DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings (particularly figures 1-2) are objected to because of the use of grayscale and solid black shading. See 37 CFR 1.84(l) and 1.84(m). Appropriate action is required.
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the tracking mode” is believed to be in error for --a tracking mode--; “the sprinkler bulb” is believed to be in error for --the frangible sprinkler bulb--; “the releasing mode” is believed to be in error for --a releasing mode--; “the second current” is believed to be in error for --a second current--; and “the determined resistance” is believed to be in error for --a determined resistance--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “The system” is believed to be in error for --The fire detection system--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the obtained information” is believed to be in error for --the information--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one microchip” is believed to be in error for --the at least one microchip--; “a frangible sprinkler bulb” is believed to be in error for --the frangible sprinkler bulb--; “a tracking mode” is believed to be in error for --the tracking mode--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a tracking mode” is believed to be in error for --the tracking mode--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the obtained information” is believed to be in error for --the information--; and “the at least one predefined criteria” is believed to be in error for --an at least one predefined criteria--. 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 1-20 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 both an apparatus “A sprinkler head” and method steps for using the apparatus “ wherein, in a tracking mode, a first current flows from a first terminal to a second terminal sequentially through the resistive track and the at least one microchip, and wherein, in a releasing mode, a second current flows from the second terminal to the first terminal sequentially through the at least one diode and the resistive track”. A single claim which recites both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one operates the sprinkler head in tracking mode or releasing mode as claimed, or when one constructs the sprinkler head with the claimed structural limitations capable of performing the modes, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “at least one microchip and at least one diode operationally connected in series to the resistive track”. It is unclear from the claim whether both the diode and microchip are in series with the resistive track, or only the diode is in series with the resistive track, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-5 and 16 are rejected based upon their dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a control circuitry”. It is unclear in light of the disclosure or on its own, whether the control circuitry acts as a controller or processor for executing instructions, or can solely comprise components independent of a complete processor such as circuits or logic gates. Paragraph [0047] broadly defines the components encompassed by control circuitry as “one or a combination of microprocessors, suitable logic, circuits, audio interfaces, visual interfaces, haptic interfaces, or the like. The control circuitry 201 and the microchip 105 may include, but are not limited to a microcontroller, a Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) processor, an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) processor, a Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) processor, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a state machine, and/or other processing units 201-1 or circuits. The control circuitry 201 may also comprise suitable logic, circuits, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to execute a set of instructions stored in a memory unit 201-2. In an exemplary implementation of the memory unit 201-2 according to the disclosure, the memory unit 201-2 may include, but are not limited to, Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-only Memory (EEPROM), Random Access Memory (RAM), Read Only Memory (ROM), Hard Disk Drive (HDD), Flash memory, Solid-State Drive (SSD), and/or CPU cache memory”. Because it cannot be determined whether control circuitry is referring to a complete processor with executable instructions, or is a circuit or interface, it cannot be determined whether the process steps that the controller is configured to perform are process steps to be performed by a controller, or are just capabilities of a circuit, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 6 further recites “communicate, during the tracking mode, with the at least one microchip in the sprinkler bulb to obtain information related to the sprinkler bulb”. It is unclear from the claim whether the control circuitry is receiving information from the at least one microchip itself, where the microchip acts as a sensor, or whether there are unclaimed sensors in communication with the microchip, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second current". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the second current is being claimed without first claiming a first current, making it unclear whether there are one or two currents.
Claim 7 recites “The system as claimed in claim 5”. The preamble in claim 5 is a sprinkler head, not a system, making it unclear whether claim 7 is meant to depend from dependent claim 5, or independent claim 6, which does comprise a system.
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected based upon their dependency upon claim 6.
Claims 10 and 15 recite the limitation “receiving absence of response”. It is unclear whether the control circuitry is receiving a response indicating an absence, or whether the control circuitry is not receiving a response at all, rendering the claim vague and indefinite. The claim language as written makes it unclear how the control circuitry receives a response that it is not receiving.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the fire event". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depends from claim 6, which does not recite a fire event. Claim 10, which claim 13 does not depend from, recites a fire event, making it unclear whether “the fire event” is meant to be a fire event, or whether claim 13 is supposed to depend from claim 10, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 14 is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 13.
Claims 17-20 are rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 15.
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.
Claims 6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krutskevych 2021/0299501 in view of DeNunzio 2021/0291001.
In regards to Independent Claim 6, Krutskevych teaches a fire detection system (200) comprising: a sprinkler head (sprinkler 40) comprising: a sprinkler body (components shown holding the ends of the sprinkler bulb 210 in figure 2); and a frangible sprinkler bulb (210) connected to the sprinkler body (connected between components of sprinkler body as shown in figure 2), the frangible sprinkler bulb comprising: a cylindrical wall (outer wall of 210 is shown as cylindrical in figure 2); a resistive heater (resistor shown diagrammatically within heating element 310 in figure 3); and at least one microchip (control unit 306) and at least one diode operationally connected in series to the resistive heater (diode shown diagrammatically within 308 in figure 3, where the diode is in series with the resistor shown giving off heat within 310, paragraph [0044]), the at least one microchip and the at least one diode connected in parallel to each other (as shown in figure 3, power leaves transistor within 304 and branches between line with diode in 308 and to control unit 306, such that the diode and control unit are parallel, additionally there are multiple loops and directions of flow shown in figure 3, such that components can be either in parallel or series depending upon the direction of flow); and a control circuitry (304 acts as control circuitry) configured to: communicate, during the tracking mode, with the at least one microchip in the sprinkler bulb to obtain information related to the sprinkler bulb (304 provided power to 306 and temperature sensor in figure 3, such that the temperature is measured), wherein the information comprises at least one of a location of the sprinkler bulb, a temperature of a region surrounding the sprinkler bulb (temperature sensor 312 measures temperature in the bulb, which is reflective of the temperature outside the bulb, paragraph [0046]), smoke particulate density of the region surrounding the sprinkler bulb, and a resistance of the resistor; and communicate, during the releasing mode, with the at least one microchip in the sprinkler bulb to trigger the second current based on the determined resistance of the resistive track (304 provides power to control unit 306, which controls heating of resistor in heating element 310, which heats the fluid within the bulb 210, paragraph [0043], where it is not claimed that the releasing mode is breaking the bulb). However, Krutskevych does not teach that the resistor is a helical track embedded in the cylindrical wall. DeNunzio teaches a frangible bulb (14) of a sprinkler head (10) with a helical resistive track (134 in figure 2, paragraph [0044]) embedded into the cylindrical wall (134 embedded in wall defined by coating 138 in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to replace the resistive heater of Krutskevych with a helical resistive strip in the wall of the bulb, as taught by DeNunzio, in order to evenly heat the fluid within the bulb when a gas bubble is present in the fluid within the bulb (see paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Krutskevych in view of DeNunzio teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Krutskevych further teaches the releasing mode is triggered based on the control circuitry receiving an input (control unit 306 sends data out to 304, and receives data from temperature sensor 312, where the limitation based on does not limit only the control circuitry as receiving the input from a sensor that would trigger heating element 310).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Krutskevych in view of DeNunzio teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Krutskevych further teaches the releasing mode is triggered based on the control circuitry (304, via providing power to 306) identifying the obtained information exceeding at least one predefined criteria (controlling heating element based upon a threshold temperature, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Krutskevych in view of DeNunzio teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Krutskevych further teaches the control circuitry (304, through application of power to 306) is further configured to detect a fire event based on the control circuitry receiving absence of response from the at least one microchip (306) during the tracking mode (absence of sprinkler identification codes, in this case, the microchip within the bulb, are indicative that the sprinkler is active and a fire event is present, paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Krutskevych in view of DeNunzio teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Krutskevych further teaches the tracking mode is triggered periodically at predefined intervals (time interval of monitoring shown in figure 4, where values are measured at each instant, and the actual interval is not claimed and can be limited by the system collecting the data, paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Krutskevych in view of DeNunzio teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Krutskevych further teaches that the tracking mode is triggered based on the control circuitry receiving an input (temperature sensor 312 sends signal to 306, which outputs signal to 304, where the tracking mode is also active when a power input is sent to 304).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Krutskevych in view of DeNunzio teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Krutskevych further teaches the control circuitry is further configured to generate a notification on a computing device based on at least one of triggering of the releasing mode and detection of the fire event (304 enables transmission of notification to a device, which can include a computing device, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Krutskevych in view of DeNunzio teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Krutskevych further teaches the notification is one of an audio notification, a visual notification, an audio-visual notification, and a haptic notification (notification includes measured values or sprinkler bulb identifier, where the notification would need to be seen or heard to convey the information to a user, paragraph [0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1, a frangible sprinkler bulb with a tracking mode, where a first current flows from a first terminal to a second terminal sequentially through the resistive track and the at least one microchip, and wherein, in a releasing mode, a second current flows from the second terminal to the first terminal sequentially through the at least one diode and the resistive track.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752