DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 11 Feb 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5 and 11-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 17 Nov 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 6 recites “wherein the temperature-sensitive locking mechanism is formed by a tensile element that acts between the housing and the piston, and wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of the housing is greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the tensile element, wherein the temperature-sensitive locking mechanism is formed by a tensile element that acts between the housing and the piston” [emphasis added]. The above emphasized limitations appear to duplicative and the second iteration can be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an outer diameter of the piston being so much greater than an inner diameter of the housing”. The term “so much greater” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “so much greater” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, is unclear what measure of greater is “so much” when comparing the outer diameter of the piston with the inner diameter of the housing.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a tensile element” in line 10. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if “a tensile element” in line 10 is the same tensile element or a different tensile element from Claim 19, line 7. For purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as being the same.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradise et al (US 10962128) in view of Smith et al (US 20130118765).
Regarding Claim 1, Paradise et al disclose remote triggering device (Figure 2A at 112 generally and remote from housing 104). The device comprising:
a housing (112);
a piston (126) which is accommodated in the housing (112 in Figure 2A); and
a prestressing device (130; Col 3, lines 7-11), wherein the piston is adjustable between a starting position (shown in Figure 2A) in which the prestressing device is held in a pretensioned state (Col 3, lines 7-11) and an actuating position (Figure 3) in which the piston is applied by the prestressing device (Figure 3), and wherein the piston is held in the starting position by a temperature-sensitive locking mechanism (the force fit between 112 and 126 disclosed at Col 3, lines 24-39), wherein the temperature-sensitive locking mechanism is formed by a press fit within the housing (Col 3, lines 24-39), wherein the press fit is dimensioned such that a holding force generated by the press fit becomes smaller, when a limit temperature is exceeded, than a force generated by the prestressing device (Col 3, lines 40-47), wherein the press fit is produced by an outer diameter of the piston being so much greater than an inner diameter of the housing that the piston is elastically clamped within the housing at normal operating temperatures (Col 3, lines 24-39),
but fails to expressly disclose a piezoelectric element and an actuating position in which the piston is applied by the prestressing device against the piezoelectric element.
Smith et al teach a remote triggering device (Figure 3). The device comprising:
a housing (40);
a piezoelectric element (32);
a piston (44) which is accommodated in the housing (Figure 3); and
a prestressing device (46), wherein the piston (44) is adjustable between a starting position in which the prestressing device is held in a pretensioned state (shown in Figure 3; ¶ 34) and an actuating position in which the piston is applied by the prestressing device against the piezoelectric element (¶ 34).
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 device of Paradise et al with the piezoelectric element as taught by Smith et al for the advantage of detecting the presence of fire to send a signal toa control unit, as taught by Smith et al (¶ 9; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Paradise et al disclose where a coefficient of thermal expansion of the housing is greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the piston (Col 2, lines 1-9).
Regarding Claim 11, Paradise et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the piezoelectric element is arranged on a side of the piston facing away from the prestressing device.
Smith et al teach wherein the piezoelectric element (32) is arranged on a side of the piston (44) facing away from the prestressing device (46).
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 device of Paradise et al with the piezoelectric as taught by Smith et al for the advantage of allowing the compressive force of the prestressing device, once released, to actuate the piezoelectric device, as taught by Smith et al (¶ 34).
Regarding Claim 13, Paradise et al disclose wherein the housing (112) has a cylindrical receiving space (Figure 2C) in which the prestressing device and the piston are arranged (within 125 and 136 in Figure 2A).
Regarding Claim 14, Paradise et al disclose wherein the cylindrical receiving space has a circular cross-section (Figure 2C).
Regarding Claim 15, Paradise et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein a heat-sensitive adhesive is provided in a region between the piston and the housing.
Smith et al teach wherein a heat-sensitive adhesive (the material of 42 which functions to adhere the piston against the bias of spring 46 within the housing) is provided in a region between the piston (44) and the housing (40).
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 device of Paradise et al with the heat-sensitive adhesive as taught by Smith et al for the advantage of soldering and securing the piston to the housing to prevent unintended actuation of the remote triggering device, as taught by Smith et al (¶ 34).
Claim(s) 3 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Paradise et al (US 10962128) in view of Smith et al (US 20130118765).
Regarding Claim 3, Paradise et al, as modified by Smith et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach where a coefficient of thermal expansion of the housing and of the piston differ from one another by less than 10%.
The coefficient of thermal expansion of a material is an inherent property of the material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the housing and the piston of Smith et al to be made from materials with a coefficient of thermal expansion of the housing and of the piston differ from one another by less than 10% since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Regarding Claim 17, Paradise et al, as modified by Smith et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach wherein the housing and the piston are made of the same material.1
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the housing and the piston of Paradise et al to be made of the same material since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Regarding Claim 18, Paradise et al, as modified by Smith et al, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of the housing is greater than the coefficient of thermal expansion of the piston, by more than 10%.
The coefficient of thermal expansion of a material is an inherent property of the material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the housing and the piston of Smith et al to be made from materials with a coefficient of thermal expansion of the housing and of the piston differ from one another by more than 10% since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Paradise et al (US 10962128) in view of Smith et al (US 20130118765) in further view of Zlatintsis (US 20120211684).
Regarding Claim 12, Paradise et al, as modified by Smith et al, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach wherein the piezoelectric element is accommodated in the housing.
Zlatintsis teaches a remote triggering device (3; Figures 1 and 3) where the piezoelectric element (3.1) is accommodated in the housing (within 3.3 shown in Figure 3).
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 location of the piezoelectric element to be accommodated in the housing since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to protect the piezoelectric element within the housing.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Smith et al (US 20130118765) in view of Paradise et al (US 10962128).
Regarding Claim 16, Smith et al disclose an assembly (Figure 3) comprising: a compressed gas reservoir cylinder (¶ 2; 22 in Figure 1); an electrically-actuated pressure relief valve (26 via 28) which is attached to the compressed gas cylinder reservoir (Figure 1); and a remote triggering device (30 of the embodiment of Figure 3 as incorporated into Figure 1) but fails to expressly disclose the remote triggering device according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Paradise et al, as further modified by Smith et al, teach the remote triggering device according to claim 1.
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 assembly of Smith et al with the device as taught by Paradise et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the remote triggering device of Paradise et al as modified by Smith et al within the system of Smith et al) to yield predictable results (to provide valve actuation in the event of elevated temperature within the system).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Gillespie (US 20130167377) in view of Smith et al (US 20130118765).
Regarding Claim 19, Gillespie discloses a remote triggering device (Figures 1-3). The device comprising:
a housing (104);
a piston (106) which is accommodated in the housing (within 108; Figure 1); and
wherein the piston is held in the starting position by a temperature-sensitive locking mechanism (212 which locks the piston 106 with the inlet piece 101 of housing 104), and wherein the temperature-sensitive locking mechanism is formed by a tensile element that acts between the housing and the piston (Figure 2 at 212), and wherein the temperature-sensitive locking mechanism is formed by a tensile element that acts between the housing and the piston (Figure 2 at 212), wherein the tensile element is a rod having a predetermined breaking point (Figure 3 at 304 with Figure 5 showing generally the circular shape of which element 212 of Figure 3 would be a hollow rod),
but fails to expressly disclose a piezoelectric element; a prestressing device, wherein the piston is adjustable between a starting position in which the prestressing device is held in a pretensioned state and an actuating position in which the piston is applied by the prestressing device against the piezoelectric element, and wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of the housing is greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the tensile element.
Smith et al teach a remote triggering device (Figure 3). The device comprising:
a housing (40);
a piezoelectric element (32);
a piston (44) which is accommodated in the housing (Figure 3); and
a prestressing device (46), wherein the piston (44) is adjustable between a starting position in which the prestressing device is held in a pretensioned state (shown in Figure 3; ¶ 34) and an actuating position in which the piston is applied by the prestressing device against the piezoelectric element (¶ 34).
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 device of Gillespie with the piezoelectric element as taught by Smith et al for the advantage of using the detection of the presence of fire to send a signal toa control unit, as taught by Smith et al (¶ 9; Figure 1).
The coefficient of thermal expansion of a material is an inherent property of the material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the housing and the tensile element of Gillespie to be made from materials with a coefficient of thermal expansion of the housing is greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the tensile element since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights