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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group 1 and species 1 in the reply filed on 2/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the different inventions can be searched simultaneously. This is not found persuasive because of the mutually distinct areas of search set forth in the restriction requirement where both the vertical and horizontal sprinklers must be searched separately in addition to the method and the apparatus, furthermore, notwithstanding the increased scope of the claims to be individually examined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 29-56 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group of a method of using a fire protection system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/13/2026
Examiners notes
Application uses the language “nominally” and “approximately”, however, these are not being interpreted under 112b, as approximately is defined in the specification as being within manufacturing tolerances, while nominally is being used to refer to a discharge pressure, and nominal discharge pressure is a known term in the art used to define the maximum pressure that a pipe system can produce.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the horizontal shelf of the deflector being angled at 20 degrees or up to 45 degrees must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Par 149, 150, 177 and 178 state that the angle of the horizontal shelf is approximately 20 degrees and 45 degrees relative to the vertical face, however, the specification states that it is 45 degrees relative to the second arm portion and downward at 20 degrees (which would be 70 degrees relative to the vertical face) and thus it appears to be a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, and claim 3, line 2 “at least one of class 1 to class 4” should read “at least one of class 1 to class 4 commodities”
Claim 1, line 9: “the fire protection fluid” should read “a fire protection fluid from the source of fire protection fluid”.
Claim 3, line 1: “wherein the storage area” should read “wherein the one or more commodities”
Claim 12, line 15 “ambient temperature” should read “an ambient temperature”
Claims 13 and 14 “activation temperature” refers to the same temperature as “predetermined temperature”.
Claim 16, line 1 “a discharge pressure” should read “the discharge pressure”
Claim 21, line 2 “sprinklers is” should read “sprinklers are”
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 19 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19, “the horizontal shelf of the deflector is angled at an angle of approximately 20 degrees with respect to the vertical face” appears to be a typo, as par. 0090 describes the shelf as being angled downward 20 degrees, which would be 70 degrees relative to the vertical face.
Claim 20, “the horizontal shelf of the deflector is angled at an angle up to 45° with respect to the vertical face” appears to be a typo, as par. 0090 describes the shelf as forming a 45 degree angle with the second arms that hold it in place and an angle of 20 degrees. And a horizontal shelf would not be a horizontal shelf if it was less than 45 degrees away from a vertical face.
Both claims 19 and 20 will be rejected as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Multer (10272274).
Regarding claim 1, Multer discloses a fire protection sprinkler system for a storage area (col 1, lines 5-10) for one or more commodities including at least one of Class I to Class IV, Group A cartoned unexpanded plastic commodities, or high energy commodities (this represents intended use of the storage area, thus the storage must merely be capable of storing the commodities claimed, which they are as they are storage areas for commodities), the storage area having one or more racks (108, fig 5) that each include one or more bays (areas holding 102, fig 5), the fire protection sprinkler system comprising: (A) a piping network (154, fig 5) supplied by a source of fire protection fluid (they supply fire protection fluid to the sprinklers, thus would have a source of said fluid) provided at the storage area; and (B) a plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers (col 9, lines 30-35), each of the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers having a K-factor of 11.2 gpm/(psi)1/2 or greater (col 8, lines 60-67) and being positioned horizontally at a perimeter of the one or more racks (fig 6, the fire sprinkler is at an edge between two of the racks) to direct the fire protection fluid into the one or more bays, each of the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers including a deflector (148, fig 6), the deflector being configured to distribute the fire protection fluid to a coverage area of the storage area (this is the purpose of a sprinkler deflector).
Regarding claim 2, Multer discloses wherein the high energy commodities include Lithium-ion batteries (this represents intended use of the storage space, the storage space is capable of being used to hold it and thus meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Multer discloses wherein the storage area includes the high energy commodities and at least one of the Class I to Class IV or Group A cartoned unexpanded plastic commodities (this represents intended use of the storage space, the storage space is capable of being used to hold it and thus meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Multer discloses wherein the one or more racks are spaced at an aisle width of three feet to four feet (col 11, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Multer discloses wherein the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers are spaced from the one or more commodities at a deflector-to-commodity clearance of at least three inches (col 7, lines 45-51).
Regarding claim 6, Multer discloses wherein the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers are spaced laterally from each other at a lateral sprinkler spacing in a range from eighteen inches to ten feet (col 6, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 7, Multer discloses wherein the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers are spaced vertically from each other at a vertical sprinkler spacing in a range from two feet to ten feet (col 10, lines 1-8, about 10 feet includes the areas just below and at 10 feet thus falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, Multer discloses wherein the piping network is located entirely outside of the one or more racks (116, fig 5, the conduit is shown in front of the racks not passing through them).
Regarding claim 9, Multer discloses wherein the one or more bays include a bay width of eighteen inches to eight feet (col 6, lines 20-25, each rack being about 8 feet long falls within the range of up to 8 feet).
Regarding claim 10, Multer discloses wherein the one or more racks include a storage depth of eighteen inches to eight feet (col 7, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 11, Multer discloses wherein each of the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers provides coverage to an entirety of a bay width and a storage depth of the one or more racks (fig 5, there is one sprinkler per bay and thus one sprinkler cover the entirety of a bay and thus would cover the entire bay width).
Regarding claim 13, Multer discloses wherein an activation temperature of the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers is from one hundred fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit to three hundred sixty degrees Fahrenheit (155 °F to 360 °F) (col 12, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 14, Multer discloses wherein the activation temperature of the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers is two hundred twelve degrees Fahrenheit (212 °F) (col 12, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 15, Multer discloses wherein a discharge pressure of the fire protection fluid from the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers is seven pounds per square inch (7 psi) to one hundred fifteen pounds per square inch (115 psi) (col 12, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 21, Multer discloses wherein the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers is positioned above the one or more commodities (fig 5).
Regarding claim 22, Multer discloses wherein the deflector of each of the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers is positioned above the one or more commodities (fig 5).
Regarding claim 23, Multer discloses one or more vertical barriers between the one or more bays of the one or more racks (col 7, lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 24, Multer discloses wherein the one or more vertical barriers are spaced horizontally from each other at a vertical barrier spacing of eighteen inches to ten feet (col 7, lines 14-25, the vertical barriers can be spaced between racks which can be spaced by 4-8 feet apart from each other).
Regarding claim 25, Multer discloses wherein the one or more vertical barriers are spaced horizontally from each other at a vertical barrier spacing of six feet (col 7, lines 14-25, the vertical barriers can be spaced between racks which can be spaced by 4-8 feet apart from each other).
Regarding claim 26, Multer discloses further including one or more horizontal barriers between rows of the one or more racks (col 6, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 27, Multer discloses wherein the one or more horizontal barriers are spaced vertically from each other at a horizontal barrier spacing of two feet to ten feet (col 8, lines 5-15, about 10 feet falls within the range of 2 to 10).
Regarding claim 28, Multer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more horizontal barriers are spaced vertically from each other at a horizontal barrier spacing of six feet. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the horizontal barriers be spaced at 6 foot increments, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multer.
Regarding claim 16, Multer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a discharge pressure of the fire protection fluid from the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers is nominally twenty-nine pounds per square inch (29 psi) (col 12, lines 35-40, the pressure is 30 PSI). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the nominal pressure 29 psi instead of 30, since it has been held that 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Claims 12, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multer in view of Meyer (8151897).
Regarding claims 12, 17, 18, and 20, Multer does not disclose the structure of the sprinkler body.
Meyer teaches a horizontal sprinkler with a K factor of greater than 11.2 (col 3, lines 45-55) wherein each of the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers comprises: (a) a body including (10, fig 1): (i) an inlet orifice (14, fig 1) at an input end (side near 14, fig 1) of the body, an outer surface (15, fig 1) of the input end configured to connect to the piping network; (ii) an outlet orifice (part blocked by 30, fig 1) at an output end (side near 11, fig 1)of the body; and (iii) an axial fluid flow passage (13, fig 1) that extends between the outlet orifice and the inlet orifice; (b) a seal cap (30, fig 1) that seals the outlet orifice; (c) a first frame arm (22, fig 1) and a second frame arm (24, fig 1) that extend from opposite sides of the output end of the body and meet at a hub (26, fig 1) positioned downstream of the outlet orifice and extend along a fluid flow axis (A, fig 1), the first frame arm and the second frame arm forming a plane (fig 1, plane parallel to the paper); (d) a thermally responsive element (38, fig 1) positioned between the hub and the seal cap, the thermally responsive element being configured (1) to hold the seal cap in the outlet orifice, and (2) to release the seal cap when ambient temperature reaches a predetermined temperature (this is the function of the element 38, to break at a certain temperature and release flow after breaking); and (e) the deflector mounted to the hub (40, fig 1), wherein the deflector of each of the plurality of horizontal sidewall sprinklers comprises a horizontal shelf (44, fig 4, Meyer) and a vertical face (42, fig 3, Meyer), and wherein the horizontal shelf of the deflector is angled to direct the fire protection fluid downwards with respect to the vertical face towards the one or more commodities (fig 3, the angle is flat, so as the water splashes upward and hits the deflector it will be directed back down to the commodities underneath, Meyer), and the horizontal shelf forming an angle of up to 45 degrees (angle A, annotated fig below, the angle is below 45 degrees) with respect to a second arm portion (52)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the horizontal sprinklers disclosed by Multer by using the sprinklers of Meyer based on the teachings of Meyer. Doing so would allow the sidewall sprinklers to handle larger coverage than traditional sidewall sprinklers (col 1, lines 24-28), as suggested by Meyer
PNG
media_image1.png
424
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multer as modified by Meyer as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Sato (6098718).
Regarding claim 19, Multer as modified by Meyer does not disclose wherein the horizontal shelf of the deflector is angled at an angle of approximately 20° with respect to the vertical face.
Sato teaches a horizontal sprinkler head (10, fig 1) wherein the horizontal shelf deflector (88, fig 1) is angled downward at an angle of between 1 and 30 degrees (col 2, lines 5-10), of which 20 degrees is a subset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deflector angle disclosed by Multer as modified by Meyer by having an angle of 20 degrees based on the teachings of Sato. Doing so would assure optimal distribution of the fire extinguishing liquid below the sprinkler head (col 1, lines 45-51), as suggested by Sato.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights