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 .
Drawings
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 outer support conduit forms at least a portion of the second tube (Claim 7, 16), a portion of the second tube is retained within the outer support conduit (Claim 8) 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 6, line 2; claim 15, line 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a fire” should be - -the fire- -. 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gastonides et al (US 20110048747 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026) in view of Wesseloh (US 20230068098 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Wesseloh
Regarding claim 1, Gastonides discloses a system (Figure 1) for suppressing a fire (Paragraph 0018) within a cargo compartment (Figure 1; A, Paragraph 0018) of a vehicle (The aircraft of Paragraph 0003)
Gastonides does not disclose the system comprising:
an outer support conduit having a first diameter; and
a first tube having one or more portions retained within the outer support conduit, the first tube having a second diameter that is less than the first diameter,
wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first portion of a fire suppression agent around the one or more portions of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second portion of the fire suppression agent.
However, Wesseloh teaches a system (Figure 4) for suppressing a fire (Figure 1; 22), the system comprising:
an outer support conduit (Annotated Figure 4; labeled outer support conduit) having a first diameter (The diameter of the outer support conduit); and
a first tube (Annotated Figure 4; labeled first tube) having one or more portions (The portion of the first tube within the outer support conduit) retained within the outer support conduit (The portion of the first tube in the outer support conduit), the first tube having a second diameter (The diameter of the first tube) that is less than the first diameter,
wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first portion (The fire suppression agent from Figure 4; 24) of a fire suppression agent (The fire suppression agent from Figure 4; 42, 24) around the one or more portions of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second portion (The fire suppression agent from Figure 4; 42) of the fire suppression agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides to include an outer support conduit having a first diameter; and a first tube having one or more portions retained within the outer support conduit, the first tube having a second diameter that is less than the first diameter, wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first portion of a fire suppression agent around the one or more portions of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second portion of the fire suppression agent as taught by and suggested by Wesseloh in order to discharge a large liquid flow (Paragraph 0118, The modification uses outer support conduit and first tube of Wesseloh in Gastonides).
Regarding claim 2, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses the vehicle is an aircraft (The aircraft is a vehicle).
Regarding claim 3 (Please note that this uses a first interpretation of the prior art and unless otherwise stated dependent claims use the first interpretation), Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses a first tank (A first instance of Figure 1; 24) in fluid communication with a first tube (The line connecting the first instance of Figure 1; 24 to 23);
a second tank (A second instance of Figure 1; 24) in fluid communication with a second tube (The line connecting the second instance of Figure 1; 24 to 23).
Gastonides does not disclose a first tank in fluid communication with the first tube, wherein the first tank is configured to retain the second portion of the fire suppression agent; and
a second tube in fluid communication with the outer support conduit; and
a second tank in fluid communication with the second tube, wherein the second tank is configured to retain the first portion of the fire suppression agent.
However, Wesseloh teaches a first tank (Figure 4; 42) in fluid communication with the first tube, wherein the first tank is configured to retain the second portion of the fire suppression agent; and
a second tube (Annotated Figure 4; labeled second tube. The outer support conduit is any portion of Annotated Figure 4; labeled second tube) in fluid communication with the outer support conduit; and
a second tank (Figure 4; 24) in fluid communication with the second tube, wherein the second tank is configured to retain the first portion of the fire suppression agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides to include a first tank in fluid communication with the first tube, wherein the first tank is configured to retain the second portion of the fire suppression agent; and a second tube in fluid communication with the outer support conduit; and a second tank in fluid communication with the second tube, wherein the second tank is configured to retain the first portion of the fire suppression agent as taught by and suggested by Wesseloh in order to discharge a large liquid flow (Paragraph 0118, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses a first valve (Figure 1; 26 for the first tube) on or within the first tube; and
a second valve (Figure 1; 26 for the second tube) on or within the second tube.
