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 .
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 1-9 and 19-29 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 "sound absorbing member" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "sound absorbing member" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for depending from are rejected base claim.
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, 5-8, 19-25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trainor (4,134,472)
Regarding claim 1, Trainor shows a nozzle, comprising: a first support plate (44 on the inlet side) having a first side opposite a second side (fig 4), a conduit (10) passing through the first support plate and comprising an inlet on the first side of the first support plate and an outlet (12) on the second side of the first support plate (fig 4); a baffle (one of 42) made of a porous material at least partially surrounding the outlet (fig 4) to form an interior in fluid communication with the outlet and an end opening (bottom space 16) axially aligned with the conduit (fig 4), wherein the conduit is configured to receive an inert gas at the inlet and provide the inert gas to the interior of the baffle via the outlet such that the inert gas exits the outlet and passes at least partially through the baffle; and a sound absorbing insert (the bottom most element 42 in combination with 28 make up the sound absorbing insert) extending across the end opening to at least partially enclose the interior (fig 4), the sound absorbing insert composed sustainably of sound absorbing material (fig 6 shows most of the sound absorbing insert is made of element 42 which is sound absorbing); and a second support plate (44 at the downstream end) arranged against an outer face of the sound absorbing insert and coupled to the first support plate (by 40, fig 4), the second support plate enclosing the sound absorbing insert between the second support plate and the fist support plate (fig 4) wherein the interior is a void defined between the conduit, the baffle and the sound absorbing member (the space 16 is being considered the interior space), wherein the conduit is configured to receive the inert gas at the inlet and provide the inert gas directly to the void of the interior (fig 4).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising a longitudinal axis extending through the conduit, wherein the second support plate is coupled to the first support plate by a plurality of fasteners outward of the longitudinal axis (the fasteners are 14, 38 and 48. Most of mass the fasteners are located outwards form the central axis).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the plurality of fasteners (14 and 38 are located radially apart from the baffle (fig 4, they are radially outside or inside the baffle).
Regarding claim 7, further comprising a longitudinal axis extending through the conduit, wherein the conduit is coupled to the second support plate by a plurality of fasteners (20, 38) radially outward of the longitudinal axis and radially within an outer edge of the baffle (fig 4).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the baffle is cylindrical with a constant wall thickness (fig 4).
Regarding claim 19, Trainor shows a nozzle, comprising: a first support plate (44 at the inlet) having a first side and a second side (fig 4); a second support plate (44 at the downstream end) coupled to the first support plate by a plurality of fasteners (20 and 38 and 40) outward of a central axis of the first support plate and the second support plate (elements 20 and 44 are outwards from the central axis); a conduit (10) passing through the first support plate and comprising an inlet (inlet to 10) on the first side of the first support plate and an outlet (12) on the second side of the first support plate (fig 4); a baffle (one of 42) extending between the first support plate and the second support plate and radially surround the outlet to form an interior in fluid communication with the outlet (fig 4), the baffle comprised of a porous material (fig 4), wherein the conduit is configured to receive an inert gas at the inlet and provide the inert gas to the interior of the baffle via the outlet at a location between the first support plate and the second support plate; and a sound absorbing insert (bottom member 42 and 28 make up the sound absorbing insert) supported by the second support plate between the baffle and the second support plate and composed substantially of a sound absorbing material (fig 6 shows most of the insert being material 42), the support plate enclosing the sound absorbing insert between the second support plate and the first support pate (fig 4) wherein the interior is a void defined between the conduit, the baffle and the sound absorbing member (the space 16 is being considered the interior space), wherein the conduit is configured to receive the inert gas at the inlet and provide the inert gas directly to the void of the interior (fig 4).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, wherein during discharge of the inert gas the fire suppression nozzle is configured to limit a sound power level at the fire suppression nozzle to a maximum of 125 dB for a frequency range from 500 to 10,000 Hz at a flow rate greater than 1,000 cubic feet per minute. The examiner notes that this limitation is a functional limitation and the prior art must just be capable of performing the claimed function. In this case since the prior art teaches all structure of the claimed invention, and since there is no obvious reason why the prior at cannot perform the claimed function, the examiner notes that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function just as the present invention is.
Regarding claim 22, wherein the outlet comprises a plurality of radially extending outlet holes (12), wherein the plurality of radially extending outlet holes provide a plurality of flow paths orientated perpendicularly to a flow path of the inlet.
Regarding claim 24, wherein the outlet comprises a plurality of radially extending outlet holes (16), wherein the plurality of radially extending outlet holes provide a plurality of flow paths orientated perpendicularly to a flow path of the inlet (fig 4).
Regarding claims 23 and 25, during discharge, a pressure drop from the inlet of the fire suppression nozzle to the plurality of radially extending outlet holes is no more than 80 psi higher than a gage pressure of an environment around the fire suppression nozzle. The examiner notes that in use, the device of Trainor is capape of having the claimed pressure drop if the applied pressure was changed to achieve the claimed pressure drop. Additionally, the examiner notes that this limitation is a functional limitation and the prior art must just be capable of performing the claimed function. In this case since the prior art teaches all structure of the claimed invention, and since there is no obvious reason why the prior at cannot perform the claimed function, the examiner notes that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function just as the present invention is.
Regarding claim 28, wherein the baffle is cylindrical with a constant wall thickness (fig 4).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainor (4,134,472)
Regarding claim 2, Trainor shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to show wherein the baffle has a thickness in a range of 1/8 inch to 1/2 inch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Trainor have a baffle thickness in a range of 1/8 inch to 1/2 inch, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Trainor would not operate differently with a baffle thickness in a range of 1/8 inch to 1/2 inch, since the device of Trainer and the claimed device are identical in every other way and changing the thickness of the baffle will not affect the function of the device. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed range.
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainor (4,134,472) in view of Taylor et al. (9,404,365)
Regarding claim 3, Trainor shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the porous material is a steel wool.
Tyler teaches a baffle 37 made from wire wool, more specifically steel wool (col 3, liens 25-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the porous material out of steel wool in order to disperse the gas.
Regarding claims 4 and 27, the steel wool meets the limitations of claims 4 and 27.
Claim(s) 9 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainor (4,134,472) in view of Sherikar et al. (2003/0221906)
Regarding claim 9 and 29, Trainor shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the sound absorbing material is one of a fiberglass or a mineral wool.
Sherikar et al. teaches mineral wool is used for noise reduction in many silencers [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the sound absorbing material out of mineral wool in order to reduce noise as taught by Sherikar et al. [0004].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of the applicant’s arguments, the examiner has presented a different interpretation of the Trainor reference using elements 44 as the first and second support plates and the combination of elements 28 and the lower member 44 as the sound absorbing insert. Please see the above rejection for details.
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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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 on (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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 4/2/2026
Prosecution Insights