DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-19 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claim 20 fall within category of process.
Regarding claim 1-18
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of determining a status of a fire suppression system.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A system comprising: one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
receiving sensor data from at least one sensor monitoring a fire suppression system;
determining, based on the sensor data, a status of the fire suppression system; and
providing a notification to a user device, the notification indicating the status of the fire suppression system.
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation “determining, based on the sensor data, a status of the fire suppression system” are a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper), see 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010))
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The 1st additional element is “receiving sensor data from at least one sensor monitoring a fire suppression system;”. This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and/or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
The 2nd additional element is “A system comprising: one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer component and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
The 3rd additional element is “providing a notification to a user device, the notification indicating the status of the fire suppression system r”. This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
In view of the above three, the “additional elements” individually or a combination does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. See, MPEP §§2106.05(a).
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example,
the limitation of Claim 1 is an additional element that is, i.e. “processor , memory, sensor, fire suppression system ”, generic structure of fire monitoring system, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background, IDS and Examiner cited prior arts of current discloser) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-18
Dependent claims 2-18 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-18 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples,
Claim 2. the fire suppression system, wherein the fire suppression system includes: a nozzle; a cartridge containing a pressurized gas; an agent tank coupled to the cartridge and containing a fire suppression agent; a conduit fluidly coupling the agent tank to the nozzle; a release assembly coupled to the cartridge, wherein, upon activation of the release assembly, the cartridge releases the pressurized gas causing the fire suppression agent to expel from the agent tank through the conduit to the nozzle; and the at least one sensor, wherein the sensor data includes a measurement of a current state of at least one of the nozzle, the cartridge, the agent tank, or the release assembly.( generic structure of fire suppression system, which is well understood, routine and convention. (see background, IDS and Examiner cited prior arts of current discloser) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
Claim 3. the fire suppression system further includes a detection line coupled to the release assembly, the detection line extending through a hood and configured to activate the release assembly. ( generic structure of fire suppression system, which is well understood, routine and convention. (see background, IDS and Examiner cited prior arts of current discloser) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)))
Claim 4. The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more memory devices and the one or more processors form at least a portion of a local controller and a remote monitoring platform, wherein the local controller is operatively coupled to the one or more sensors and configured to transfer the sensor data to the remote monitoring platform.( generic structure of fire monitoring system, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background, IDS and Examiner cited prior arts of current discloser) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)))
Claim 5. the local controller is configured to: store a batch of the sensor data over a period of time; transfer the batch of the sensor data corresponding to the period of time to the remote monitoring platform after the period of time has expired; and vary a length of the period of time based on a schedule.( This elements appear to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g))
Claim 6. the local controller is configured to: store a batch of the sensor data over a period of time; transfer the batch of the sensor data corresponding to the period of time to the remote monitoring platform after the period of time has expired; (This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and
decrease a length of the period of time in response to an indication that an appliance associated with the fire suppression system is in use.( a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
Claim 7. determining, at a first time, that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative; initiating a local alarm in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative at a second time after the first time; (a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
and providing the notification to the user device in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative at a third time after the second time (This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Claim 8. the operations include scheduling an inspection of the fire suppression system by a technician in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative. (a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
Claim 9. operations include: receiving, from a second user device, an indication of a maintenance operation performed by the technician; and generating, based on the indication received from the second user device, a maintenance log recording a type of the maintenance operation and a date when the maintenance operation occurred. (This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g)
Claim 10. the operations include: determining, based on the sensor data, whether (a) gas has been discharged from the fire suppression system without discharging an agent or (b) both the gas and the agent have been discharged from the fire suppression system; and in response to a determination that both the gas and the agent have been discharged from the fire suppression system, providing the notification to the user device, the notification indicating that a discharge has occurred. (a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
Claim 11. the sensor data includes an acoustic signature emitted while the gas is discharged, (This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g)
Wherein the operations include determining whether or not the agent has been discharged based on the acoustic signature (a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment)).
Claim 12. predicting whether a discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur based on the sensor data; and automatically scheduling an inspection of the fire suppression system by a technician in response to a prediction that the discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur. (a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
Claim 13. he operations include: predicting whether a discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur based on the sensor data; and at least one of (a) cutting off a gas line or (b) limiting operation of an appliance associated with the fire suppression system in response to a prediction that the discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur. (a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
Claim 14. the fire suppression system includes a canister, and wherein the sensor data includes a recording of a vibration of the canister. (This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Claim 15. the operations include controlling a trigger to knock the canister and initiate the vibration of the canister. (This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g)
Claim 16. the operations include determining the status of the fire suppression system by comparing the recording of the vibration of the canister to a predetermined frequency profile. (a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
Claim 17. the determined status of the fire suppression system includes at least one of a fill level of the canister, a size of the canister, or a type of fire suppression agent within the canister. (a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
Claim 18. the notification includes a graphical user interface indicating a status of a first component of the fire suppression system and a status of a second component of the fire suppression system. (This element appears to limit the “collecting data” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a memory and to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. see MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Regarding claims 19-20
Claims 19-20 contain language similar to claims 1-18 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glaub et al. (US20130048319).
Regarding Claim 1. Glaub teaches a system comprising(fig.9):
one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including(220: fig.9):
receiving sensor data from at least one sensor (mechanical switch 81 via signal line SUP4: [0061]) monitoring a fire suppression system(184: fig.9);
determining, based on the sensor data, a status of the fire suppression system(detection by monitoring circuit 184 of an improper position of gas tank 84 and generating an alert: [0061]); and
providing a notification to a user device, the notification indicating the status of the fire suppression system(sending alert emails or text messages via communication circuit 210: [0061]).
Regarding Claim 2. Glaub further teaches the fire suppression system, wherein the fire suppression system includes(fig.9):
a nozzle(90: fig.9);
a cartridge containing a pressurized gas(84: fig.9);
an agent tank(82: fig. 9) coupled to the cartridge (84: fig. 9)and containing a fire suppression agent (chemical fire suppressant reservoir 82: [0047]);
a conduit (88:fig. 9) fluidly coupling the agent tank (82: fig. 9) to the nozzle(90: fig. 9);
a release assembly coupled to the cartridge(86: fig. 9), wherein, upon activation of the release assembly, the cartridge releases the pressurized gas causing the fire suppression agent to expel from the agent tank through the conduit to the nozzle([0047]); and
the at least one sensor(mechanical switch 81 via signal line SUP4: [0061]), wherein the sensor data includes a measurement of a current state of at least one of the nozzle, the cartridge, the agent tank, or the release assembly([0061]).
Regarding Claim 4. Glaub further teaches the one or more memory devices and the one or more processors form at least a portion of a local controller (180: fig. 9) and a remote monitoring platform(server: [0045], [0067]),
wherein the local controller is operatively coupled to the one or more sensors and configured to transfer the sensor data to the remote monitoring platform([0007]-[0014], [0045], [0067]).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in view of Vegso (US 20070246234).
Regarding Claim 3. Glaub further teaches The fire detection system may include one or more fusible links([0004]).
Glaub silent about the fire suppression system further includes a detection line coupled to the release assembly, the detection line extending through a hood and configured to activate the release assembly.
However, Vegso teaches the fire suppression system further includes a detection line (120: fig. 2) coupled to the release assembly(125: fig.1), the detection line (120: fig.1) extending through a hood (116: fig.2) and configured to activate the release assembly([0029]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, the fire suppression system further includes a detection line coupled to the release assembly, the detection line extending through a hood and configured to activate the release assembly, as taught by Vegso, so as to real time protect a commercial building such as restaurant using cooking units such as grills and deep-fryer units from fire, where flammable liquids are present.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in view of Romanco (US 7775292).
Regarding Claim 5. Glaub further teaches the local controller is configured to: store a batch of the sensor data ([0064]);
transfer the batch of the sensor data corresponding to the remote monitoring platform ([0064]).
Glaub silent about the local controller is configured to: store a batch of the sensor data over a period of time; transfer the batch of the sensor data corresponding to the period of time to the remote monitoring platform after the period of time has expired; and vary a length of the period of time based on a schedule.
However, Romanco teaches the local controller (30: fig. 3B; 30( data logger 58): fig. 4) is configured to: store a batch of the sensor data over a period of time(col. 5, l. 34-col.6, l. 3);
transfer the batch of the sensor data corresponding to the period of time to the remote monitoring platform after the period of time has expired(58a: fig. 4; col. 6, l.1-2; col. 6, l. 65-67); and
vary a length of the period of time based on a schedule(col. 6, l. 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, the local controller is configured to: store a batch of the sensor data over a period of time; transfer the batch of the sensor data corresponding to the period of time to the remote monitoring platform after the period of time has expired; and vary a length of the period of time based on a schedule, as taught by Romanco, so as to independently monitor and verify the performance of the fire suppression system during test and actual fire.
Regarding Claim 6. Glaub silent about the local controller is configured to: store a batch of the sensor data over a period of time; transfer the batch of the sensor data corresponding to the period of time to the remote monitoring platform after the period of time has expired; and decrease a length of the period of time in response to an indication that an appliance associated with the fire suppression system is in use.
However, Romanco teaches the local controller is configured to(30: fig. 3B; 30( data logger 58): fig. 4):
store a batch of the sensor data over a period of time(col. 5, l. 34-col.6, l. 3);
transfer the batch of the sensor data corresponding to the period of time to the remote monitoring platform after the period of time has expired(58a: fig. 4; col. 6, l.1-2; col. 6, l. 65-67); and
decrease a length of the period of time(114: fig. 5) in response to an indication that an appliance associated with the fire suppression system is in use(112: fig. 5;col. 7, l. 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, the local controller is configured to: store a batch of the sensor data over a period of time; transfer the batch of the sensor data corresponding to the period of time to the remote monitoring platform after the period of time has expired; and decrease a length of the period of time in response to an indication that an appliance associated with the fire suppression system is in use, as taught by Romanco, so as to independently monitor and verify the performance of the fire suppression system during test and actual fire.
Claim(s) 7, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in view of Sandahl et al. (US 2015/0231431)
Regarding Claim 7. Glaub silent about the operations include: determining, at a first time, that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative; initiating a local alarm in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative at a second time after the first time; and providing the notification to the user device in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative at a third time after the second time.
However, Sandahl teaches the operations include:
determining, at a first time, that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative([0013], [0016]);
initiating a local alarm in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative at a second time after the first time([0013], [0016]); and
providing the notification to the user device in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative at a third time after the second time([0013], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, t the operations include: determining, at a first time, that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative; initiating a local alarm in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative at a second time after the first time; and providing the notification to the user device in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative at a third time after the second time., as taught by Sandahl, so as to independently monitor and verify the performance of the fire suppression system in real time.
Regarding Claim 10. Glaub silent about the operations include:
determining, based on the sensor data, whether (a) gas has been discharged from the fire suppression system without discharging an agent or (b) both the gas and the agent have been discharged from the fire suppression system; and in response to a determination that both the gas and the agent have been discharged from the fire suppression system, providing the notification to the user device, the notification indicating that a discharge has occurred.
However, Sandahl teaches the operations include: determining, based on the sensor data, whether (a) gas has been discharged from the fire suppression system without discharging an agent or (b) both the gas and the agent have been discharged from the fire suppression system(normal status: [0012], [0014]-[0015], claim 47); and in response to a determination that both the gas and the agent have been discharged from the fire suppression system, providing the notification to the user device, the notification indicating that a discharge has occurred([0013]-[0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, the operations include: determining, based on the sensor data, whether (a) gas has been discharged from the fire suppression system without discharging an agent or (b) both the gas and the agent have been discharged from the fire suppression system; and in response to a determination that both the gas and the agent have been discharged from the fire suppression system, providing the notification to the user device, the notification indicating that a discharge has occurred, as taught by Sandahl, so as to independently monitor and verify the performance of the fire suppression system in real time.
Regarding Claim 18. Glaub silent about the notification includes a graphical user interface indicating a status of a first component of the fire suppression system and a status of a second component of the fire suppression system.
However, Sandahl teaches the notification includes a graphical user interface indicating a status of a first component of the fire suppression system and a status of a second component of the fire suppression system ([0013]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, the notification includes a graphical user interface indicating a status of a first component of the fire suppression system and a status of a second component of the fire suppression system, as taught by Sandahl, so as to independently monitor and verify the performance of the fire suppression system in real time.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in view of Lioyd et al. (US 5950150).
Regarding Claim 8. Glaub silent about the operations include scheduling an inspection of the fire suppression system by a technician in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative.
However, Lioyd teaches the operations include scheduling an inspection of the fire suppression system by a technician in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative(col. 13, l. 11-20; col. 22, l. 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, the operations include scheduling an inspection of the fire suppression system by a technician in response to a determination that the status of the fire suppression system is inoperative, as taught by Lioyd, so as to verify compliance of at least one fire/life safety system component whose operation and maintenance are based upon predetermined operational criteria.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in view of Rohlik et al. (US 2015/0367157).
Regarding Claim 9. Glaub silent about the operations include:receiving, from a second user device, an indication of a maintenance operation performed by the technician; and generating, based on the indication received from the second user device, a maintenance log recording a type of the maintenance operation and a date when the maintenance operation occurred.
However, Rohlik teaches the operations include:
receiving, from a second user device, an indication of a maintenance operation performed by the technician(414: fig.4; [0055]-[0056]); and
generating, based on the indication received from the second user device, a maintenance log recording a type of the maintenance operation and a date when the maintenance operation occurred([0055]-[0056], [0083], [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, the operations include:receiving, from a second user device, an indication of a maintenance operation performed by the technician; and generating, based on the indication received from the second user device, a maintenance log recording a type of the maintenance operation and a date when the maintenance operation occurred, as taught by Rohlik, so as to perform some of the regular inspection duties for vehicle fire suppression systems, thus reducing the maintenance costs and promoting increased frequency of inspection.
Regarding Claim 12. Glaub silent about the operations include: predicting whether a discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur based on the sensor data; and automatically scheduling an inspection of the fire suppression system by a technician in response to a prediction that the discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur.
However, Rohlik teaches the operations include: predicting whether a discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur based on the sensor data([0006]-[0007]); and automatically scheduling an inspection of the fire suppression system by a technician in response to a prediction that the discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur ([0008])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, the operations include: predicting whether a discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur based on the sensor data; and automatically scheduling an inspection of the fire suppression system by a technician in response to a prediction that the discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur, as taught by Rohlik, so as to perform some of the regular inspection duties for vehicle fire suppression systems, thus reducing the maintenance costs and promoting increased frequency of inspection.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in view of Sandahl et al. (US 2015/0231431), further in view of Cinzori (US 4,630,684)
Regarding Claim 11. The modified Glaub silent about the sensor data includes an acoustic signature emitted while the gas is discharged, and wherein the operations include determining whether or not the agent has been discharged based on the acoustic signature.
However, Cinzori teaches the sensor data includes an acoustic signature emitted while the gas is discharged, and wherein the operations include determining whether or not the agent has been discharged based on the acoustic signature(col. 5, l. 29-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of modified Glaub, the sensor data includes an acoustic signature emitted while the gas is discharged, and wherein the operations include determining whether or not the agent has been discharged based on the acoustic signature, as taught by Cinzori, so as to generate a fire suppression output signal. Thus, the false alarm immunity of the system is enhanced.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in view of Almutairi ( US 20160296779).
Regarding Claim 13. Glaub silent about the operations include: predicting whether a discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur based on the sensor data; and at least one of (a) cutting off a gas line or (b) limiting operation of an appliance associated with the fire suppression system in response to a prediction that the discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur.
However, Almutairi teaches he operations include: predicting whether a discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur based on the sensor data; and at least one of (a) cutting off a gas line or (b) limiting operation of an appliance associated with the fire suppression system in response to a prediction that the discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of modified Glaub, the operations include: predicting whether a discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur based on the sensor data; and at least one of (a) cutting off a gas line or (b) limiting operation of an appliance associated with the fire suppression system in response to a prediction that the discharge of the fire suppression system is likely to occur, as taught by Almutairi, so as to minimization of fire hazards associated with conductance of a flammable substance.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in view of Margoles et al. (US 20150281883)
Regarding Claim 14. Glaub silent about the fire suppression system includes a canister, and wherein the sensor data includes a recording of a vibration of the canister.
