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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: opening.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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) 1–7, 9–16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnott et al. (US PGPub 20090078321 A1) in view of Sundholm et al. (USPN 5806601).
Regarding Claim 1, Arnott discloses an injection adapter (10) for injecting pressurized gas in containers (26) and adapted to be coaxially coupled with a discharge valve assembly including a piston assembly (16/18/28/30), the injection adapter comprising: a body (14) adapted to be coaxially coupled to an opening of a container (26), as seen in Fig. 2 but does not disclose a discharge passage adapted to allow a flow of fire suppression agent from the container.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the container of Arnott with a container capable of dispersing of fire suppression agent from the container as disclosed by Sundholm for the purpose of regulating and provide (Arnott Para. 5) high pressure fluid from a containers, so that back pressure does not occur (Sundholm Col. 1, Lines 56–62), in the manner desired by Sundholm.
Per the Arnott–Sundholm combination Arnott’s container (26) holds a fire suppressant as taught by Sundholm (Col. 1, Line 49).
PNG
media_image1.png
765
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Arnott Annotated Fig. 2
The Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches the body comprising: a discharge passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) adapted to allow a flow of fire suppression agent (Sundholm Col. 1, Lines 56–62) from the container (Arnott 26) to the discharge valve assembly (Arnott 16/18/28/30) ; at least one injecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2); wherein the at least one injecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) is adapted to supply pressurized gas from a canister (Arnott Para. 36, where the canister is the container that supplies the recharge fluid) to an ullage space (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) within the container (Arnott 26); a flare fitting (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) connected to the at least one injecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) and adapted to actuate the piston assembly to allow the flow of the fire suppression agent, adapted to be in fluid communication with an ullage space (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) of the container (Arnott 26).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, the Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches the body (Arnott 14) comprises an outer surface and an inner surface distal to the outer surface, the inner surface defines the discharge passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) adapted to be in fluid communication with the discharge valve assembly (Arnott 16/18/28/30) and a siphon tube (Sundholm 6) inserted within the (Arnott 26) container.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches the at least one injecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) is defined between the outer surface and the inner surface of the body (Arnott 14), where this must be in order for the invention to function.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, the Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches the body (Arnott 14) further comprises: a first engaging end (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) adapted to be coaxially coupled with the discharge valve assembly (Arnott 16/18/28/30) ; and a second engaging end (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) coaxial with respect to the first engaging end (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) and adapted to be coaxially coupled with the siphon tube (Sundholm 6), wherein the first engaging end and the second engaging end define an outlet and an inlet, respectively, of the discharge passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, the Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches the second engaging end (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) is adapted to be externally fastened to a neck portion (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) of the container (Arnott 26), wherein the neck portion (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) defines the opening; of the container (Arnott 26); extending along a length of the neck portion (Arnott 26).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches the second engaging end is adapted to be coaxially positioned within the neck portion of the container (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, the Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches the second engaging end (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) is adapted to be internally fastened to the siphon tube (Sundholm 6, Fig. 1, where the siphon tube is secured to the second end of the container).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, the Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches the body (Arnott 14) includes a check valve adapter (Arnott 12) adapted to be coupled to at least one check valve (Arnott 18/30) and having at least one connecting passage adapted (Arnott 16D) to be aligned with the at least one injecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) of the body (Arnott 14) to facilitate a fluid communication between the injection adapter (Arnott 10) and the at least one check valve adapter (Arnott 12), and wherein the flare fitting is connected to the check valve adapter (Arnott 12).
Regarding Claim 10, Arnott discloses an injection the injection assembly comprising: an injection adapter (10) having a body (14) adapted to be coaxially coupled to an opening of a container (26), the body (14) comprising a discharge passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) and at least one injecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) adapted to be in fluid communication with an ullage space (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) of the container (26) but does not disclose a discharge passage adapted to allow a flow of fire suppression agent from the container.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the container of Arnott with a container capable of dispersing of fire suppression agent from the container as disclosed by Sundholm for the purpose of regulating and provide (Arnott Para. 5) high pressure fluid from a containers, so that back pressure does not occur (Sundholm Col. 1, Lines 56–62), in the manner desired by Sundholm.
Per the Arnott–Sundholm combination Arnott’s container (26) holds a fire suppressant as taught by Sundholm (Col. 1, Line 49).
The Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches the discharge passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) is adapted to receive a flow of fire suppression agent (Sundholm Col. 1, Line 49) from the container (Arnott 26); at least one check valve adapter coupled to the body of the injection adapter (Arnott 10), the at least one check valve adapter (Arnott 12) comprising at least one connecting passage (Arnott 16D) adapted to be aligned with the at least one injecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) of the body (Arnott 14) to facilitate a fluid communication between the injection adapter (Arnott 10) and the at least one check valve adapter (Arnott 12), of the body (Arnott 14) to facilitate a fluid communication between the injection adapter (Arnott 10) and the at least one check valve adapter (Arnott 12); a discharge valve assembly (Arnott 16/18/28/30) including a piston assembly (Arnott 28/30) adapted to allow the flow of the fire suppression agent from the discharge passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2); and a flare fitting (Arnott 20) coupled to the at least one check valve adapter (Arnott 12) and adapted to actuate the piston assembly (Arnott 28/30) to allow the flow of the fire suppression agent (Arnott Para. 38), wherein the at least one connecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) allows a flow of pressurized gas within the ullage space (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) of the container (Arnott 14) through the at least one injecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) of the injection adapter (Arnott 10).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, the structural limitation of the apparatus described in the Arnott–Sundholm combination recited in claim(s) 1–4.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnott et al. (US PGPub 20090078321 A1) in view of Sundholm et al. (USPN 5806601), in view further view of Reilly (US PGPub 20050087233 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the Arnott–Sundholm combination teaches at least one check valve (Arnott 28) coupled to the inlet of the at least one connecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2) but does not teach at least one orifice plate disposed between the injection inlet and the outlet of the at least one connecting passage.
Reilly teaches at least one orifice plate (62) disposed between an inlet (46) and an outlet (48) in order to adjust fluid flow (Para. 17).
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 injection inlet of the Arnott–Sundholm combination an orifice plate as taught by Reilly in order to adjust fluid flow without having to disassemble the valve or completely change the valve.
Per the Arnott–Sundholm combination–Reilly combination Reilly's orifice plate is threaded into Arnott 's inlet of the of the at least one check valve. The Arnott–Sundholm combination–Reilly combination teaches at least one orifice plate (Reilly 62) disposed between the injection inlet and the outlet of the at least one connecting passage (Arnott Annotated Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitation (an injection inlet is formed on the outer surface of the body of the injection adapter, and an injection outlet is formed on a circumferential wall; of the body; and surrounding the outlet of the discharge passage, wherein the at least one injecting passage extends between the injection inlet and the injection outlet).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
