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 1-9 and 12-20 are pending and claims, claims 10-11 are cancelled, and claims 1-9, 12-15, and 20 are amended.
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) 1-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHASHI (JP 5734231 B2) in view of Wertsberger (U.S. 2018/0200552).
With respect to claims 1 and 15, Takahashi discloses a fire suppression system and a fire suppression method (figure 1), comprising:
a sprinkler system (3b, such that the zone is activated by a fire signal being received from a fire zone, paragraph 0012-0014) to protect a target zone (zone covered by 3b), the EAS interlock system comprising:
a controller (control panel 10) communicably coupled with a first detector (8a) and a second detector (8b), the first detector disposed in an area outside the target zone (being the zone of 3a) and the second detector disposed inside the target zone (the zone of 3b), the controller to:
receive an input signal from the first detector indicating an event occurred prior to or in an absence of receipt of an input signal from the second detector indicating the event occurred (paragraph 0042, a fire detected by 8a); and
provide, responsive to receipt of the input signal from the first detector indicating the event occurred (paragraph 0042), a hold command to at least temporarily inhibit a sprinkler inside the target zone from actuation based on receipt of the input signal from the first detector prior to or in the absence of receipt of the input signal from the second detector (being the timer hold, paragraphs 0016, 0043, and 0077, where the fire suppression starts activation of 3a, and holds the activation of 3b). Takahashi fails to disclose the sprinkler system is an electronically activated sprinkler interlock system or providing , responsive to receipt of the second input signal from the second detector subsequent to the receipt of the first input signal and the provision of the hold command, a command to at least one of reset the hold command or override the hold command.
Wertsberger, paragraphs 0113-0118, disclose the use of an electrically activated sprinkler where the controller actuates the sprinkler where the sprinkler can be activated from sensors that have sensed the fire events and utilize electrically actuated actuators to open the sprinkler based on the controller and sensed data. Wertsberger further discloses, paragraph 0096, discloses a controller utilizing a first sensor sending a first signal (being that of identified fire at 315) but further discloses using a second sensor in the region that caused the first fire event, where verification of the fire event is done to prevent nuisance tripping and “only if there are no secondary indication of a fire the event may be discarded or a person may be alerted to further investigate the cause of the alarm. Yet another example for additional verification may be to check for a temporary condition, such as if work which would likely cause a false alarm is performed in the region. Methods and requirements of a single or double interlock may also be employed.”
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 electronically activated sprinklers as disclosed by Wertsberger along with the second sensor for verification of the fire into the system of Takahashi, as this would allow for a sprinkler system with a verification check that there actually is a fire and a means for alerting a user when a false alarm is set off by the system (and no actual fire is present even when a first fire detector indicates that it has identified a fire). This combination is understood that between the first identified fire and that of the second indication the system is effectively being on hold, and that such hold is broken by the verification (or no verification) of the second indication, where the system either is reset (as in no fire is detected and a user is notified of a false alarm) or is “overridden” such that the system activated and the sprinklers open. The claimed “hold command” is being understood as the delay between the identification of the first fire and that of the secondary indication coupled with the timer that is present in Takashi, where when the system first detects a fire the timer starts, and if no verification is done between the first indication and that of the second indication then the system would “reset” and notify a user that there was a false alarm, or the effective hold would be “overridden” such that the system activated if a second indication occurs in the given time.
With respect to claims 2 and 16, Takahashi as modified discloses the controller to provide the hold command to the second detector (such that it applies the hold and timer to the second subsystem being that of 3b with 8b), the second detector communicably coupled with the sprinkler inside the target zone (figure 1), the second detector to provide the hold command to the sprinkler (in conjunction with that of the controller 10, where the detector is communicably coupled to the sprinkler via the controller and thus provides the hold command such that it detects a fire after 3a’s fire).
With respect to claims 3 and 17, Takahashi as modified discloses the controller to provide the hold command to the sprinkler inside the target zone (being provided by 10).
With respect to claim 4, Takahashi as modified discloses the first detector and the second detector are smoke detectors (paragraph 0025).
With respect to claim 5, Takahashi as modified discloses the EAS interlock system is a first EAS system (that of 3b); a second EAS system to protect the area outside the target zone (3a, being outside the target zone in a different zone).
With respect to claim 6, Takahashi as modified discloses a non-electronically activated sprinkler system to protect the area outside the target zone (where the sprinklers in 3a can also be opened via heat from the fire, paragraph 0060, paragraphs 0073 further discloses other independent fire extinguishing facility’s which would also be controlled by the control panel 10 as different zones, essentially duplicating the claimed zone to a second area that has the thermal sprinklers and not the now modified electronically activated sprinklers).
With respect to claim 7, Takahashi as modified discloses a barrier that defines a perimeter of the target zone (being the outer walls of the room that the defines the target zones outer most perimeter on its sides boarded by said wall).
With respect to claim 8, Takahashi as modified discloses the second detector communicably coupled with the sprinkler inside the target zone (via the controller 10); the controller, responsive to receipt of the input signal from the first detector indicating the event occurred prior to receipt of the input signal from the second detector indicating the event occurred, to provide the hold command to the second detector to at least temporarily inhibit the sprinkler from actuation (via the timer, paragraphs 0043 and 0051).
With respect to claim 9, Takahashi as modified discloses the second detector communicably coupled with the sprinkler inside the target zone (via the controller); the controller (10), responsive to receipt of the input signal from the first detector indicating the event occurred in the absence of receipt of the input signal from the second detector indicating the event occurred (where there is a fire detected by 3a and not 3b), to provide the hold command to the second detector to at least temporarily inhibit the sprinkler from actuation (as the second detector would be held from start activation of the sprinklers via the controller till the timer went off if it did or did not send a detection signal).
With respect to claim 10, Takahashi as modified discloses the hold command, to inhibit the sprinkler from actuation until the fire suppression system resets, the fire suppression system resets upon at least one of a passing of a predetermined amount of time from receipt of the input signal from the first detector (as disclosed being a timer), the first detector indicating no event is occurring in the area outside the target zone (as no fire being sensed no activation would occur), and the second detector indicating no event is occurring in the target zone (if no fire is being sensed no activation would occur).
With respect to claim 11, Takahashi as modified discloses the hold command (by the timer), to inhibit the sprinkler from actuation until the fire suppression system resets (after the given timer elapses), the fire suppression system resets upon a passing of a predetermined amount of time since receipt of the input signal from the first detector (paragraphs 0046, 0051, 0077), the first detector indicating no event is occurring in the area outside the target zone, and the second detector indicating no event is occurring in the target zone (understood that the timer goes off, but the fire is put out, which indicated no further signal of a detected fire and no application of fluid as no further fire is being sensed requiring 3b to open its sprinklers to the fire).
With respect to claim 12, Takahashi as modified discloses the controller (10), responsive to receiving the input signal from the second detector (that there is a fire), to provide a second hold command to continue to inhibit the sprinkler inside the target zone from actuation (the hold command via the timer).
With respect to claim 13, Takahashi as modified discloses the controller (10), responsive to receiving the input signal from the second detector, to provide a second command to override the hold command and actuate the sprinkler disposed inside the target zone (paragraph 0060, where the noted heat of the fire opens a sprinkler head in 3b, then the heat would dictate that the sprinkler should open immediately due to the fire being at the sprinkler itself, or in the instance of paragraphs 0065-0066, where the fire is on the boundary between the zones then no hold command would occur as both would happen at almost the same time).
With respect to claim 14, Takahashi as modified discloses the controller (10), responsive to receiving a first input signal from the second detector (such as the detection of fire by 8b), to provide a second hold command to continue to inhibit the sprinkler inside the target zone (in the instance that 8a detected a fire first, as shown in paragraphs 0042-0043), and responsive to receiving a second input signal from the second detector (such as heat activation of the sprinkler that would open the sprinkler), to provide a third command to override the second hold command and actuate the sprinkler disposed in the target zone (as understood in the combination with Magnone, where the system has a detector that detects a fire, and a fire in an adjacent area, but still has selective individual sprinklers that activated upon heat reaching them, such that, if a fire does spread and hits the sprinkler in 3b that sprinkler still activates independently in the grouping of 3b, paragraphs 0054).
With respect to claim 18, Takashi as modified discloses installing an electronically activated sprinkler system inside the target zone (as disclosed by Magnone).
With respect to claim 19, Takashi as modified discloses interlocking a first electronically activated sprinkler system with a second electronically activated sprinkler system (utilizing the two systems of 3a and 3b together), the first electronically activated sprinkler system to protect the target zone (zone of 3b protected by 3b) and the second electronically activated sprinkler system to protect an area outside the target zone (being the zone of 3a outside the area of 3b).
With respect to claim 20, Takashi as modified by Magnone in the rejection of claims 1-7 has disclosed: A fire suppression system, comprising:
an electronically activated sprinkler (EAS) interlock system to protect a target zone, the EAS interlock system comprising:
a first sprinkler connected with piping, the first sprinkler disposed in the target zone;
a first detector disposed in an area outside the target zone; and
a second detector disposed in the target zone, the second detector communicably coupled with the first sprinkler;
a non-electronically activated sprinkler (non-EAS) system to protect the area outside the target zone, the non-EAS system comprising: a second sprinkler connected with the piping, the second sprinkler disposed in the area outside the target zone;
a barrier to define a perimeter of the target zone; and
a controller communicably coupled with the first detector and the second detector; the controller to:
receive an input signal from the first detector indicating an event occurred prior to or in an absence of receipt of an input signal from the second detector indicating the event occurred; and
provide, responsive to receipt of the input signal from the first detector indicating the event occurred, a hold command to at least temporarily inhibit the first sprinkler from actuation based on receipt of the input signal from the first detector prior to or in the absence of receipt of the input signal from the second detector.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (03/23/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-9 and 12-20 are pending and claims, claims 10-11 are cancelled, and claims 1-9, 12-15, and 20 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome the prior rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (01/14/2026).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the previous rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the above combination of TAKAHASHI (JP 5734231 B2) in view of Wertsberger (U.S. 2018/0200552). Yamada discloses “ The control unit 10d of the fire fighting system control panel 10 compares the required standby time registered and stored in the standby time setting unit 10j with the fire extinguishing operation elapsed time, and the fire extinguishing operation elapsed time becomes the required standby time. If not, even if a new fire signal is received by the fire signal receiving unit 10a and a new fire zone is recognized, the decision to hold and pause the decision to send the start signal to the corresponding fire extinguishing system And control so as not to output a new activation signal from the activation signal output unit 10c.” Where such a hold command that pauses the start signal to new systems is being combined with the teachings of Werstberger to be utilized with a second detection by a second detector that there is a fire in that area and during that “hold” time if a signal is detected then open the sprinklers in that area and if not, then an indication of a false alarm in that area that no fire is present. The noted start signal, being the signal sent when the “override” command is understood happening, where the hold is essentially ended when the second verifying signal from a second fire detection event has occurred.
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