However, Margoles teaches fire suppression system includes a canister, and wherein the sensor data includes a recording of a vibration of the canister(305: fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of modified Glaub, he fire suppression system includes a canister, and wherein the sensor data includes a recording of a vibration of the canister, as taught by Margoles, so as to determining that volume of fluid in the container is changed between periods of time based on a natural frequency being different by a threshold amount from another natural frequency.
Regarding Claim 15. Margoles further teaches the operations include controlling a trigger to knock the canister and initiate the vibration of the canister(310: fig.3).
Regarding Claim 16. Margoles further teaches the operations include determining the status of the fire suppression system by comparing the recording of the vibration of the canister to a predetermined frequency profile(315-345: fig.3).
Regarding Claim 17. Margoles further teaches the determined status of the fire suppression system includes at least one of a fill level of the canister, a size of the canister, or a type of fire suppression agent within the canister(350-355: fig.3).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in views of Vegso (US 20070246234), Stell et al. (US 7,934,564), Margoles et al. (US 20150281883) and Lioyd et al. (US 5950150).
Regarding 19. Glaub teaches a system comprising(abstract; fig.9):
a kitchen fire suppression system including(abstract; fig.9):
a hood(10);
an appliance positioned below the hood(kitchen hood assembly 10 is mounted such that it is spaced above a cooking surface: [0027]);
a nozzle(90: fig. 9) aimed toward the appliance;
a cartridge containing a pressurized gas(84: fig.9);
an agent tank (82: fig. 9) coupled to the cartridge (84: fig. 9) and containing a fire suppression agent (chemical fire suppressant reservoir 82: [0047]);
a conduit (88:fig. 9) fluidly coupling the agent tank (82: fig. 9) to the nozzle(90: fig. 9);
a release assembly coupled to the cartridge(86: fig. 9)
Glaub silent about a detection line extending within the hood;
a release assembly coupled to the detection line;
However, Vegso teaches a detection line extending within the hood(120: fig. 2);
a release assembly (125: fig.1) coupled to the detection line(120: fig. 2);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, a detection line extending within the hood;a release assembly coupled to the detection line;, as taught by Vegso, so as to real time protect a commercial building such as restaurant using cooking units such as grills and deep-fryer units from fire, where flammable liquids are present.
Glaub further teaches a local controller (180: fig.9) operatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor and configured to receive the first sensor data and the second sensor data(first and second monitoring circuit: [0045]); and
a remote monitoring platform in communication with the local controller and configured to: receive the first sensor data and the second sensor data from the local controller(Supervision module (180) is also capable of storing the information transmission to a remote site:[0045]; server: [0064]);
Modified Glaub silent about a first sensor configured to provide first sensor data including an acoustic signature of the kitchen fire suppression system; and determine, based on the first sensor data, whether or not the fire suppression agent has been discharged; provide a notification to a user device in response to a determination that the fire suppression agent has been discharged;
However, Stell teaches a first sensor(110: fig.2) configured to provide first sensor data including an acoustic signature of the kitchen fire suppression system(a microphone 110 to detect audible sounds associated with fire suppressor 18: col.2, l.62-63); and
determine, based on the first sensor data, whether or not the fire suppression agent has been discharged(non-fire condition(or fire condition): col.4, l. 19-42);
provide a notification to a user device in response to a determination that the fire suppression agent has been discharged(col.2, l.56-66);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Glaub, a first sensor configured to provide first sensor data including an acoustic signature of the kitchen fire suppression system; and determine, based on the first sensor data, whether or not the fire suppression agent has been discharged; provide a notification to a user device in response to a determination that the fire suppression agent has been discharged, as taught by Stell, so as to eliminate false fire alarm .
Modified Glaub further silent about a second sensor configured to provide second sensor data indicative of a vibration of the agent tank; determine, based on the second sensor data, a status of the agent tank; and
However, Margoles teaches a second sensor configured to provide second sensor data indicative of a vibration of the agent tank(305: fig.3);
determine, based on the second sensor data, a status of the agent tank(350-355: fig.3);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of modified Glaub, a second sensor configured to provide second sensor data indicative of a vibration of the agent tank; determine, based on the second sensor data, a status of the agent tank, as taught by Margoles, so as to determining that volume of fluid in the container is changed between periods of time based on a natural frequency being different by a threshold amount from another natural frequency.
Modified Glaub further silent about schedule, based on the determined status of the agent tank, an inspection of the kitchen fire suppression system by a technician.
However, Lioyd teaches schedule, based on the determined status of the agent tank, an inspection of the kitchen fire suppression system by a technician(col. 13, l. 11-20; col. 22, l. 1-11; figs. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Glaub, schedule, based on the determined status of the agent tank, an inspection of the kitchen fire suppression system by a technician, as taught by Lioyd, so as to verify compliance of at least one fire/life safety system component whose operation and maintenance are based upon predetermined operational criteria.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaub in view of Margoles et al. (US 20150281883).
Regarding Claim 20. Glaub teaches a canister of a fire suppression system(84: fig.9).
Glaub silent about a method comprising:
receiving sensor data from at least one sensor recording a vibration of a canister;
comparing the vibration to a predetermined frequency profile to determine at least one of a fill level of the canister, a size of the canister, or a type of fire suppression agent within the canister; and
providing a notification to a user device, the notification indicating that at least one of the fill level of the canister, the size of the canister, or the type of fire suppression agent is not acceptable.
Margoles teaches a method comprising(fig.3):
receiving sensor data from at least one sensor recording a vibration of a canister(305-340: fig.3);
comparing the vibration to a predetermined frequency profile to determine at least one of a fill level of the canister, a size of the canister, or a type of fire suppression agent within the canister(345: fig. 3); and
providing a notification to a user device, the notification indicating that at least one of the fill level of the canister, the size of the canister, or the type of fire suppression agent is not acceptable(355: fig. 3; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of modified Glaub, receiving sensor data from at least one sensor recording a vibration of a canister; comparing the vibration to a predetermined frequency profile to determine at least one of a fill level of the anister, a size of the canister, or a type of fire suppression agent within the canister; and providing a notification to a user device, the notification indicating that at least one of the fill level of the canister, the size of the canister, or the type of fire suppression agent is not acceptable, as taught by Margoles, so as to determining that volume of fluid in the container is changed between periods of time based on a natural frequency being different by a threshold amount from another natural frequency.
Examiner notes
Rennie et al. (US 2017/0014657) also teaches the limitation of claim as Regarding Claim 1. Rennie teaches a system comprising(fig.1):one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including(12: fig. 1; [0039]):receiving sensor data from at least one sensor monitoring a fire suppression system([0039]); determining, based on the sensor data, a status of the fire suppression system([0041], [0044]-[0045]); and providing a notification to a user device(30: fig. 1; supported by Gatsonidies et al. (US 2017/0014655), [0040]), the notification indicating the status of the fire suppression system(a warning signal due to low remaining supply of fire suppression agent could be sent, in order to alert the relevant personnel to the need for a restock of fire suppression agent for the flight: [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Rouse et al. (US 20130341053) disclose A fire extinguishing system prevents fires or other emergency conditions on a heating device, such as a stove. The system uses sensors to detect the emergency and alert an operator. The system dumps fire suppressant material onto the heating device. The system also may shut-off power to the heating device. An alarm circuit and associated functionality assures the system is in working order by using diagnostic tests and other checks.
c) Enk (US 2016/0263410) disclose A fire suppression system for a fire zone including a first tank containing a first liquid component of a two-part foam and a second tank containing a second liquid component of the foam.
d) Turner (US 20050285730) disclose a automated systems and methods provide for enhanced management of components of fire safety systems. Components are identified which require action to ensure compliance with a schedule associated with the components. User and/or electronic output is generated that identifies components and required actions, such actions including inspections, functional testing, maintenance and calibration activities.
e) Hill et al. (US 8887820) disclose Nozzles (22) for reducing noise generated by the release of gas from a hazard suppression system (10) are provided. The nozzles (22) comprise a plurality of partitions (42, 44, 46, 48) that define a serpentine gas flow path through the nozzle.
f) US 20120217028 A1(fig.4), US 6170480 B1(fig. 10), 2016/0313170, US 20180022470, US 6029751 fig.8, US 2016/0121151
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857