Regarding claim 5, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses a control unit (Figure 1; 34) in communication with the first valve and the second valve, wherein the control unit is configured to control operation of the first valve and the second valve (Functional Language, Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 6, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses one or more sensors (Figure 1; 52 for A) configured to detect the fire (Functional Language, Paragraph 0017), wherein the control unit is in communication the one or more sensors (Functional Language, Paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 7, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses wherein the outer support conduit forms at least a portion of the second tube (The portion of the second tube formed by the outer support conduit).
Regarding claim 13, Gastonides discloses an aircraft (The aircraft of Paragraph 0003) comprising:
a cargo compartment (Figure 1; A, Paragraph 0018); and
a system (Figure 1) for suppressing a fire (Paragraph 0018) within the cargo compartment.
Gastonides does not disclose the system comprising:
an outer support conduit having a first diameter; and
a first tube having one or more portions retained within the outer support conduit, the first tube having a second diameter that is less than the first diameter,
wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first portion of a fire suppression agent around the one or more portions of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second portion of the fire suppression agent.
However, Wesseloh teaches a system (Figure 4) for suppressing a fire (Figure 1; 22), the system comprising:
an outer support conduit (Annotated Figure 4; labeled outer support conduit) having a first diameter (The diameter of the outer support conduit); and
a first tube (Annotated Figure 4; labeled first tube) having one or more portions (The portion of the first tube within the outer support conduit) retained within the outer support conduit (The portion of the first tube in the outer support conduit), the first tube having a second diameter (The diameter of the first tube) that is less than the first diameter,
wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first portion (The fire suppression agent from Figure 4; 24) of a fire suppression agent (The fire suppression agent from Figure 4; 42, 24) around the one or more portions of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second portion (The fire suppression agent from Figure 4; 42) of the fire suppression agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides to include an outer support conduit having a first diameter; and a first tube having one or more portions retained within the outer support conduit, the first tube having a second diameter that is less than the first diameter, wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first portion of a fire suppression agent around the one or more portions of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second portion of the fire suppression agent as taught by and suggested by Wesseloh in order to discharge a large liquid flow (Paragraph 0118, The modification uses outer support conduit and first tube of Wesseloh in Gastonides).
Regarding claim 14, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses a first tank (A first instance of Figure 1; 24) in fluid communication with a first tube (The line connecting the first instance of Figure 1; 24 to 23);
a second tank (A second instance of Figure 1; 24) in fluid communication with a second tube (The line connecting the second instance of Figure 1; 24 to 23);
a first valve (Figure 1; 26 for the first tube) on or within the first tube; and
a second valve (Figure 1; 26 for the second tube) on or within the second tube.
Gastonides does not disclose a first tank in fluid communication with the first tube, wherein the first tank is configured to retain the second portion of the fire suppression agent; and
a second tube in fluid communication with the outer support conduit; and
a second tank in fluid communication with the second tube, wherein the second tank is configured to retain the first portion of the fire suppression agent.
However, Wesseloh teaches a first tank (Figure 4; 42) in fluid communication with the first tube, wherein the first tank is configured to retain the second portion of the fire suppression agent; and
a second tube (Annotated Figure 4; labeled second tube. The outer support conduit is any portion of Annotated Figure 4; labeled second tube) in fluid communication with the outer support conduit; and
a second tank (Figure 4; 24) in fluid communication with the second tube, wherein the second tank is configured to retain the first portion of the fire suppression agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides to include a first tank in fluid communication with the first tube, wherein the first tank is configured to retain the second portion of the fire suppression agent; and a second tube in fluid communication with the outer support conduit; and a second tank in fluid communication with the second tube, wherein the second tank is configured to retain the first portion of the fire suppression agent as taught by and suggested by Wesseloh in order to discharge a large liquid flow (Paragraph 0118, This is the same modification as claim 13).
Regarding claim 15, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses a control unit (Figure 1; 34) in communication with the first valve and the second valve, wherein the control unit is configured to control operation of the first valve and the second valve (Functional Language, Paragraph 0014).; and
one or more sensors (Figure 1; 52 for A) configured to detect the fire (Functional Language, Paragraph 0017), wherein the control unit is in communication the one or more sensors (Functional Language, Paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 16, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses wherein the outer support conduit forms at least a portion of the second tube (The portion of the second tube formed by the outer support conduit).
Regarding claim 20, Gastonides discloses a method for a system (Figure 1) for suppressing a fire (Paragraph 0018) within a cargo compartment (Figure 1; A, Paragraph 0018) of a vehicle (The aircraft of Paragraph 0003).
Gastonides does not disclose the system comprising:
an outer support conduit having a first diameter; and
a first tube having one or more portions retained within the outer support conduit, the first tube having a second diameter that is less than the first diameter,
wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first portion of a fire suppression agent around the one or more portions of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second portion of the fire suppression agent,
the method comprising:
delivering the first portion of the fire suppression agent through the outer support conduit around the one or more portions of the first tube; and
delivering the second portion of the fire suppression agent through the first tube.
However, Wesseloh teaches a method for a system (Figure 4), the system comprising:
an outer support conduit (Annotated Figure 4; labeled outer support conduit) having a first diameter (The diameter of the outer support conduit); and
a first tube (Annotated Figure 4; labeled first tube) having one or more portions (The portion of the first tube within the outer support conduit) retained within the outer support conduit (The portion of the first tube in the outer support conduit), the first tube having a second diameter (The diameter of the first tube) that is less than the first diameter,
wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first portion (The fire suppression agent from Figure 4; 24) of a fire suppression agent (The fire suppression agent from Figure 4; 42, 24) around the one or more portions of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second portion (The fire suppression agent from Figure 4; 42) of the fire suppression agent,
the method comprising:
delivering the first portion of the fire suppression agent through the outer support conduit around the one or more portions of the first tube (The first portion through the outer support conduit around the one or more portions of the first tube); and
delivering the second portion of the fire suppression agent through the first tube (The second portion through the first tube).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides to include an outer support conduit having a first diameter; and a first tube having one or more portions retained within the outer support conduit, the first tube having a second diameter that is less than the first diameter, wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first portion of a fire suppression agent around the one or more portions of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second portion of the fire suppression agent, the method comprising: delivering the first portion of the fire suppression agent through the outer support conduit around the one or more portions of the first tube; and delivering the second portion of the fire suppression agent through the first tube as taught by and suggested by Wesseloh in order to discharge a large liquid flow (Paragraph 0118, The modification uses outer support conduit and first tube of Wesseloh in Gastonides).
Claim(s) 3, 8, 11, 12, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gastonides in view of Wesseloh as applied to claim 1, 13 above, and further in view of Parks (US 5423575 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026)
Regarding claim 3 (This uses a second interpretation of the prior art), Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides further discloses a first tank (A first instance of Figure 1; 24) in fluid communication with a first tube (The line connecting the first instance of Figure 1; 24 to 23);
a second tank (A second instance of Figure 1; 24) in fluid communication with a second tube (The line connecting the second instance of Figure 1; 24 to 23).
Gastonides does not disclose a first tank in fluid communication with the first tube, wherein the first tank is configured to retain the second portion of the fire suppression agent; and
a second tube in fluid communication with the outer support conduit; and
a second tank in fluid communication with the second tube, wherein the second tank is configured to retain the first portion of the fire suppression agent.
However, Wesseloh teaches a first tank (Figure 4; 42) in fluid communication with the first tube, wherein the first tank is configured to retain the second portion of the fire suppression agent; and
a second tank (Figure 4; 24), wherein the second tank is configured to retain the first portion of the fire suppression agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides to include a first tank in fluid communication with the first tube, wherein the first tank is configured to retain the second portion of the fire suppression agent; and a second tank, wherein the second tank is configured to retain the first portion of the fire suppression agent as taught by and suggested by Wesseloh in order to discharge a large liquid flow (Paragraph 118, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach a second tube in fluid communication with the outer support conduit.
However, Parks teaches a second tube (Figure 3; 70, 100) in fluid communication with an outer support conduit (Figure 3; 26)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh to include a second tube in fluid communication with the outer support conduit as taught by and suggested by Parks in order to retain and slidably receive a tube (Column 4, lines 20-24, The modification uses the retainer of Parker).
Regarding claim 8 (This uses the second interpretation of the prior art), Gastonides in view of Wesseloh and Parks teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach wherein at least a portion of the second tube is retained within the outer support conduit.
However, Parks teaches a portion of the second tube (The portion of the second tube in the outer support conduit) is retained within the outer support conduit (Figure 2A; 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh wherein at least a portion of the second tube is retained within the outer support conduit as taught by and suggested by Parks in order to retain and slidably receive a tube (Column 4, lines 20-24, This is the same modification as claim 3).
Regarding claim 11, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach one or more retainers disposed within the outer support conduit, wherein the one or more retainers are configured to retain the first tube at a desired position within the outer support conduit.
However, Parks teaches one or more retainers (Figure 3; 70, 100) disposed within an outer support conduit (Figure 3; 26), wherein the one or more retainers are configured to retain a first tube (Figure 3; 68) at a desired position (The position of Figure 3; 68 in the outer support conduit) within the outer support conduit (Functional Language, the retainer retains the first tube in a desired position within the outer support conduit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh to include one or more retainers disposed within the outer support conduit, wherein the one or more retainers are configured to retain the first tube at a desired position within the outer support conduit as taught by and suggested by Parks in order to retain and slidably receive a tube (Column 4, lines 20-24, The modification uses the retainer of Parker).
Regarding claim 12, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh and Parks teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach wherein the one or more retainers comprise:
a cylindrical main body;
a central channel configured to receive and retain a portion of the first tube; and
one or more fluid passages formed through the cylindrical main body.
However, Parks teaches wherein the one or more retainers comprise:
a cylindrical main body (The cylindrical body of Figure 3; 70, 100);
a central channel (The central channel in Figure 3; 70, 100 for 68) configured to receive and retain a portion of the first tube (The portion of the first tube in the central channel); and
one or more fluid passages (Figure 3; 70, 104) formed through the cylindrical main body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh wherein the one or more retainers comprise: a cylindrical main body; a central channel configured to receive and retain a portion of the first tube; and one or more fluid passages formed through the cylindrical main body as taught by and suggested by Parks in order to retain and slidably receive a tube (Column 4, lines 20-24, This is the same modification as claim 11).
Regarding claim 18, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach one or more retainers disposed within the outer support conduit, wherein the one or more retainers are configured to retain the first tube at a desired position within the outer support conduit.
However, Parks teaches one or more retainers (Figure 3; 70, 100) disposed within an outer support conduit (Figure 3; 26), wherein the one or more retainers are configured to retain a first tube (Figure 3; 68) at a desired position (The position of Figure 3; 68 in the outer support conduit) within the outer support conduit (Functional Language, the retainer retains the first tube in a desired position within the outer support conduit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh to include one or more retainers disposed within the outer support conduit, wherein the one or more retainers are configured to retain the first tube at a desired position within the outer support conduit as taught by and suggested by Parks in order to retain and slidably receive a tube (Column 4, lines 20-24, The modification uses the retainer of Parker).
Regarding claim 19, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh and Parks teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach wherein the one or more retainers comprise:
a cylindrical main body;
a central channel configured to receive and retain a portion of the first tube; and
one or more fluid passages formed through the cylindrical main body.
However, Parks teaches wherein the one or more retainers comprise:
a cylindrical main body (The cylindrical body of Figure 3; 70, 100);
a central channel (The central channel in Figure 3; 70, 100 for 68) configured to receive and retain a portion of the first tube (The portion of the first tube in the central channel); and
one or more fluid passages (Figure 3; 70, 104) formed through the cylindrical main body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh wherein the one or more retainers comprise: a cylindrical main body; a central channel configured to receive and retain a portion of the first tube; and one or more fluid passages formed through the cylindrical main body as taught by and suggested by Parks in order to retain and slidably receive a tube (Column 4, lines 20-24, This is the same modification as claim 18).
Claim(s) 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gastonides in view of Wesseloh as applied to claim 1, 13 above, and further in view of Ziaei et al (US 20090120522 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026).
Regarding claim 9, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed
Gastonides does not disclose wherein the second diameter is 10% or less of the first diameter.
However, Wesseloh teaches wherein the second diameter is less than the first diameter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides wherein the second diameter is less than the first diameter as taught by and suggested by Wesseloh in order to discharge a large liquid flow (Paragraph 0118, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach wherein the second diameter is 10% or less of the first diameter.
However, Ziaei teaches in Paragraph 0002 that a diameter (like the second diameter) is a results-effective variable that controls flow and pressure drops and in Paragraph 0002 that a diameter (like the first diameter) is a results-effective variable that controls acceptable wall thickness. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the first and second diameters are result-effective variables that control flow, pressure drops, and acceptable wall thickness. Thus, the claimed limitation of wherein the second diameter is 10% or less of the first diameter is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the diameters of the first tube and outer support conduit to have the disclosed relationship, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of the diameters of the first tube and outer support conduit of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh disclosed to require adjustment.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh wherein the second diameter is 10% or less of the first diameter in order to optimize flow, pressure drops, and acceptable wall thickness (The modification has the second diameter is 10% or less than the first diameter).
Regarding claim 17, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed
Gastonides does not disclose wherein the second diameter is 10% or less of the first diameter.
However, Wesseloh teaches wherein the second diameter is less than the first diameter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides wherein the second diameter is less than the first diameter as taught by and suggested by Wesseloh in order to discharge a large liquid flow (Paragraph 0118, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach wherein the second diameter is 10% or less of the first diameter.
However, Ziaei teaches in Paragraph 0002 that a diameter (like the second diameter) is a results-effective variable that controls flow and pressure drops and in Paragraph 0002 that a diameter (like the first diameter) is a results-effective variable that controls acceptable wall thickness. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the first and second diameters are result-effective variables that control flow, pressure drops, and acceptable wall thickness. Thus, the claimed limitation of wherein the second diameter is 10% or less of the first diameter is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the diameters of the first tube and outer support conduit to have the disclosed relationship, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of the diameters of the first tube and outer support conduit of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh disclosed to require adjustment.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh wherein the second diameter is 10% or less of the first diameter in order to optimize flow, pressure drops, and acceptable wall thickness (The modification has the second diameter is 10% or less than the first diameter).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gastonides in view of Wesseloh as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Malone (US 20070241560 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026)
Regarding claim 10, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach wherein the outer support conduit is formed of a metal, and the first tube is formed of a plastic.
However, Malone teaches an outer support conduit (Figure 1; 18) is formed of a metal (Paragraph 0025), and a first tube (Figure 1; 16) is formed of a plastic (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh wherein the outer support conduit is formed of a metal, and the first tube is formed of a plastic as taught by and suggested by Malone because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Malone’s use of metal and plastic according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh’s system, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case forming conduits, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification makes the outer support conduit from metal and the first tube from plastic).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gastonides in view of Wesseloh as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kellner (US 4067596)
Regarding claim 21, Gastonides in view of Wesseloh teaches the invention as claimed.
Gastonides does not disclose wherein the outer support conduit is tubular, wherein the one or more portions of the first tube retained within the outer support conduit fit within the outer support conduit between a first seal and a second seal, wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver the first portion of the fire suppression agent around an exterior portion of a main tubular body of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver the second portion of the fire suppression agent from within the main tubular body.
However, Wesseloh teaches wherein the outer support conduit is tubular (Annotated Figure 2; labeled second tube is described as being a pipe in Paragraph 0118 which by definition from Merriam Webster is tubular), wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver the first portion of the fire suppression agent around an exterior portion (The exterior portion of Annotated Figure 2; labeled first tube) of a main tubular body (Annotated Figure 2; labeled first tube is described as being a pipe in Paragraph 0115 which by definition from Merriam Webster is tubular) of the first tube (Functional Language, the outer support conduit delivers the first portion of the fire suppression agent around an exterior portion of the main tubular body of the first tube), and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver the second portion of the fire suppression agent from within the main tubular body (Functional Language, the first tube delivers the second portion of the fire suppression agent from within the main tubular body)
Gastonides in view of Wesseloh does not teach wherein the one or more portions of the first tube retained within the outer support conduit fit within the outer support conduit between a first seal and a second seal.
However, Kellner teaches wherein an outer support conduit (Figure 1; both instance of 23, 27, 29. 23 is a pipe which by definition from Merriam Webster is tubular) is tubular, wherein one or more portions of the first tube (The portions Figure 2; 43, 65 of the tube formed by the top instance of 25, 45, 65, 51, 43, and the bottom instance of 25 are retained by 63, 71) retained within the outer support conduit fit within the outer support conduit between a first seal (The top instance of Figure 2; 91) and a second seal (The bottom instance of Figure 2; 91), wherein the outer support conduit is configured to deliver a first fluid (The fluid through Figure 2; 21 and around 25. Functional Language, Column 8-9, lines 64-6 state the invention is a dual flow passage pipe, so that there is a flow in the outer support conduit and the first pipe) around an exterior portion of a main tubular body (The exterior portion of the main tubular body of the first tube) of the first tube, and wherein the first tube is configured to deliver a second fluid (The fluid through the first tube. Functional Language, Column 8-9, lines 64-6 state the invention is a dual flow passage pipe, so that there is a flow in the outer support conduit and the first pipe) from within the main tubular body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh wherein the one or more portions of the first tube retained within the outer support conduit fit within the outer support conduit between a first seal and a second seal as taught by and suggested by Kellner in order to mount a first tube within a second tube in a resilient manner (Column 9, lines 2-6, The modification uses the mounting of Kellner in the combined invention of Gastonides in view of Wesseloh).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Figure 2 of the instant application shows the outer support conduit forms at least a portion of the second tube and a portion of the second tube is retained within the outer support conduit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 2 cannot show both of these claim limitations. Figure 2 of the instant application shows the outer support conduit as 150 and the second tube as 140, but does not show 150 forming a portion of 140 or a portion of 140 retained within 150.
Applicant asserts that 42 is the outer support conduit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The outer support conduit is Annotated Figure 4; labeled outer support conduit of Wesseloh which points to a portion of the curved pipe in Figure 4 of Wesseloh, see Figure 4 of Wesseloh and Annotated Figure 4 of Wesseloh.
Applicant asserts that 45 is in front or behind the curved pipe. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Wesseloh, Figure 4 shows 66 being inside of the curved pipe, see Paragraph 0118 of Wesseloh, so that likewise, 45 is in the curved pipe.
Applicant asserts that the fire suppressing agent is not delivered around the portion of 45 in the curved pipe. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fire suppressing agent flowing in the curved pipe from Figure 4; 24 of Wesseloh, flows around the portion of 45 in the curved pipe. One of ordinary skill would recognize that the fire suppressing agent flows around the portion of 45 in the curved pipe.
Applicant asserts that Wesseloh does not teach a first tube having one or more portions retained within the outer support conduit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Wesseloh, a portion of Figure 4; 45 is within the curved pipe so that, the portion of 45 within the outer support conduit is within retained within the outer support conduit.
Applicant asserts that Wesseloh does not disclose a second tube in fluid communication with the outer support conduit and that the outer conduit is Figure 4; 42 of Wesseloh. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The second tube is Annotated Figure 4; labeled second tube of Wesseloh which is the curved pipe and the outer support conduit is any portion of Annotated Figure 4; labeled second tube, so that the second tube is in fluid communication with the outer support conduit.
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 EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM 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, 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights