DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on May 10, 2024. Claims 1-54 have been canceled. Claims 55-77 have been added.
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.
Claim 71 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 71 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend to -the one or more processors-.
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) 55-58, 60-65, 67-69, 71, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahila (US 2011/0036598 A1) in view of Gil (CN 1134276 C).
With regard to claim 55, Pahila discloses a fire protection system (Fig. 4), comprising: a plurality of fluid distribution devices (sprinklers 100, Fig. 4) disposed beneath a ceiling and above a storage commodity (shown in Fig. 4), each fluid distribution device of the plurality of fluid distribution devices (100, Fig. 2) comprising a frame (105), a seal (120) disposed in the frame (105), and an actuator (150) coupled with the frame to displace the seal to control a flow of water discharge from the frame (Par. [0036]).
Pahila does not disclose that a plurality of detectors above the storage commodity and beneath the ceiling; and a controller comprising one or more processors to control operation of the actuator of at least one fluid distribution device of the plurality of fluid distribution devices responsive detection of a fire condition based on one or more signals from the plurality of detectors.
However, Gil teaches a fire protection system comprising a plurality of fluid distribution devices (large number of spraying heads H, page 11 line 13) and a plurality of detectors (temperature detecting circuit TS, page 10 lines 19-24) above the storage commodity and beneath the ceiling (page 5 lines 15-16); and a controller (main computer MC, page 10 line 21) comprising one or more processors (sprinkler head controller C, page 10 line 20) to control operation of the actuator of at least one fluid distribution device of the plurality of fluid distribution devices responsive detection of a fire condition based on one or more signals from the plurality of detectors (page 14 line 29 – page 15 line 6 and Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprinkler head of Pahila , by incorporating the plurality of detectors with the controller as taught by Gill into the sprinklers of Pahila above the storage commodity and beneath the ceiling, for the benefit of providing the controller in the sprinkler head installed in the corresponding place set by the temperature detection circuit detects the temperature, and according to the result of detection, respectively triggering the corresponding sprinkler head. Therefore, the spray device of the invention not only can greatly reduce the error operation of the sprinkler head, but also an initial stage before the fire spread, estimating the fire, to spray extinguishing liquid (page 16 lines 1-9).
With regard to claim 56, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. They do not expressly disclose that the plurality of fluid distribution devices are arranged in a rectilinear grid comprising eight fluid distribution devices or nine fluid distribution devices.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the plurality of fluid distribution devices of Pahila in a rectilinear grid having eight or nine devices, because such a modification merely involves the selection and rearrangement of a known number of identical components within an already taught arrangement to achieve predictable results (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.).
With regard to claim 57, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. Pahila further discloses that the storage commodity has a nominal storage height ranging from a nominal 20 ft. to a maximum nominal storage height of 55 ft (see abstract), and the ceiling has a nominal ceiling height of 30 feet or greater, the nominal storage height less than the nominal ceiling height (see abstract).
With regard to claim 58, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. Gil further discloses that the controller is to assign the at least one fluid distribution device to a device queue based on receiving the one or more signals from a corresponding one or more detectors associated with the at least one fluid distribution device (page 14 line 29 – page 15 line 30 and Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 60, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. They do not expressly disclose that the plurality of fluid distribution devices are arranged in a tree network.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the plurality of fluid distribution devices of Pahila in a tree network, because such a modification merely involves the selection and rearrangement of a known number of identical components within an already taught arrangement to achieve predictable results (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.).
With regard to claim 61, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. Pahila further disclose that the plurality of fluid distribution devices are arranged in a gridded network (Par. [0054]).
With regard to claim 62, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. Pahila further discloses that the plurality of fluid distribution devices are coupled with a wet pipe system to receive water for the water discharge (Par. [0024]).
With regard to claim 63, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 and 56 above.
With regard to claim 64, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. Pahila further discloses that the plurality of fluid distribution devices each comprise a nominal K-factor in (gpm)/(psi)^(1/2) of 14.0, 16.8, `9.6, 22.4, 25.2, 28.0, or 33.6 (Par. [0024]).
With regard to claim 65, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. Gil further discloses that the controller is to detect the fire condition responsive to the one or more signals indicating a threshold moment of growth of a fire (S110 in Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 67, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. Gil further discloses that each detector of the plurality of detectors (temperature detecting circuit TS) is associated on a one-to-one basis with a corresponding fluid distribution device of the plurality of fluid distribution devices (H, see Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 68, Since the device of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses all structure of the claimed invention in claims 55-57, in its use, the device of Pahila as modified by Gil will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 68.
With regard to claim 69, Since the device of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses all structure of the claimed invention in claim 58, in its use, the device of Pahila as modified by Gil will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 69.
With regard to claim 71, Since the device of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses all structure of the claimed invention in claim 65, in its use, the device of Pahila as modified by Gil will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 71.
With regard to claim 73, Since the device of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses all structure of the claimed invention in claim 67, in its use, the device of Pahila as modified by Gil will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 73.
With regard to claim 74, Since the device of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses all structure of the claimed invention in claims 60 and 61, in its use, the device of Pahila as modified by Gil will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 74.
Claims 66 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahila in view of Gil as applied to claims 55 and 68 above, and further in view of Leinung (DE 20021237 U1).
With regard to claim 66, the fire protection system of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 55 above. They do not disclose that the actuator comprises a solenoid valve.
However, Leinung teaches a fire protection system comprising spray heads (5) and actuators (4), the actuator comprises a solenoid valve (Claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator of Pahila, by replacing it with the solenoid valve (4) as taught by Leinung, since the modification is a simple substitution of one known element (solenoid valve) for another (fusible valve) to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 72, Since the device of Pahila as modified by Gil discloses all structure of the claimed invention in claim 66, in its use, the device of Pahila as modified by Gil will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 72.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 59 and 70 are 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.
Regarding claims 57 and 70, the combination of the references above fails to teach elements: “that the fire condition is not suppressed; and responsive to determining that the fire condition is not suppressed, controlling operation of one or more fluid distribution devices of the plurality of fluid distribution devices in a second pattern.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights