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
Amendment filed 6/25/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 18 is/are cancelled.
Pending claims 1-17, 19 are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 is/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.
Claims 3-7 defines selection of the suppressant agent, the flow rate, combined flow cross-sectional areas, flow rates are selected based on the fire hazard type. Claim 4 defines how the flow rate is selected based on the selected agent type, charge density, and fire hazard type.
Given that the suppressant agent, propellant, and fire hazard are not part of the claimed device (not positively recited) and the claims are drawn to an apparatus/device, not method claims, it is unclear how the language of claims 3-7 intends to define specific structural details of the claimed apparatus or only clarify the functional capability of the device. The claims are addressed as best understood, until further clarification.
Other claim(s) listed in the rejection title is/are indefinite due to their dependency upon the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 12-14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US20090277653) in view of Scheindel (US20080041888).
(Note 1: crossed-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses a fire suppressant device comprising:
a container (20, 32) storing a liquid fire suppressant agent (44; par. 37) having a predetermined gravity (gravity of the stored liquid), and a propellant (48; par. 28) having a predetermined charge density (density of the pressurized gas);
a valve assembly (28) configured with the container (see fig. 3),
a spray nozzle (30) fluidically configured with the valve assembly (28; par. 24), the nozzle comprises one or more second orifices (54) having a combined flow cross-sectional area of a second predetermined value (flow area of 54).
Mori further discloses diameter of the opening at 54 is 0.035 in. +/−0.0010 in (which is about 0.000962 sq.in. or 962 square mils).
Mori mentions that valve 28 is well known (par. 27) but silent regard the valve assembly comprises a stem valve comprising one or more first orifices having a combined flow cross-sectional area of a first predetermined value, wherein the combined flow cross-sectional area of the one or more first orifices is greater than the combined flow cross-sectional area of the one or more second orifices.
Scheindel discloses a fire suppressant device comprising:
a container (12) storing a liquid fire suppressant agent (14; par. 26: “product or liquid”; container 12 can store liquid and therefore can store a liquid suppressant) having a predetermined gravity (gravity of the stored liquid), and a propellant (16) having a predetermined charge density (density of the chosen propellant; par. 26, 33);
a valve assembly (22, 24) configured with the container (see figs. 2-3), the valve assembly comprises a stem valve (22 is a stem valve; see fig. 4) comprising one or more first orifices (36, two are shown in fig. 2 or orifice opening at one of any other annotated region shown below; see annotated fig. 2 of Scheindel) having a combined flow cross-sectional area (combined area of orifices 36) of a first predetermined value (value of the combined area of orifices 36); and a spray nozzle (flow opening in item 18) fluidically configured with the valve assembly (see figs. 2-3). Scheindel further discloses the valve stem openings 36 (first orifice(s)) has a total combined area of 3850 square mils (par. 56). This value is greater both values of the second orifice area taught by Mori. Additionally, Scheindel’s figures demonstrate various “first orifice(s)” opening that is larger than the annotated second orifice (see annotated figure 2 of Scheindel below):
PNG
media_image1.png
441
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori to incorporate the teachings of Scheindel to utilize the valve assembly with the valve stem and first orifice of Scheindel such that the valve assembly comprises a stem valve comprising one or more first orifices having a combined flow cross-sectional area of a first predetermined value, wherein the combined flow cross-sectional area of the one or more first orifices is greater than the combined flow cross-sectional area of the one or more second orifices. Utilizing known valve assembly with reduced number of components would yield the predictable result of facilitating reduced cost to assembly (see Paragraph 8 of Scheindel). Additionally, utilizing the larger area of the combined first orifice(s) of the stem valve would allow more liquid to fill the inside of the stem valve, therefore more liquid to be discharged through the second orifice via each actuation, compared utilizing a smaller flow area of the first orifice(s) within the valve stem. No inventive effort would have been required.
(Note 2: all references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the primary reference, unless otherwise stated.)
Regarding claim 2, Mori in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the valve assembly, upon actuation of the nozzle, enables discharge of the fire suppressant agent at a predetermined flow rate and up to a predetermined discharge range through the one or more second orifices of the nozzle (see Scheindel’s fig. 3; discharge rates when valve is partially open or fully open are achievable via the specific dimension disclosed in par. 49-58; see also par. 17-18; no specific value is claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the fire suppressant agent is selected based on a type of fire hazard to be suppressed by the device (since the claim is drawn to a device, recitation drawn to selection of the suppressant agent type is understood to be a method step or a product-by-process, i.e. the step of selecting the agent type associated with certain fire hazard does not distinguish the claimed device from the device of Scheindel; see MPEP 2115 and MPEP 2113; As best understood by examiner, this claim language does not define additional structural details to the claimed device, therefore the claim requirement is met).
Regarding claim 4, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the predetermined flow rate and the predetermined discharge range are selected based on the selected fire suppressant agent and/or a type of fire hazard to be suppressed (since the claim is drawn to a device, recitation drawn to selection of the suppressant agent type and resulting flow rate is understood to be either a method step or a product-by-process; In this case, using different liquid with different viscosities with the device taught by the prior art would result in different flow rate and discharge range; see MPEP 2115 and MPEP 2113; As best understood by examiner, this claim language does not define additional structural details to the claimed device, therefore the claim requirement is met).
Regarding claim 5, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the combined flow cross-sectional area of the first orifices and the combined flow cross-sectional area of the second orifices are selected based on one or more of the selected fire suppressant agent, and the predetermined flow rate and the predetermined discharge range to be achieved (since the claim is drawn to a device, recitation drawn to selection of first and second orifice areas, the suppressant agent type and resulting flow rate is understood to be either a method step or a product-by-process; In this case, using different liquid with different viscosities with the device taught by the prior art would result in different flow rate and discharge range; see MPEP 2115 and MPEP 2113; As best understood by examiner, this claim language does not define additional structural details to the claimed device, therefore the claim requirement is met).
Regarding claim 6, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the selected predetermined discharge flow rate and the selected predetermined discharge range are determined based on one or more of gravity of the fire suppressant agent, a charge density of the propellant, a charge ratio of the fire suppressant agent and the propellant within the container, the combined flow cross-sectional area of the first orifices, and the combined flow cross-sectional area of the second orifices (since this is a not a method claim, the step of selecting the combined areas based on the selected suppressant agent does not distinguish the claimed device from the device of Scheindel; see MPEP 2113),
wherein the charge ratio is a ratio of a mass of the propellant and a mass of the fire suppressant agent stored in the container (fig.1 of Scheindel shows part vapor and part product, which constitutes sufficient disclosure of a “charge ratio” since no specific ratio value is required in the claim).
Regarding claim 7, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the fire hazard is a UL711A or class A type fire hazard (fire hazard is not part of the device; since limitations of the device are met in claims 1 and 3, the device can be used on the claimed fire hazard; see MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 8, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, wherein Mori discloses a dip tube (34; fig. 3) having a first end (40) fluidically connected to the stem valve and a second end (36) at least partially disposed in the liquid fire suppressant agent stored within the container (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 8, but Mori is silent regarding a flow cross-sectional area of the dip tube is greater than the combined flow cross-sectional area of the one or more first orifices.
However, Scheindel’s figure 2 shows the dip tube a flow cross-sectional area (inside 31) of the dip tube is greater than the flow cross-sectional area of the one or more first orifices (cross-sectional area at 42, since the orifice at 42 fits inside top end of the dip tube 31).
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a flow cross-sectional area of the dip tube is greater than the combined flow cross-sectional area of the one or more first orifices since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, tubular portion at one of the annotated first orifice (at 42) is smaller fitting purposes.
Regarding claim 12, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the predetermined discharge range is between 4 feet to 7 feet (Mori discloses 48 inch discharge distance, which is 4 feet; Alternatively, this claim limitation does not further define the structure of the device but its manner of operating, which does not differentiating the apparatus claim from the prior art; see MPEP 2114; the reference device include all of the claimed structural components and therefore has the physical capability to provide this discharge range given the appropriate pressure from the propellant, since neither flow passage dimension values, the chemical contents or the gas pressure is positively recited; see alternative rejection below).
Regarding claim 13, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the predetermined flow rate is an effective discharge flow rate ranging between 0.53 oz/s (15 g/s) to 0.71 oz/s (20 g/s) or a volumetric discharge flow rate ranging between 0.42 fl. oz/s (18.1 mL/s) to 0.56 fl. oz/s (24.2 mL/s) (this claim limitation does not further define the structure of the device but its manner of operating, which does not differentiating the apparatus claim from the prior art; see MPEP 2114; the reference device include all of the claimed structural components and therefore has the physical capability to provide this discharge flow rate given the appropriate pressure from the propellant and liquid content, since neither flow passage dimension values, the chemical contents or the gas pressure is positively recited; see alternative rejection below).
Regarding claim 14, Mori discloses the liquid fire suppressant agent comprises an alkaline aqueous solution of potassium bicarbonate (par. 39-42).
Regarding claim 16, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the propellant is an inert gas selected from nitrogen (Scheindel - par. 36: “nitrogen”), or carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 19, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1 but is silent regarding the combined cross-sectional area of the one or more first orifices is 0.00450 in2 to 0.00486 in2, and the combined cross-sectional area of the one or more second orifices is 0.0012 in2 to 0.0025 in2. (Mori further discloses example of the second orifice having diameter of the opening at 54 is 0.035 in. +/−0.0010 in (which is about 0.000962 sq.in.). Mori also discloses in paragraph 36: “The output orifice 58 has a length L of about 0.075 in. +/−0.010 in. and a width W of about 0.035 in. +/−0.010 in”, which constitute an area of 0.002625 square inch. Additionally, Scheindel further discloses the valve stem openings 36 (first orifice(s)) has a total combined area of 3850 square mils (par. 56), which is 0.00385 square inch)
However, Scheindel’s disclosure is concerned with control over the rate of the product being dispensed via the shape and size of the valve stem openings and partially or fully opening of the valve stem (par. 17-18, 56). As such, the flow area of the valve orifice(s) and flow area of the nozzle orifice are disclosed to be a result-effective variable in that changing these area dimensions changes how much liquid can enter the valve stem and consequently exit the spray nozzle. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Mori device to have the orifice flow areas as claimed, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mori by making the combined cross-sectional area of the one or more first orifices is 0.00450 in2 to 0.00486 in2, and the combined cross-sectional area of the one or more second orifices is 0.0012 in2 to 0.0025 in2 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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). In this case, although figure 6 of applicant’s disclosure shows exemplary corresponding flow rate and discharge range associated with second orifice diameter (par. 51: “Referring to FIG. 6 , an exemplary plot depicting the discharge range and discharge flow rate for different diameters of second orifices 302 is disclosed”) and paragraph 56 discloses extended exemplary range of the orifices areas, there is insufficient evidence showing criticality of the claimed area dimension combinations of the first orifice to the second orifice producing unexpected result. See MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US20090277653) and Scheindel (US20080041888), further in view of Chen (US20220371815).
Regarding claim 10, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 8 but is silent regarding the second end of the dip tube has a non-linear profile to prevent blockage of the second end by an inner wall of the container.
Chen discloses a comparable device having a second end of the dip tube at 322 with a non-linear profile (curved) suction port. Shown in figure 2, the non-linear profile against the inner wall of the container would prevent blockage by the inner wall.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide the second end of the dip tube has a non-linear profile to prevent blockage of the second end by an inner wall of the container. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating flow of liquid without obstruction by the inner wall.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US20090277653) and Scheindel (US20080041888) in view of Tsutsui (US 20020158087).
Regarding claim 11, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, wherein Scheindel discloses the valve assembly comprises a valve body (24), the stem valve (22) is accommodated and movably biased within the valve body (24; see movements shown in figs. 2-3) using a spring (50), the valve assembly comprises a flow cross-sectional area (44, 40). Scheindel shows in figures 2-3 the flow cross-sectional area (44, 40) of the valve body is greater than the combined cross-sectional area of the one or more first orifices (36; areas of 40, 44 shown in figs. 2-3 extend across the entire lower region of valve stem 22 while the combined areas of 36 are not).
Scheindel does not teach the valve body hermetically sealed over an opening provided on the container.
Tsutsui discloses a comparable device having a valve body 10 hermetically sealed over an opening provided on container 11 (par. 22, 41).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori and Scheindel to incorporate the teachings of Tsutsui to provide the valve body hermetically sealed over an opening provided on the container. Doing so would provide for a device that is free from leakage of gas over time (par. 2) and consequently prevent undesired increase in concentration of content ejected from the gas container and decrease in the longevity of the ejection apparatus (par. 12).
Alternatively, if applicant disagrees on teaching of Scheindel regarding the relative dimensions of the flow cross-sectional area of the valve body and combine area of the first orifices, paragraph 59 of Scheindel further indicates “that those skilled in the art will be able to make changes and modifications to those embodiments without departing from the teachings of the invention and the scope of the claims”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a flow cross-sectional area of the valve body is greater than the combined cross-sectional area of the one or more first orifices given the similar proportions shown in figs. 2-3, since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 13, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US20090277653) and Scheindel (US20080041888) in view of Shaw (US20180221695).
Regarding claim 13, in the alternative, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, is silent regarding the predetermined flow rate is an effective discharge flow rate ranging between 0.53 oz/s (15 g/s) to 0.71 oz/s (20 g/s) or a volumetric discharge flow rate ranging between 0.42 fl. oz/s (18.1 mL/s) to 0.56 fl. oz/s (24.2 mL/s).
Shaw discloses a fire suppression system utilizing a propellant such as air, nitrogen or carbon dioxide to discharge fire suppressing agent (par. 28) and consideration of fill density (par. 38: “the higher the fill density (volume of fire suppressing agent as a percentage of storage vessel volume) of storage vessel 12, the smaller the gas volume available within compartment 22 for filling with propellant”). Shaw further indicates: “It is understood that a balance should be struck to ensure adequate propellant volume to completely empty compartment 20 of fire suppressing agent. In addition, in certain embodiments, the final propellant pressure within compartment 22 should be approximately 35 psig in order to ensure vaporization of the fire suppressing agent as it is introduced into protected space 18 via nozzles 16. The gas side accumulator compartment 22 is sized so that complete discharge of fire suppressing agent is not dependent upon the continued supply of propellant from source 34. This particular design element provides a fail-safe against insufficient mass flow from the source of propellant.” This disclosure implies that a balance of certain gas and agent density is required to facilitate the desired discharge via the nozzles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the targeted fire size, container size and associated propellant to agent fill density ratio to produce the desired/effective agent discharge. No inventive effort would have been required.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheindel to incorporate the teachings of Shaw to provide the predetermined flow rate is an effective discharge flow rate ranging between 0.53 oz/s (15 g/s) to 0.71 oz/s (20 g/s) or a volumetric discharge flow rate ranging between 0.42 fl. oz/s (18.1 mL/s) to 0.56 fl. oz/s (24.2 mL/s) by balancing the container size and associated propellant to agent fill density ratio to produce the desired/effective agent discharge associated with the targeted fire size, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. Applicant appears to have not placed any criticality in utilizing the claimed range, in light of applicant’s paragraph 54: “the selected suppressant agent and propellant and these numbers are exemplary and may be changed without any limitation”.
Regarding claim 15, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1 but is silent regarding the propellant is an inert gas having the predetermined charge density ranging from 0.006 oz/fl. oz (0.006 g/mL) to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL).
Regarding claim 17, Mori as modified in view of Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1 but is silent regarding the propellant is a liquid propellant having the predetermined charge density less than the liquid density of the fire suppressant, wherein the predetermined charge density is greater than or equal to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL).
Shaw discloses a fire suppression system utilizing a propellant such as air, nitrogen or carbon dioxide to discharge fire suppressing agent (par. 28) and consideration of fill density (par. 38: “the higher the fill density (volume of fire suppressing agent as a percentage of storage vessel volume) of storage vessel 12, the smaller the gas volume available within compartment 22 for filling with propellant”). Shaw further indicates: “It is understood that a balance should be struck to ensure adequate propellant volume to completely empty compartment 20 of fire suppressing agent. In addition, in certain embodiments, the final propellant pressure within compartment 22 should be approximately 35 psig in order to ensure vaporization of the fire suppressing agent as it is introduced into protected space 18 via nozzles 16. The gas side accumulator compartment 22 is sized so that complete discharge of fire suppressing agent is not dependent upon the continued supply of propellant from source 34. This particular design element provides a fail-safe against insufficient mass flow from the source of propellant.” This disclosure implies that a balance of certain gas and agent density is required to facilitate the desired discharge via the nozzles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the targeted fire size, container size and associated propellant to agent fill density ratio to produce the desired/effective agent discharge. No inventive effort would have been required.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheindel to incorporate the teachings of Shaw to provide an inert gas having the predetermined charge density ranging from 0.006 oz/fl. oz (0.006 g/mL) to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL) (claim 15), or the propellant is a liquid propellant having the predetermined charge density less than the liquid density of the fire suppressant, wherein the predetermined charge density is greater than or equal to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL) (claim 17), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. Applicant appears to have not placed any criticality in utilizing the claimed range, in light of applicant’s paragraph 54: “the selected suppressant agent and propellant and these numbers are exemplary and may be changed without any limitation”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks page 7, applicant argues that Scheindel does not disclose the combined flow cross-sectional area of the valve stem orifice(s) is greater than the combined flow cross-sectional area of the spray nozzle orifice(s) since the claimed relative-area relationship is tied to performance of the fire suppressant device, not an ornamental or nonfunctional dimensional choice. Scheindel does not teach selecting the claimed relationship to achieve a pre-determined suppressant discharge flow character. Applicant appears to argue criticality of the claimed relationship between the first and second orifices since the relative-area relationship is directly affecting spray performance.
However, this is found not persuasive upon inspection of applicant’s disclosure. Firstly, amendment to claim 1 changes the scope of the claim, such that the claim is addressed differently (see the new ground of rejection above). Scheindel’s figures demonstrate various “first orifice(s)” opening that is larger than the annotated second orifice (see annotated figure 2 of Scheindel below):
PNG
media_image1.png
441
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since the current language of claim 1 only requires a relative-area relationship without specific numerical claimed range values and Scheindel’s figure shows such relative proportion, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying relative area would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification according to the proportion displayed, and it appears the device would function as intended being given Scheindel’s disclosure. Utilizing the larger area of the combined first orifice(s) of the stem valve would allow more liquid to fill the inside of the stem valve, therefore more liquid to be discharged through the second orifice via each actuation, compared utilizing a smaller flow area of the first orifice(s) within the valve stem.
Further, figure 6 of applicant’s disclosure shows exemplary corresponding flow rate and discharge range associated with the second orifice diameter (par. 51: “Referring to FIG. 6 , an exemplary plot depicting the discharge range and discharge flow rate for different diameters of second orifices 302 is disclosed”) and paragraph 56 discloses extended exemplary value range of the first and second orifices areas. Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed relative-area relationship solves any stated problem other than generically describing how various parameters may be selected to deliver a certain flow character (par. 49), and offering other acceptable ranges (par. 56: “the sum total of the combined surface areas of (n) number of first (stem valve) orifices 206-1 may be 0.00180 in2 to 0.00486 in2, or 1.17 mm2 to 3.14 mm2. Further, the sum total of the combined surface areas of (n) number of the second (terminal) orifices 302 may be 0.0012 in2 to 0.0025 in2, or 0.77 mm2 to 1.61 mm2. As a result, the second (terminal) orifices 302 located on the nozzle 106 may form the discharge of the combined propellant and liquid fire suppressant agent”; emphasis included) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. See MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
In light of the responses above, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
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 TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights