DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the sprinkler bulb” is believed to be in error for --the frangible sprinkler bulb--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “control controller the information” is believed to be in error for --controller identifying the information--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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 controller 306, such that the diode and control unit are in 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 controller (304) configured to: communicate, during a 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); and communicate, during a releasing mode, with the at least one microchip in the sprinkler bulb to trigger a second current based on a determined resistance of the resistive heater (304 provides power to controller 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 breaks the bulb). However, Krutskevych does not teach that the resistive heater is a resistive track is embedded in the cylindrical wall in a pattern comprising at least one of a serpentine pattern, a periodic waveform pattern, a waveform pattern, and a helical pattern. DeNunzio teaches a frangible blub (14) of a sprinkler head (10) with a helical resistive track (134 in figure 2, paragraph [0044]) embed 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 (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 controller 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 controller (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 controller (304, through application of power to 306) is further configured to detect a fire event based on the controller failing to receive a 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 controller 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 and 15-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amendment of claim 7 into claim 6 does not make claim 6 allowable because claim 7 depended from claim 5 in the claims filed 12/19/2023. DeNunzio relied upon in the rejection of claim 6 in the action mailed 1/26/2026 and in the rejection of claim 6 above, teaches that the resistive track is in a helical pattern (paragraph [0044]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights