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 68-76 and 78-87 are pending, claims 1-67 and 77 have been cancelled, and claims 68 and 81 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
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) 68-76 and 78-87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnone (U.S. 2017/0113078) in view of Miller (U.S. 2015/0122513).
With respect to claims 68 and 81, Magnone discloses a suppression-mode ceiling-only storage occupancy fire protection system and method of supplying a suppression-mode ceiling-only storage occupancy fire protection system (see figure 1) comprises:
a grid of pendent automatic fire protection sprinklers (paragraph 0026 discloses the use of automatic fire protection sprinklers, paragraph 0033 discloses the use of Pendent sprinklers) defining a sprinkler-to-sprinkler spacing ranging from eight feet to ten feet (paragraph 0027 discloses 8 and 10 foot spacing between sprinklers), each pendent automatic fire protection sprinkler being qualified to suppress a fire in a storage commodity (abstract), each sprinkler including: a sprinkler body having an inlet and an outlet with a passageway (paragraph 0008) disposed therebetween along a sprinkler axis and a nominal K-factor of 28.0 to 36.4 gpm/(psi)^(1/2) (paragraph 0033); a closure assembly including a plug (figure 3a, the plug held by the bulb); a trigger assembly to support the closure assembly (bulb, paragraph 0034), the trigger assembly consisting of a thermally responsive trigger assembly (paragraphs 0025 and 0034, early suppression fast response sprinkler, which has a thermally responsive glass bulb trigger, taking the trigger assembly as consisting of the glass bulb, and the additional activation structure taken as elements other then the thermally responsive trigger assembly) ; and a deflector coupled to the sprinkler body and spaced from the outlet (figure 3a, deflector shown); and
a network of pipes (150’s in figure 1) including at least one main pipe (150a) and a plurality of spaced apart branch lines (150b+) interconnecting and locating the grid of pendent automatic fire protection sprinklers beneath a ceiling having a ceiling height greater than forty feet (paragraph 0052), the network of pipes being filled with a firefighting fluid (water, paragraph 0046, being a wet system) and locating the grid of pendent automatic fire protection sprinklers relative to a source of the firefighting fluid (figure 1) in which a number of hydraulically most remote sprinklers in the grid of pendent automatic fire protection sprinklers define a hydraulic design area of the system (paragraph 0037), the network of pipes delivering to each pendent automatic fire protection sprinkler in the hydraulic design area at least a minimum flowing pressure upon sprinkler actuation (paragraph 0047) to provide suppression protection of high piled storage including a commodity consisting of any one of Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4, and cartooned unexpanded plastic commodities and combinations thereof (paragraph 0053), stored beneath the ceiling (paragraph 0043), the commodity having a maximum storage height, the storage having a configuration of rack storage (paragraphs 0052-0053), the rack storage being any one of single-row, double-row, and multi-row rack storage (paragraphs 0048 and 0053);
wherein the ceiling height greater than forty feet being at least five feet greater than the maximum storage height up to a maximum ceiling height of fifty-five feet (paragraphs 0047 and 0052-0053, discloses the ceiling height greater than forty feet and five feet above the storage height). However, Magnone fails to disclose, having a response time index of 65 (ft.*s)lh or less or the configuration of rack storage has an aisle width of less than six feet .
Miller discloses an RTI between 19 and 36 meter.sup.1/2second.sup.1/2 (paragraph 0032) and an aisle width of less than six feet (paragraphs 0060-0061) further indicating that fire did not spread across the aisle from the main array to either of the target arrays.
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 disclosed RTI and aisle width of Miller into the system of Magnone, as utilizing a faster RTI such as Millers would allow for a quicker response to a fire by the system, quick response time and application of fluid to the fire allows for the system to have a smaller, under six feet, aisle width, and thus allows for the storage facility to have a more narrow aisle and allow for more goods to be safely stored in the facility without the unwanted fire movement between rows spreading beyond the initial ignition area (paragraph 0061).
With respect to claim 69, Magnone as modified by Miller discloses an aisle width of four feet, and fails to specifically disclose the aisle width comprises five feet. Magnone does disclose, paragraph 0053 discloses that the aisle width W can be the same or different configured, and thus modifying the aisle width to be greater then the disclosed 4 feet would have been an obvious configuration allowing for different desired commodity spacing to occur.
With respect to claims 73, 82, and 85, Magnone as modified by Miller discloses the aisle width comprises four feet (or in the case of claim 82 4 or 5 feet), as disclosed by Miller.
With respect to claims 70, 74, and 83, Magnone as modified discloses the thermally responsive trigger assembly of each sprinkler includes a strut lever arrangement with a fusible link (as Miller discloses it is known to use a strut lever arrangement with a fusible link, as seen in figure 4a).
With respect to claims 71, 75, Magnone as modified by Miller discloses the fusible links of the sprinklers have a consistent operability with the response time index ranging from 35 to 65 (ft*s)^(1/2) (as disclosed above my Miller).
With respect to claim 72 and 76, Magnone as modified discloses the thermally responsive trigger assembly is configured as a frangible glass bulb (paragraph 0034).
With respect to claim 78, Magnone as modified discloses having a deflector, but fails to disclose the deflector has a perimeter portion and a central portion with the perimeter portion including a plurality of spaced apart tines defining a slot between adjacent tines, each slot having a first width at the perimeter of the deflector and radiused portion between the first width and the central portion, a terminal end of each tine being located on a circle concentric to the sprinkler axis, a first group of tines being located on a first circle having a first diameter, and a second group of tines being located on a second circle having a second diameter less than the first diameter.
Miller discloses the deflector has a perimeter portion (figure 5, the outer portion of the deflector) and a central portion (figure 5, the central portion) with the perimeter portion including a plurality of spaced apart tines (tines about the outer edge, being 112’s) defining a slot between adjacent tines (slots shown in figure 5), each slot having a first width at the perimeter (being the radius of the slots at the perimeter) of the deflector and radiused portion between the first width and the central portion (as seen in figure 5), a terminal end of each tine being located on a circle concentric to the sprinkler axis (as there are three separate groups of tines, 12d and 12c all lay on a single radius, 12b lays on a second circle, and 12a lays on a third), a first group of tines being located on a first circle having a first diameter (taking 112d and 112c which are on an outer diameter), and a second group of tines (112a) being located on a second circle (as they can be taken on a second circle) having a second diameter less than the first diameter (as 112a is closer to the middle then the tines 112c/d at their outer most point). Each tine may be formed in a manner such that one or more groups of tines define water deflecting and distribution surfaces and edges that collectively deflect and distribute water in a manner for satisfactory fire protection, preferably suppression fire protection and more preferably in a manner that satisfies water distribution industry standards for ESFR protection and even more preferably suppression and/or ESFR protection for a stored commodity (paragraph 0039).
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 tines and deflector of Miller into the sprinkler of Magnone, allowing for the deflector to be satisfactory for fire protection for a stored commodity, and allow for the dispersion of the fluid for an aisle width of 4 feet as is disclosed in Miller, allowing for more commodities to be stored in a given building by having the aisles only 4 feet.
With respect to claims 79 and 86, Magnone as modified discloses each sprinkler is an Early Suppression Fast Response Sprinkler (Miller, abstract: Magnone, paragraph 0025).
With respect to claims 80and 87, Magnone as modified discloses each sprinkler is a Storage Sprinkler (as the sprinkler’s intended use is for storage: title).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (02/25/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 68-76 and 78-87 are pending, claims 1-67 and 77 have been cancelled, and claims 68 and 81 have been amended.
Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (10/01/2025).
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants first argument is that Magnone fails to disclose a pendent automatic fire protection sprinkler as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0026 discloses the sprinklers being thermally responsive automatic sprinklers, where the activation element is being used with the thermally responsive automatic sprinklers. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a manual activation with the disclosed activation elements of Magnone, rather their activation element is further done automatically from generated sensor input (paragraphs 0037-0039, which is further used with the installed automatic sprinklers.
Conclusion
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