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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 9, 11 and 15-16 are amended. Claims 12-14 are as previously presented. Therefore, claims 9 and 11-16 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Drawing objections
35 USC § 112(a) Rejections
35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner has withdrawn the 112(f) interpretation regarding “a spring element” because a spring has inherent structure.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein the second end face of the piston comprises a smaller diameter than the first end face'' in lines 1-3 of of claim 16. However, it is suggested to amend to - wherein the second end face of the piston comprises a smaller diameter than a diameter of the first end face of the piston-. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(Note 1: Claim 9 will be annotated claim 9a for one rejection and will be alternatively rejected as claim 9b for a second alternative rejection later in the Office Action.)
Claim(s) 9, 11-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bermes (US 9,072,925).
Regarding claim 9a, Bermes discloses a fire extinguishing arrangement (Fig. 1-16, all structural features), comprising:
a gas cylinder comprising (Fig. 1, 2) a fire extinguishing medium (Col. 3: Ln. 44-45) and a cylinder valve (Fig. 3-4 & 7, 63); and
a triggering device (Fig. 1-16, 3 omitting item 63 within 3 & 5) connected to the gas cylinder, wherein
the triggering device is detachably coupled to the cylinder valve (Fig. 14 shows the cylinder valve 13 threaded into 3 and is thus detachably coupled.),
a piston (Fig. {5, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16}, {26-27 & 35}) is in the triggering device,
a cylinder pressure of the fire extinguishing medium in the gas cylinder is applied to first and second end faces (Annotated Fig. 4; Col. 6: Ln. 3-12) of the piston opposite each other in an axial direction of the gas cylinder (Annotated Fig 1 & Fig. 4. 13),
the piston is in a blocked position (Fig. 4 shows the piston blocking 30) due to a spring force of a spring element (Col. 6: Ln. 46-50),
in a region of the first end face adjacent to the spring element (Annotated Fig. 4), an outflow channel (Fig. 4, {24 & 42-43}; Fig. 7, {24, 75, and channel shown in 61-62}) is fluidically connected to a sensor hose (Fig. {1, 13 & 16}, 5; Col. 8: Ln. 10-14; Col. 9: Ln. 18-35; The sensor line is connected to 62 but not shown in each figure as recited in Col. 9: Ln. 32-35.), such that in response to the fire extinguishing medium flowing out via the outflow channel which is fluidically connected to a space in which the spring element is located (Col. 11: Ln. 30-37; Col. 9: Ln. 25-35), the piston is displaced in the axial direction against the spring force (Col. 11: Ln. 24-43) and a control channel is opened through the piston (Fig. 5 & 9, 29; Fig. 5 shows the control channel in a closed position and Fig. 9 shows the control channel in an open position.), so the fire extinguishing medium flows through the control channel (Col. 11: Ln. 37-43),
a channel is in the piston (Fig. 5, 32 & 36; Annotated Fig. 4), and
the channel connects the first and second end faces of the piston in a fluid-conducting manner (Fig. 4-5; Col. 6: Ln.20-34).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
930
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
596
933
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Bermes discloses fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9a and further discloses wherein a throttle (Portion of 32 facing away from 17; Col. 6: Ln. 6-12) is in the piston, and the throttle (Col. 6: Ln. 6-12) is configured to throttle a flow of the fire extinguishing medium, due to the cylinder pressure, to the first end face, on which the spring element is arranged (Annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Bermes discloses fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9a and further discloses wherein a pressure reducer (Fig. 4, 21) is connected upstream of the sensor hose, and the pressure reducer is configured to regulate the cylinder pressure to a lower sensor pressure relative thereto (Col. 8: Ln. 39 to Col. 9: Ln. 17).
Regarding claim 13, Bermes discloses the fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9a, and further discloses wherein a shut-off valve ({Fig. 2 & 16, 64} and {Fig. 7 & 10, 61-62}; Col. 8: Ln. 21-25) is on one outflow side of the sensor hose (Side of the sensor hose (5) connected to 62; Col. 8: Ln. 30-34) on the triggering device.
Regarding claim 16, Bermes discloses the fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9a, and further discloses wherein the second end face of the piston comprises a smaller diameter (Annotated Fig. 4) than the first end face (Annotated Fig. 4) which is adjacent to the spring element.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image3.png
930
1022
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bermes in view of Scofield (US 4,890,677).
Regarding claim 14, Bermes discloses the fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9a, but does not disclose wherein the triggering device is mounted opposite a non-return valve of the gas cylinder and detachably coupled to the gas cylinder.
However, Scofield teaches a prior art comparable a chemical flow check system (Fig. 1, All structural elements) for use in a pressurized chemical fire extinguisher system (Col. 4: Ln. 38-40) comprising a triggering device (Fig. 1, 32) is mounted opposite a non-return valve (Fig. 1, 10) of a gas cylinder (The gas cylinder/pressurized chemical reservoir is not shown as described in Col. 5: Ln. 28-37;. 4: Ln. 68) and detachably coupled to the gas cylinder (Col. 5: Ln. 11-14; The axial threaded opening (25) allows the triggering device to be detachably coupled to the gas cylinder.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a triggering device is mounted opposite a non-return valve of the gas cylinder and detachably coupled to a gas cylinder) as taught by Scofield, into the fire extinguishing arrangement disclosed by Bermes to provide a simple and economical arrangement for facilitating periodic maintenance of a chemical fire extinguisher system (Col. 1: Ln. 67 to Col. 2: Ln 25) and yielding the predictable result of preventing the discharge of the fire extinguishing medium from the gas cylinder when the triggering device, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20190091908) in view of Bermes and Scofield (US 4,890,677).
Regarding claim 9b, Kim discloses a fire extinguishing arrangement (Fig. 1-2, all structural elements) comprising:
a gas cylinder (Para. 0025 – “storage container (not shown)”) comprising a fire extinguishing medium (Para. 0025 – “gas”) and a cylinder valve (Fig. 1-2, {10, 60 & 70}); and
a triggering device (Fig. 1-2, 11, 13-15, 21, 30-31, 40) connected to the gas cylinder, wherein a piston (Fig. 1-2, 31) is in the triggering device, and the piston is in a blocked position (Fig. 1 shows the piston in a blocked position.), and a control channel (Fig. 2, 13) is opened through the piston, so the fire extinguishing medium flows through the control channel (Fig. 2 shows the piston in an open position the fire extinguishing medium flows through the control channel.; Para. 0013).
Kim does not disclose the triggering device is detachably coupled to the cylinder valve, a cylinder pressure of the fire extinguishing medium in the gas cylinder is applied to first and second end faces of the piston opposite each other in an axial direction of the gas cylinder, the piston is in the blocked position due to a spring force of a spring element, in a region of the first end face adjacent to the spring element, an outflow channel is fluidically connected to a sensor hose, such that in response to the fire extinguishing medium flowing out via the outflow channel which is fluidically connected to a space in which the spring element is located, the piston is displaced in the axial direction against the spring force and the control channel is opened through the piston, so the fire extinguishing medium flows through the control channel, a channel is in the piston, and the channel connects the first and second end faces of the piston in a fluid-conducting manner.
However, Bermes discloses a prior art comparable fire extinguishing arrangement (Fig. 1-16, all structural features) comprising:
a gas cylinder comprising (Fig. 1, 2) a fire extinguishing medium (Col. 3: Ln. 44-45) and a cylinder valve (Fig. 3-4 & 7, 63); and
a triggering device (Fig. 1-16, 3 omitting item 63 within 3 & 5) connected to the gas cylinder, wherein
the triggering device is detachably coupled to the cylinder valve (Fig. 14 shows the cylinder valve 13 threaded into 3 and is thus detachably coupled.),
a piston (Fig. {5, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16}, {26-27 & 35}) is in the triggering device,
a cylinder pressure of the fire extinguishing medium in the gas cylinder is applied to first and second end faces (Annotated Fig. 4 of claim 9a; Col. 6: Ln. 3-12) of the piston opposite each other in an axial direction of the gas cylinder (Annotated Fig 1 & Fig. 4. 13),
the piston is in a blocked position (Fig. 4 shows the piston blocking 30) due to a spring force of a spring element (Col. 6: Ln. 46-50),
in a region of the first end face adjacent to the spring element (Annotated Fig. 4 of claim 9a), an outflow channel (Fig. 4, {24 & 42-43}; Fig. 7, {24, 75, and channel shown in 61-62}) is fluidically connected to a sensor hose (Fig. {1, 13 & 16}, 5; Col. 8: Ln. 10-14; Col. 9: Ln. 18-35; The sensor line is connected to 62 but not shown in each figure as recited in Col. 9: Ln. 32-35.), such that in response to the fire extinguishing medium flowing out via the outflow channel which is fluidically connected to a space in which the spring element is located (Col. 11: Ln. 30-37;Col. 9: Ln. 25-35), the piston is displaced in the axial direction against the spring force (Col. 11: Ln. 24-43) and a control channel is opened through the piston (Fig. 5 & 9, 29; Fig. 5 shows the control channel in a closed position and Fig. 9 shows the control channel in an open position.), so the fire extinguishing medium flows through the control channel (Col. 11: Ln. 37-43),
a channel is in the piston (Fig. 5, 32 & 36; Annotated Fig. 4 of claim 9a), and
the channel connects the first and second end faces of the piston in a fluid-conducting manner (Fig. 4-5; Col. 6: Ln.20-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element, namely the triggering device with a known function of opening the control channel when a fire is detected (Bermes – Col. 11: Ln. 7-23), taught by Bermes, by performing a simple substitution with another element, namely the triggering device disclosed by Kim, which the examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution, namely opening the control channel when a fire is detected (Bermes – Col. 11: Ln. 7-23) and thus actuating the cylinder valve (Kim – Para. 0043-0048), would have been predictable.
Kim in view of Bermes does not explicitly teach the triggering device is detachably coupled to the cylinder valve.
However, Scofield teaches a prior art comparable a chemical flow check system (Fig. 1, All structural elements) for use in a pressurized chemical fire extinguisher system (Col. 4: Ln. 38-40) comprising a triggering device (Fig. 1, 32) detachably coupled to a cylinder valve (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 5: Ln. 11-14; The axial threaded opening (25) allows the triggering device to be detachably coupled to the cylinder valve.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (the triggering device is detachably coupled to the cylinder valve) as taught by Scofield, into the fire extinguishing arrangement taught by Kim in view of Bermes to provide a simple and economical arrangement for facilitating periodic maintenance of a chemical fire extinguisher system (Col. 1: Ln. 67 to Col. 2: Ln 25) and yielding the predictable result of detachably coupling the triggering device to the cylinder valve, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, regarding “the triggering device is detachably coupled to the cylinder valve”, the court has held that making components separable (detachably coupled), may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), the claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art' s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose." MPEP § 2144.04-V-C. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (While pg. 2 ln. 1-7 states “According to at least one embodiment of the present disclosure, the triggering device is able to be detachably coupled to a cylinder connection of the gas cylinder. Triggering devices are part of the cylinder head. If maintenance work is therefore necessary or if the triggering device has been actuated, the entire gas cylinder would be replaced. In the solution according to the present disclosure, only the triggering device itself is able to be replaced or, in the case of a cylinder replacement, the triggering device is able to remain in place,” having detachable pieces to replace due to maintenance is not a novel or unexpected result).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Bermes and Scofield teaches the fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9b.
Kim further discloses wherein the control channel is fluidically connected to the cylinder valve of the gas cylinder in such a way that in response to the control channel being subjected to a flow pressure of the fire extinguishing medium (The control channel is subject to a medium pressure from the gas cylinder the triggering device is activated as shown in Fig. 2.), the cylinder valve of the gas cylinder is triggered (Fig. 2 shows the cylinder valve of the gas cylinder triggered allowing flow out of passageway 12; Para. 0043-0048).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on pages 7-9 the applicant argues that “Bermes does not disclose a channel in the piston connecting the end faces of the piston,” However the examiner disagrees because as outlined in the office action Bermes discloses a channel (Fig. 5, 32 & 36; Annotated Fig. 4 of claim 9a) in the piston ((Fig. {5, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16}, {26-27 & 35})) connecting the end faces of the piston (Annotated Fig. 4 of claim 9a).
The applicant further argues that “The Office specifically identifies "the channel is the opening in the pressure vessel that allows fire extinguishing medium to flow into 17 via 17 and then to end faces inside of 3," however the examiner respectfully disagrees because that interpretation is cited for cancelled claim 10 from the Non-final office action mailed 03/18/2026 which states “Regarding claim 10, Bermes discloses the fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9, and further discloses wherein a channel is in a head of the gas cylinder (Fig. 1, Portion of 2 connected to 3) and the channel connects both end faces in a fluid-conducting manner (Col. 4: Ln 41-49; The channel is the opening in the pressure vessel that allows fire extinguishing medium to flow into 17 via 17 and then to end faces inside of 3.).” (underline for emphasis) in which the channel rejected is in the head of a gas cylinder not the newly claimed channel in the piston.
The applicant further argues that “Bermes does not disclose a channel that fluidically connects the end faces of the piston”, however the examiner respectfully disagrees because the channel that fluidically connects the end faces of the piston as cited in the office action.
The applicant further argues that “The prosecution history of the Bermes patent family supports this distinction,” however, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on pages 9 the applicant argues that “Bermes fails to disclose at least the following elements of the amended claims: a channel in the piston, and the channel connecting the end faces of the piston in a fluid-conducting manner,” however the Examiner respectfully disagrees as outlined above.
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 9 the applicant further argues that the KSR articulation in conclusory, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Examiner has resolved the Graham factual inquires, in MPEP § 2141-II, and further articulated (for claim 14) the KSR rationale in MPEP § 2143-I-C, which further states “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. "It's enough … to show that there was a known problem … in the art, that [another reference] … helped address that issue, and that combining the teachings of [the two references] wasn't beyond the skill of an ordinary artisan. Nothing more is required to show a motivation to combine under KSR." See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380-81, 2023 USPQ2d 297 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 September 9, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights