid supply pipe such that the body is disposed between a ceiling of a storage occupancy and above a stored commodity of the storage occupancy (Magnone fig 1a), the ceiling having a height less than or equal to 20 feet (Magnone [0009]), the body spaced from a body of a first remote sprinkler coupled with the first fluid supply pipe by greater than or equal to 8 feet and less than or equal to 12 feet (Magnone [0027]), the body spaced from a body of a second remote sprinkler coupled with a second fluid supply pipe parallel with the first fluid supply pipe by greater than or equal to 8 feet and less than or equal to 12 feet (Magnone [0027]); a frame coupled with the body (pounder), the frame including a pair of arms that extend from the outlet and converge at a mount (pounder); a deflector coupled with the mount (pounder), the deflector positioned above the outlet relative to the stored commodity such that the fire protection sprinkler is upright, the deflector having a planar central region, a peripheral region, and an arcuate annulus region between the planar central region and the peripheral region (silva), the deflector disposed less than 4 feet from the stored commodity (Magnone [0053]); a trigger assembly (62 Pounder) coupled with the outlet, the trigger assembly having a temperature rating greater than or equal to 135 degrees Fahrenheit and less than or equal to 225 degrees Fahrenheit (pounder), the trigger assembly having a response time index (RTI) less than or equal to 160 (pounder) and a minimum operating pressure greater than or equal to 7 psi and less than or equal to 25 psi (Magnone [0050].
The examiner notes that in since the above combination discloses the same sprinkler spacing, distance above the stored commodity and sprinkler deflector configurations as the claimed present invention, the above combination will inherently perform the function of: respective spray patterns of the at least two first fluid distribution devices overlap at a level between the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the stored commodity in the same way the claimed present invention will.
Additionally, the claims do not recite a higher end of the operating pressure. If the pressure was to be increased beyond the claimed minimum operating pressure the sprinklers would overlap higher than they would under the claimed minimum operating pressure.
Lastly, for claim 74, the stored commodity can be a piece of paper on the floor since the claim does not define the height between the stored commodity and the celling as defined in claims 57 and 68. In this case, Magnone teaches overlap in spray patterns in figure 2b.
Regarding claim 76, the fire protection sprinkler is an early suppression fast, response (ESFR) sprinkler (pounder abstract),
In the alternative, claims 57-76 are rejected below with the addition of the Pigeon reference to teach the limitation “respective spray patterns of the at least two first fluid distribution devices overlap at a level between the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the stored commodity”
Claim(s) 57-76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnone et al. (2017/0113078) as modified by Pounder et al. (2006/0060361) and Silva, JR. et al. (WO 2016/19136836) above, further in view of Pigeon (2017/0252592)
Regarding claims 57-67, Magnone et al. as modified by Pounder et al. and Silva, JR. et al. teach all limitations in the claims as described in the above rejections, except for explicitly teaching “respective spray patterns of the at least two first fluid distribution devices overlap at a level between the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the stored commodity”
Pigeon teaches a sprinkler system where respective spray patterns of the at least two first fluid distribution devices overlap at a level between the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the stored commodity as shown in figure 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to space the sprinklers out, and provide a high enough operating pressure so that respective spray patterns of the at least two first fluid distribution devices overlap at a level between the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the stored commodity, in order to sufficiently wet the stored commodity as shown in figure 4 of Pigeon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the term “respective spray patterns of the at least two first fluid distribution devices overlap at a level between the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the stored commodity” is a functional limitation of the intended use of the sprinkler system of the claimed invention. In other words, the spray pattern is not a structural limitation. The examiner notes that in since the above combination discloses the same sprinkler spacing, distance above the stored commodity and sprinkler deflector configurations as the claimed present invention, the above combination will inherently perform the function of: respective spray patterns of the at least two first fluid distribution devices overlap at a level between the at least two first fluid distribution devices and the stored commodity in the same way the claimed present invention will.
An additional 103 rejections treating the new limitation with the Pigeon reference has also be added above.
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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 1/26/2026
Prosecution Insights