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 1-20 are pending and claim 2 is 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 5,881,818) in view of Scheffers (U.S. 2020/0360744) and Hulinsky (U.S. 2022/0362595).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Lee discloses a fire suppression system (title figure 1a), and also shows the method of operating the system comprising (provided below is the apparatus, of which the method is reflective of):
a water line (line 47) providing water from a water supply (19);
a foam concentrate line (line 22/23/14, bringing foam supply to 42 via proportioner 40) providing a fire suppressing foam concentrate from a foam concentrate supply (16);
a ratio flow controller (educator 42) fluidly coupled to each of the water line and the foam concentrate line at respective first and second inlets (as it receives at an inlet water from 47 and foam from 40);
a first bypass line (line flowing through 39) fluidly coupled between the water line and the foam concentrate line (as shown in figure 1a), the first bypass line configured to facilitate a flow of water from the water line at a first position disposed upstream of the first inlet to a second position disposed upstream of the second inlet (as shown in figure 1a); and
a second bypass line (line 55) fluidly coupled to the foam concentrate line at a third position (where 55 meets 23) disposed upstream of the second position (shown in figure 1a), the second bypass line configured to facilitate a flow of foam concentrate from the foam concentrate line through a second orifice into a reservoir (where 55 and 54 drain tank 16 to another location, the place the foam then goes when being drained taken as a “reservoir”), but Lee fails to disclose the ratio flow controller configured to control a ratio of a concentration of water and a concentration of foam concentrate within a water and foam solution flowing from an outlet of the ratio flow controller, wherein the second inlet comprises a first orifice or the second orifice having a same diameter as the first orifice,
Scheffers, figure 3a and paragraphs 0004, 0007 and 0035, discloses the use of the shown proportioner allows for a desired concentration of foam to be passed into the orifice plate based off of a flowrate of water passing, allowing for a desired ratio and concentration to be obtained. Showing that the area of the conduit and inlet can be the same,
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 proportioner of Scheffers into the system of Lee to control the ratio of a concentration of water and that of foam within the system at the proportioner, allowing for the desired amount of concentration to occur.
Furthermore, utilizing the same diameter for each of the first and second orifices, would be understood in Lee as utilizing the same diameter of piping throughout the system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to use the same diameter of conduit in the flow line to the proportioner as well as to the drain or measuring tank, as this would save cost in utilizing just one diameter of piping.
It could further be understood, that Lee fails to specifically disclose the reservoir (although the examiner takes BRI, that Lee does disclose said reservoir).
Hulinsky, figure 1, discloses a bypass from the foam system to a reservoir (measuring tank 36) that enables measuring the volume of the extinguishing agent additive conveyed by the admixing pump 6 over a specific interval of time and comparing it to the—e.g. calculated—volume of extinguishing water flowing through the water motor 2 during the same time interval. This enables monitoring adherence to the desired admixture rate (paragraphs 0067-0069).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the bypass line going into a measuring tank such as disclosed by Hulinsky into the system of Lee, doing so would enable measuring the volume of the extinguishing agent additive conveyed by the admixing pump over a specific interval of time and comparing it to the—e.g. calculated—volume of extinguishing water flowing through the water motor during the same time interval. This enables monitoring adherence to the desired admixture rate.
With respect to claim 2, Lee as modified discloses a first isolation valve (39) disposed within the first bypass line; a second isolation valve (54, which in Hulinsky is 34) disposed within the second bypass line; and a third isolation valve (the valve 38) disposed within the foam concentration line upstream of the first position (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 3, Lee as modified discloses the flow of water through the first bypass line is metered by the first isolation valve (as shown in figure 1a).
With respect to claim 4, Lee as modified discloses the flow of foam concentrate through the second bypass line is metered by the second isolation valve (as shown by 54, or valves 34/37 of Hulinsky).
With respect to claim 5, Lee as modified discloses the third isolation valve is configured to selectively prevent foam concentrate from flowing from the foam concentrate line through the second inlet (as closing 38 prevents foam from flowing to 40/42).
With respect to claim 6, Lee as modified discloses a pressure regulating valve (37 of Hulinsky) disposed within the second bypass line downstream of the second isolation valve and the second orifice (taking 34 to be the isolation valve, see figure 1 of Hulinsky), the pressure regulating valve being configured to adjust a pressure of the flow of foam concentrate through the second bypass line (being a counterpressure valve).
With respect to claims 7 and 12, Lee as modified discloses a differential pressure across the second orifice as regulated by the pressure regulating valve (valve 37 if Hulinsky) is substantially equal to a pressure differential across the first orifice of the ratio flow controller (allowing the flow to be a ratio between the main line and that of the measuring tank the additive is going into, see paragraphs 0065-0069), the flow of foam concentrate through the second bypass line mimics a flow of the foam concentrate through the second inlet (paragraphs 0065-0069, allowing the measuring tank to reflect that being added in and mixed with the water flow).
With respect to claim 9, Lee as modified discloses the foam, but fails to disclose specifically the foam concentrate is non-fluorinated. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a non-fluorinated foam concentrate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07)
With respect to claim 10, Lee as modified discloses the foam concentrate is fluorinated (column1 rows 50-55).
With respect to claim 13, Lee as modified discloses comprising matching the differential pressure of the flow of foam concentrate through the second orifice within the second bypass line to a differential pressure across the first orifice within the ratio flow controller (0066-0069 of Hulinsky discloses measuring the volume of the extinguishing agent additive conveyed to the mixing pump using the measuring tank 36, to do so would require the pressure and flow must be synchronized (paragraph 0064) to allow for the correct volumetric ratio to be determined).
With respect to claim 14, Lee as modified discloses determining a flow rate through at least one of the first orifice or the second orifice (Hulinsky, paragraphs 0064-0069, discloses synchronizing the flow rates, which would require determining the flow rate at the second orifice, such that it can be synchronized).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 5,881,818) in view of Scheffers (U.S. 2020/0360744) and Hulinsky (U.S. 2022/0362595)., as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rowe (U.S 6,086,052).
With respect to claim 8, Lee as modified discloses the use of a pressure regulating valve, but fails to disclose the pressure regulating valve is at least one of a diaphragm valve or a globe valve.
Rowe, figure 10, column 7 row 57-8 row 8, discloses a pressure regulator is known to use a diaphragm to prevent unwanted fluid flow back through the system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a diaphragm valve as the pressure regulating as shown by Rowe, as such valves prevent unwanted backflow of fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 allowed. Claims 15-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 15 the prior art fails to disclose “determining a pressure differential across the at least one of the first orifice or the second orifice; determining a pressure factor, the pressure factor corresponding to a product of a square root of the pressure differential, an orifice coefficient, a square of a diameter of at least one of the first orifice or the second orifice, and a flow rate constant; determining the flow rate corresponding to the pressure factor from a reference repository.” Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to disclose “determining a pressure differential across the orifice; determining a pressure factor, based on the pressure differential; and determining the flow rate corresponding to the pressure factor from a reference repository as it further modifies the rest of the claim.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that that Scheffers fails to disclose the ratio flow controller configured to control a ratio of a concentration of water and a concentration of foam concentrate within a water and foam solution flowing from an outlet of the ratio flow controller, wherein the second inlet comprises a first orifice or the second orifice having a same diameter as the first orifice. Lee discloses an educator at 42 where the foam and water combines, but does not specifically disclose controlling the concentration of each flowing through it nor the size of the first and second orifices claimed. The examiner disagrees that such elements are not taught by Scheffers. The combination was utilizing a proportioner such as taught by Scheffers to where the educator of Lee is located. The educator of Lee is being used to mix the water and foam together (shown in figure 1, lines 10-25), and the proportioner of Scheffers is also being used to mix (paragraph 0028). The system of Lee utilizes a fixed proportioner at 40, utilizing a fixed plate and fixed percent flow rate going to the mixing at the educator 42 (column 3 row 50 through column 4 row 6). The combination was replacing the educator that does the mixing itself in Lee with a mixing Proportioner such as Scheffers, as Scheffers teaches not only doing the mixing but also for a desired concentration of foam to be passed through the orifice plate based off of the flowrate of water passing. The system of Lee will have a set proportioned amount of foam flowing from 40, that is then further modified at the now proportioner replacing 42 to get a more desired ratio of the concentration based on the flow of water through the system. The combination could have also been made replacing both 40 and 42 with the single proportioner of Scheffers. The rejection was made that Lee failed to disclose the ratio flow controller configured to control a ratio of a concentration of water and a concentration of foam concentrate within a water and foam solution flowing from an outlet of the ratio flow controller, and that Scheffers discloses utilizing a proportioner that has a mixing section to obtain such a concentration of foam and water.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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