Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-67, 77, are cancelled, claims 68-76 and 78-100, and claims 88-100 are new.
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 20 slots 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification (and drawings) only discloses 16 slots, and not the claimed 20 slots.
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 78-100 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wancho (U.S. 11,213,707: filing date of the provisional on 3/8/2018) in view of Magnone (U.S. 2017/0216641).
With respect to claims 68 and 81, Wancho discloses a suppression-mode ceiling-only storage occupancy fire protection system comprises:
a grid of pendent automatic fire protection sprinklers (column 2 rows 25-35), each pendent automatic fire protection sprinkler being qualified to suppress a fire in a storage commodity (column 10 rows 15-23), each pendent automatic fire protection sprinkler including: a sprinkler body (figure 2, 12) having an inlet (14, figure 2) and an outlet with a passageway (bottom of 12 going to 42) disposed therebetween along a sprinkler axis (16) and a nominal K-factor of 22.4 to 36.4 (column 9 rows 10-15, of 25.2) a closure assembly including a plug (42); a trigger assembly to support the closure assembly (32), the trigger assembly consisting of a thermally responsive trigger assembly that actuates from direct application of heat (column 9 rows 40-50); and a deflector (50) coupled to the sprinkler body and spaced from the outlet (shown in figure 2); and
a network of pipes (although not shown, it is well understood that a grid of sprinklers includes a network of pipes, see Magnone, as the use of a main pipe and branch lines is well understood being used in a storage facility with commodities) a ceiling having a ceiling height greater than forty forty-five feet (column 10 rows 15-24, at 48 feet), the network of pipes being filled with a firefighting fluid (fluid within 98) a commodity (column 10 rows 15-24), the commodity having a maximum storage height (43 feet), the storage having a configuration of rack storage (the rack the commodity is on) the rack storage being any one of single-row, double-row, and/or multi-row rack storage (column 2 rows 25-40, where the racks are known to be single, double, or , multi-row rack storage);
wherein the ceiling height greater than forty-five feet being at least five feet greater than the maximum storage height for up to a maximum ceiling height of fifty-five feet (being a range from 45-55 feet, the prior art discloses 48 feet with the commodity at 43 feet), and
wherein the configuration of rack storage has an aisle width of less than six five feet (column 10 rows 15-24). Wancho fails to specifically disclose the grid of sprinklers is defining a sprinkler-to-sprinkler spacing ranging from eight feet to ten feet, the commodity consisting of any one of Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4, and/or cartooned unexpanded plastic commodities and combinations thereof, stored beneath the ceiling, or the sprinkler has a response time index of 100 (ft.*s) or less, and including at least one main pipe and a plurality of spaced apart branch lines interconnecting and locating the grid of pendent automatic fire protection sprinklers beneath the ceiling, and ) and locating the grid of pendent automatic fire protection sprinklers relative to a source of the firefighting fluid in which a number of hydraulically most remote sprinklers in the grid of sprinklers define a hydraulic design area of the system , 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 to provide suppression protection of high-piled storage including a commodity.
Magnone discloses, the grid of sprinklers is defining a sprinkler-to-sprinkler spacing ranging from eight feet to ten feet (paragraph 0015), the commodity consisting of any one of Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4, and/or cartooned unexpanded plastic commodities and combinations thereof, stored beneath the ceiling (paragraph 0040), or the sprinkler has a response time index of 100 (ft.*s) or less (fast response sprinklers known having an RTI of 80 or less, or even 50 or less of (m*s)^(1/2)), and including at least one main pipe and a plurality of spaced apart branch lines interconnecting and locating the grid of pendent automatic fire protection sprinklers beneath the ceiling (shown in figure 1), and locating the grid of pendent automatic fire protection sprinklers relative to a source of the firefighting fluid in which a number of hydraulically most remote sprinklers in the grid of sprinklers define a hydraulic design area of the system (paragraphs 0009, 0019, and 0021), 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 to provide suppression protection of high-piled storage including a commodity (being the designed flow pressure to each sprinkler so that they meet the hydraulic designs underknown standards, where the actuated sprinkler are provided with their designed operating pressure, paragraph 0009).
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 sprinkler spacing, pipe design, and RTI of Magnone into the system of Wasco, allowing Wasco to have a fast response system that brings the fluid within the pipeline to the sprinklers in a grid to suppress a fire as desired. The examiner notes that a lot of what Magnone discloses and teaches is well known in warehouse fire suppression systems and is simply silent in the disclosure of Wasco. The further use of the noted commodity’s listed by Magnone are the well understood commodities stored in such warehouses.
Claim 81 is noted being the method claim associated with claim 68, with the added limitation of the tempura being 155 degrees F (shown in column 9 rows 50-60)
With respect to claim 69 and 82, Wasco as modified discloses the aisle width comprises four feet (column 10 rows 15-24) and wherein the nominal K-factor comprises 28.0 gpm/(psi) (column 9 rows 10-15).
With respect to claim 70 and 83, Wasco as modified discloses the thermally responsive trigger assembly, but fails to disclose of each sprinkler includes a strut lever arrangement with a fusible link. Magnone discloses the use of either a bulb or strut and lever arrangement being used in such warehouse assemblies (paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strut and lever in place of a thermally responsive bulb as disclosed in Magnone into the system of Wasco, as such “swapping” between the two is shown in Magnone, and still allows for the desired k-factor and RTI to be achieved.
With respect to claim 71, Wasco as modified discloses wherein 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 by Magnone, paragraph 0005 and 0036)
With respect to claim 72 and 84, Wasco as modified discloses the thermally responsive trigger assembly is configured as a frangible glass bulb (see figure 2).
Wit respect to claim 73 and 85, Wasco discloses the aisle width comprises four feet and wherein the nominal K-factor comprises 25.2 gpm/(psi) (column 10 rows 15-24 and column 5 rows 50-55).
With respect to claim 74, Wasco discloses the thermally responsive trigger assembly of each sprinkler, but fails to disclose each sprinkler includes a strut lever arrangement with a fusible link. Magnone discloses the use of either a bulb or strut and lever arrangement being used in such warehouse assemblies (paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strut and lever in place of a thermally responsive bulb as disclosed in Magnone into the system of Wasco, as such “swapping” between the two is shown in Magnone, and still allows for the desired k-factor and RTI to be achieved.
With respect to claim 75, Wasco as modified 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 by Magnone, paragraph 0005 and 0036).
With respect to claim 76, Wasco as modified discloses the thermally responsive trigger assembly is configured as a frangible glass bulb (see figure 2).
With respect to claim 78, Wasco discloses the deflector (50) has a perimeter portion (54) and a central portion (the radius at 86 goes to a central portion) with the perimeter portion including a plurality of spaced apart tines (tines shown I figure 3a and 4) defining a slot (slots 64,66,68,70,72 shown in figure 4) between adjacent tines (as shown in figure 4), each slot having a first width at the perimeter of the deflector (as shown in figure 4), a radiused portion between the first width and the central portion (being the widths at the wider sections each slot shown), and a second width greater than the first width between the first width and the radiused portion (as shown in figure 4, where the internal slots have a width greater then the smaller section at the perimeter), and wherein a terminal end of each tine being located on a circle concentric to the sprinkler axis (as shown in figure 3).
With respect to claim 79 and 86, Wasco discloses each sprinkler is an Early Suppression Fast Response Sprinkler (column 9 rows 10-15).
With respect to claim 80 and 87, Wasco discloses each sprinkler is a Storage Sprinkler (being a sprinkler used in a storage facility).
With respect to claims 88, 93, and 95 Wasco discloses the deflector comprises a planar member including a plurality of tines defining a plurality of slots (as shown in figures 2-4),
wherein a terminal end of each of the plurality of tines defines a perimeter (54) of the planar member,
wherein each of the plurality of slots has a first width at the perimeter of the planar member (width adjacent 54), a radiused portion between the first width and a central portion of the planar member (being the width noted at the “e” section of 64,66,68,70,72), and a second width greater than the first width between the first width and the radiused portion (as shown in figure 4),
wherein the plurality of slots comprises five different opposed slot pairs including a first group of opposed slot pairs aligned along a first plane (slots at 64), a second group of opposed slot pairs aligned along a second plane perpendicular to the first plane (slots at 72), a third group of opposed slots pairs disposed between the first and second groups of opposed slot pairs (being the slots of 68), a fourth group of opposed slot pairs disposed between the first and third groups of opposed slots pairs (66), and a fifth group of opposed slot pairs disposed between the second and third groups of opposed slot pairs (being at 70),
wherein a slot length of each of the slots of the fourth group of opposed slot pairs having a slot length greater than a slot length of each of the slots of the first, second, third, and fifth groups of opposed slot pairs (where 66 has the longest slot), and
wherein a slot length of each of the slots of the first, second, and third groups of opposed slot pairs being less than a slot length of each of the slots of the fifth group of opposed slot pairs (as shown in figure 4). Where claim 95 is understood being a combination of claims 81 and 93.
With respect to claim 89, Wasco discloses the perimeter includes a first perimeter portion on a first circle concentric to the sprinkler axis defining a first diameter (being the outer perimeter at 54) and a second perimeter portion on a second circle concentric to the sprinkler axis defining a second diameter less than the first diameter (being taken at a portion of the permitter within the throat, at where the I section is, and being less than the first diameter).
With respect to claim 90, Wasco discloses plurality of slots, but fails to disclose the slots consists of twenty slots. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize 20 slots in the system of Wasco, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involve sonly routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI-B). Please note the applicant never discloses 20 slots. Furthermore, changing the shape, size, and number of slits/slots of the deflector can be adjusted to achieve a desired spread, foam quality, or service area of the sprinkler.
With respect to claim 91, Wasco as modified discloses the maximum ceiling height, but fails to disclose comprises fifty feet and the aisle width comprises four feet (as Wasco discloses being known to work at 48 feet tall with 4 foot aisle, Magnone, paragraph 0041, discloses such ceiling heights being known up to 55 feet). 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 ceiling height of Magnone of up to 55 feet in the system of Wasco, allowing for more product to be stored in the warehouse.
With respect to claim 92 and 94, Wasco discloses the maximum ceiling height comprises forty-eight feet and the aisle width comprises four feet (column 10 rows 18-24).
With respect to claim 96, Wasco discloses a maximum ceiling height comprises forty-eight feet (column 10 rows 18-24).
With respect to claim 97, Wasco discloses each of the plurality of pendent automatic sprinklers is an Early Suppression Fast Response Sprinkler (column 9 rows 10-15).
With respect to claim 98, Wasco as modified discloses each of the plurality of pendent automatic sprinklers comprises a response time index of 100(ft.*s)^(1/2) or less (as disclosed above by Magnone, paragraphs 0005 and 0036 ).
With respect to claim 99, Wasco as modified discloses a response time index of 65 (ft.*s)^(1/2) or less (as disclosed above by Magnone, paragraph 0005 and 0036).
With respect to claim 100, Wasco as modified discloses the temperature rating greater than or equal to 1550F comprises a temperature rating of 1550F, 1650F, or 2000F(column 9 rows 54-55).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (04/15/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-67, 77, are cancelled, claims 68-76 and 78-100, and claims 88-100 are new. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (03/27/2026). Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 68-76 and 78-100 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights