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
Claims 1-8 are cancelled. Claims 9-16 are amended. Therefore, claims 9-16 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 09/17/2024 is entered.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
A region of the end faces of the spring (Claim 9)
The end faces of the spring (Claim 9)
Both end faces (Claim 10)
A smaller diameter at the end face (Claim 16)
An opposite larger diameter of the end face (Claim 16)
The side of the spring element (Claim 16)
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“A spring element” in line 8 of claim 9. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “providing a spring force” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “A spring element” in line 8 of claim 9, because line 1 of page 5 of the applicant’s specification states “a spring element 15, in this case a spiral compression spring.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a compression spring”, or equivalent thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “in response to the fire extinguishing medium flowing out on the end faces of the spring, the piston is displaced” in lines 9-10 of claim 9. However, ln. 23 of pg. 4 to ln. 21 of pg. 5 of the applicant’s disclosure recites “This means that the pressure of the fire extinguishing medium in the gas cylinder 1, also referred to as cylinder pressure, is in contact with a first end face 12 of the piston 10. In the piston 10 there is a channel 13 so that the cylinder pressure reaches a second end face 14 of the piston 10. At this second end face 14 a spring element 15, in this case a spiral compression spring, is also arranged. The cylinder pressure is therefore applied to both end faces 12, 14. In addition, shown on the right in relation to the image plane according to FIG. 4A, the piston 10 is pressed to the left in relation to the image plane due to the spring force... an outflow channel 16 is fluidly connected, due to 10 this position, with the space in which the spring 15 is located, in which the medium pressure also prevails… If now the situation shown in FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B occurs, in which the sensor hose 7 has at least a local leakage 18 or is damaged (due to a fire), medium flows out of the sensor hose 7. A throttle 19 located on the piston 10 ensures that less fire extinguishing medium is able to flow to the side of the spring than the quantity that flows out due to the leakage 18. The piston 10 is thus moved to the right in axial direction A on the image plane due to the cylinder pressure applied to the first end face 12, which is greater than the spring force.” Specifically, the recitation “the space in which the spring 15 is located, in which the medium pressure also prevails,” in which the piston is in the closed position until fire extinguishing medium flows out of the sensor hose via the outflow channel 16 which is fluidically connected to a space in which the spring is located. Therefore, the examiner does not find that the limitation “in response to the fire extinguishing medium flowing out on the end faces of the spring the piston is displaced,” is how the invention functions but instead “in response to the fire extinguishing medium flowing out via the outflow channel which is fluidically connected to a space in which the spring is located, the piston is displaced,” which is how the examiner will interpret this claim. Therefore, this limitation was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 10-16 depend on claim 9, therefore claims 10-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 9-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the end faces of the spring" in line 8 of claim 9 and in line 10 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear as if the spring has end faces because all springs do not have end faces. The examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the spring" in line 8 of claim 9 and line 10 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-16 depend on claim 9, therefore claims 10-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the channel connects both end faces” in lines 2-3 of claim 10, but claim 9 recites the limitation “end faces of the piston” in lines 6 of claim 9 and “the end faces of the spring” in lines 8 and 10 of claim 9. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to the end faces of the piston, the end faces of the spring, or other end faces. The examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the end face, on which the spring element is arranged" in lines 3-4 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 9 recites the limitation “end faces of the piston” in lines 6 of claim 9 and “the end faces of the spring” in lines 8 and 10 of claim 9. It is unclear if the applicant is referring one of the end faces of the piston, one of the end faces of the spring, or another end face. The examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “configured to throttle a medium flow originating from the cylinder pressure” in lines 2-3 of claim 11. Firstly, it is unclear if the applicant is referring to a flow of the fire extinguisher medium, a flow rate at a medium value, or something else. Furthermore, if the applicant is referring to a flow rate at a medium value it is unclear as to what is considered “medium flow rate” because no other flow rates are claimed and Cambridge dictionary defines “medium” as “being in the middle between an upper and lower amount, size, degree, or value.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the medium pressure” in line 3 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if the applicant is referring to a pressure caused by the fire extinguisher medium, a pressure at a medium value, or something else. Furthermore, if the applicant is referring to a pressure at a medium value it is unclear as to what is considered “medium pressure” because no other pressures are claimed and Cambridge dictionary defines “medium” as “being in the middle between an upper and lower amount, size, degree, or value.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the end face” three times in lines 2-4 of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Additionally, claim 9 recites the limitation “end faces of the piston” in lines 6 of claim 9 and “the end faces of the spring” in lines 8 and 10 of claim 9. It is unclear if the applicant is referring one of the end faces of the piston, one of the end faces of the spring, or another end face. It is also unclear if the three different instances of “the end face” in claim 16 are the same or different end faces. The examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the side of the spring element,” in lines 3-4 of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 9-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bermes (US 9,072,925).
Regarding claim 9, Bermes discloses a fire extinguishing arrangement (Fig. 1-16, all structural features) comprising:
a gas cylinder (Fig. 1, 2) comprising 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, 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.), wherein 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 located in the gas cylinder being applied to 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), and 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) and in a region of the end faces of the spring (Annotated Fig. 4) an outflow channel (Fig. 4, {24 & 42-43}; Fig. 7, {24, 75, and channel shown in 61-62}) is fluidly 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 on the end faces of the spring, the piston (Annotated Fig. 4; The examiner is interpreting this limitation as “in response to the fire extinguishing medium flowing out via the outflow channel which is fluidically connected to a space in which the spring is located, the piston is displaced,” as described in the USC § 112a rejection which is described in Col. 11: Ln. 30-37;Col. 9: Ln. 25-35) 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).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
596
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
790
815
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.).
Regarding claim 11, Bermes discloses the fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9, 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 is configured to throttle a medium flow originating from the cylinder pressure (Col. 6: Ln. 6-12) to the end face (Annotated Fig. 4), on which the spring element is arranged.
PNG
media_image3.png
930
785
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Bermes discloses the fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9, 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 9, 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 9, and further discloses wherein the piston comprises a smaller diameter (Annotated Fig. 4) at the end face than an opposite larger diameter (Annotated Fig. 4) of the end face, and the end face with the larger diameter is arranged on the side of the spring element.
PNG
media_image4.png
930
1022
media_image4.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 9, 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 9, 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 located in the gas cylinder being applied to end faces of the piston opposite each other in an axial direction of the gas cylinder, and the piston is in a blocked position due to a spring force of a spring element and in a region of the end faces of the spring an outflow channel is fluidly connected to a sensor hose, such that in response to the fire extinguishing medium flowing out on the end faces of the spring, the piston is displaced in the axial direction against the spring force.
However, Bermes discloses a prior art comparable fire extinguishing arrangement (Fig. 1-16, all structural features) comprising:
a gas cylinder (Fig. 1, 2) comprising a fire extinguishing medium (Col. 3: Ln. 44-45); and
a triggering device (Fig. 1-16, 3 & 5) connected to the gas cylinder, wherein 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 located in the gas cylinder being applied to end faces (Annotated Fig. 4 on page 13, Col. 6: Ln. 3-12) of the piston opposite each other in an axial direction of the gas cylinder (Annotated Fig 1 on page 13 & Fig. 4. 13), and 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) and in a region of the end faces of the spring (Annotated Fig. 4 on page 13) an outflow channel (Fig. 4, {24 & 42-43}; Fig. 7, {24, 75, and channel shown in 61-62}) is fluidly 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 on the end faces of the spring, the piston (Annotated Fig. 4 on page 13; The examiner is interpreting this limitation as “in response to the fire extinguishing medium flowing out via the outflow channel which is fluidically connected to a space in which the spring is located, the piston is displaced,” as described in the USC § 112a rejection which is described in Col. 11: Ln. 30-37;Col. 9: Ln. 25-35) 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).
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.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the triggering device is detachably coupled to the cylinder valve (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), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Bermes and Scofield teaches the fire extinguishing arrangement according to claim 9.
Kim further discloses wherein the control channel is fluidly connected to the cylinder valve of the gas cylinder in such a way that in response to the control channel being subjected to the medium pressure (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).
Conclusion
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
March 5, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752