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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 2nd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-26 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva, Jr. (US 20190143162 A1) in view of Dibble (US 20220379150 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Silva, Jr. discloses a storage occupancy sprinkler system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a fluid supply system (12, 16, Fig. 1);
at least one cross-main pipe (22, Fig. 1) fluidly connected with the fluid supply system (12, 16, shown in Fig. 1);
a plurality of branchlines (24, Fig. 1) extending from, and are fluidly connected with, the at least one cross-main pipe (22, shown in Fig. 1);
a plurality of storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, additional details of the preferred sprinkler are shown in Figs. 7A-7H, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) projecting from, and fluidly connected with, the plurality of branchlines (24, shown in Fig. 1), the storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) have a k-factor of at least 11.2 (Paragraph 0051);
the storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) each comprise a sprinkler frame (202, Fig. 7A) having a frame body (204, Fig. 7A) releasably mounted to the corresponding branchline (24, the body 204 has threads to be coupled to a supply pipe, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0043), the sprinkler frame (202, Fig. 7A) starting at an inlet (208, shown in Fig. 7A) of the frame body (204, Fig. 7A) and extending distally therefrom (shown in Fig. 7A).
However, Silva, Jr. does not disclose a sprinkler rating greater than 200 psi. Dibble teaches a storage occupancy sprinkler system (100, Fig. 1) comprising a sprinkler rating greater than 200 psi (a sprinkler rating is defined as the maximum system working pressure the system components are exposed to, but shall not be rated at less than 175 psi (12 bar) for components installed above ground and 150 psi (10 bar) for components installed underground, National Fire Protection Association Report, Pg. 3, sprinkler 108 can have an operating pressure of between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraph 0025).
Silva, Jr. and Dibble are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprinkler systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sprinkler rating taught in Dibble’s sprinkler system to Silva, Jr.’s system, to have a sprinkler rating greater than 200 psi. Doing so allows the system to withstand higher pressures and provide a sufficient coverage area (Dibble, Paragraphs 0003, 0025).
Regarding claim 2, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 1 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses the branchlines (24, Fig. 1) have an inside diameter between approximately 1.61 inches and approximately 3.32 inches (internal diameter ranges from 2.75 in. to less than 3 in., which is a range within the claimed range, Paragraph 0046).
With respect to claim 4, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 1 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses the fluid supply system (12, 16, Fig. 1) provides a supply pressure (Paragraph 0051). Dibble further teaches a supply pressure being greater than 175 psi (fluid is distributed at a pressure between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraph 0003).
In regards to claim 5, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 4 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses each storage sprinkler head (20, Fig. 1) of the plurality of storage sprinkler heads (20, Fig. 1) has an RTI of less than 50 (it will be interpreted that RTI is response time index, Paragraphs 0030-0031).
In regards to claim 7, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the claim 1 above. Dibble further teaches the storage sprinkler heads (108, Fig. 1) have a sprinkler rating of at least 250 psi (sprinkler 108 can have an operating pressure of between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraph 0025).
With respect to claim 8, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the claim 1 above. Dibble further teaches the storage sprinkler heads (108, Fig. 1) have a sprinkler rating of up to 300 psi (sprinkler 108 can have an operating pressure of between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 10, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 1 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system (10, Fig. 1) is a ceiling-only system (shown in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 21, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 1 above. Dibble teaches the storage sprinkler heads (108, Fig. 1) have a sprinkler rating of at least 210 psi (sprinkler 108 can have an operating pressure of between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraphs 0025).
With respect to claim 22, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 1 above. Dibble teaches the storage sprinkler heads (108, Fig. 1) have a sprinkler rating of at least 220 psi (sprinkler 108 can have an operating pressure of between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraphs 0025).
In regards to claim 23, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 1 above. Dibble teaches the storage sprinkler heads (108, Fig. 1) have a sprinkler rating of at least 230 psi (sprinkler 108 can have an operating pressure of between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraphs 0025).
In regards to claim 24, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 1 above. Dibble teaches the storage sprinkler heads (108, Fig. 1) have a sprinkler rating of at least 240 psi (sprinkler 108 can have an operating pressure of between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraphs 0025).
Regarding claim 25, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 1 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses the storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) each further comprise:
a pair of frame arms (232, 234, Fig. 7A) extending individually and distally from the frame body (204, shown in Fig. 7A) and converging at a distally terminal nosepiece (236, shown in Fig. 7A); and
a fluid deflector (300, Figs. 7A-7B) secured to the nosepiece (236, shown in Fig. 7A).
With respect to claim 26, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the storage occupancy sprinkler system of claim 25 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses the frame body (204, Figs. 7A-7B) further includes an internal orifice (internal passage within frame body 204, shown in Figs. 7A-7B) extending from the inlet (208, shown in Fig. 7B) to an outlet (210, shown in Fig. 7B) of the frame body (204, Figs. 7A-7B) and the storage sprinkler heads (200, Figs. 7A-7H, 9B) each further comprise a sealing plug (there can be a sealing assembly disposed within the outlet of the sprinkler, shown in Fig. 9B, Paragraph 0056) and a thermally responsive fusible link (250, trigger assembly 250 can be a lever and link arrangement, Fig. 9B, Paragraph 0056).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva, Jr. (US 20190143162 A1) in view of Dibble (US 20220379150 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pope et al. (US Patent 6,221,263).
Regarding claim 3, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble, discloses the claim 1 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses the fluid supply system comprises a pump (not explicitly shown, but wet device 12 can have additional pumps, Paragraph 0020).
However, Silva, Jr. and Dibble do not teach the fluid supply system comprises a main pump and a jockey pump. Pope teaches a storage occupancy sprinkler system (10, Fig. 1) comprising a fluid supply system (20, Fig. 1) comprises a main pump (12, Fig. 1) and a jockey pump (14, Fig. 1).
Silva, Jr., Dibble, and Pope are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprinkler systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the fluid supply system taught in Pope’s sprinkler system to Silva, Jr.’s system, as modified by Dibble above, to have the fluid supply system comprises a main pump and a jockey pump. Doing so allows the system to provide a sufficient amount of fluid to the sprinklers (Pope, Col. 2, Ln. 21-64).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnone et al. (US 20170216641 A1) in view of Dibble (US 20220379150 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Magnone discloses a storage occupancy sprinkler system (10, Fig. 2) comprising:
a fluid supply system (12, 16, 18, Fig. 2);
at least one cross-main pipe (20a, 20b, Fig. 2) fluidly connected with the fluid supply system (12, 16, 18, shown in Fig. 2), the at least one cross-main pipe (20a, 20b, Fig. 2) having a near cross-main pipe (20a, Fig. 2) and a far cross-main pipe (20b, Fig. 2);
a plurality of branchlines (22, Fig. 2) extending between, and are fluidly connected with, the near cross- main pipe (20a, shown in Fig. 2) and the far cross-main pipe (20b, shown in Fig. 2); and
a plurality of storage sprinkler heads (24, Fig. 2) projecting from, and fluidly connected with, the plurality of branchlines (22, shown in Fig. 2), wherein the storage sprinkler heads (24, Fig. 2) have a k-factor of at least 11.2 (Paragraphs 0014, 0047).
However, Magnone does not disclose a sprinkler rating greater than 175 psi, the storage sprinkler heads each comprise a sprinkler frame having a frame body releasably mounted to the corresponding branchline, the sprinkler frame starting at an inlet of the frame body and extending distally therefrom.
Dibble teaches a storage occupancy sprinkler system (100, Fig. 1) comprising a sprinkler rating greater than 175 psi (a sprinkler rating is defined as the maximum system working pressure the system components are exposed to, but shall not be rated at less than 175 psi (12 bar) for components installed above ground and 150 psi (10 bar) for components installed underground, National Fire Protection Association Report, Pg. 3, sprinkler 108 can have an operating pressure of between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraph 0025), the storage sprinkler heads (108, Fig. 1) each comprise a sprinkler frame (202, Fig. 2) having a frame body (external surface of frame 202, Fig. 2) releasably mounted to the corresponding branchline (106, frame 202 is coupled to a supply pipe, which can be releasable, Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0023, 0066), the sprinkler frame (202, Fig. 2) starting at an inlet (206, shown in Fig. 2) of the frame body (202, Fig. 2) and extending distally therefrom (shown in Fig. 2).
Magnone and Dibble are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprinkler systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sprinkler rating taught in Dibble’s sprinkler system to Magnone’s system, to have a sprinkler rating greater than 175 psi, the storage sprinkler heads each comprise a sprinkler frame having a frame body releasably mounted to the corresponding branchline, the sprinkler frame starting at an inlet of the frame body and extending distally therefrom. Doing so allows the sprinkler to be coupled to the branchline and the system to withstand higher pressures and provide a sufficient coverage area (Dibble, Paragraphs 0003, 0023, 0025).
Claims 11-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva, Jr. (US 20190143162 A1) in view of Dibble (US 20220379150 A1) and Sekula (US Patent 11,511,145).
Regarding claim 11, Silva, Jr. discloses a sprinkler system (10, Fig. 1) for providing fire suppression to a storage occupancy (70, Fig. 1), the storage occupancy (70, Fig. 1) comprising a floor (shown in Fig. 1) and a ceiling (shown in Fig. 1) located at a height greater than 35 feet above the floor (Paragraph 0005), the sprinkler system (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a fluid supply system (12, 16, Fig. 1);
a control valve (16, 504, Figs. 1, 4) fluidly connected with the fluid supply system (12, 16, shown in Fig. 1);
a check valve (506, Fig. 4) located downstream of the control valve (504, shown in Fig. 4) and fluidly connected thereto (shown in Fig. 4);
a plurality of storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B), the storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) each comprising:
a sprinkler frame (202, Fig. 7A) having a frame body (204, Fig. 7A), the sprinkler frame (202, Fig. 7A) starting at an inlet (208, shown in Fig. 7A) of the frame body (204, Fig. 7A) and extending distally therefrom (shown in Fig. 7A), the frame body (202, Figs. 7A-7H) having an orifice (206, Figs. 7A-7H) therethrough (shown in Figs. 7A-7H), the orifice (206, Figs. 7A-7H) being sealed by a sealing assembly (annotated in Fig. 9A, Paragraph 0056),
a nominal k-factor rating of at least k16.8 (Paragraph 0051), and
a thermal trigger (250, Figs. 9A-9B) having an RTI of less than 50 (Paragraph 0056); and
a network of pipes (24, Fig. 1, annotated in Fig. 4) extending between and fluidly connecting the check valve (506, Fig. 4) and the plurality of storage sprinklers heads (20, 320, shown in Figs. 1, 4), the frame body (204, Fig. 7A) of each storage sprinkler head (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) being releasably mounted to the network of pipes (24, the body 204 has threads to be coupled to a supply pipe, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0043).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Silva, Jr. does not disclose a fluid supply system capable of providing a static pressure of greater than 200 psi and a sealing assembly which has a rated pressure greater than 200 psi.
Dibble teaches a storage occupancy sprinkler system (100, Fig. 1) comprising a fluid supply system (106, Fig. 1) capable of providing a static pressure of greater than 200 psi and a sealing assembly (217, Fig. 2) which has a rated pressure greater than 200 psi (sprinkler 108 can have an operating pressure of between 8 psi and 250 psi and fluid is distributed at a pressure between 8 psi and 250 psi, Paragraphs 0003, 0025).
Silva, Jr. and Dibble are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprinkler systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching taught in Dibble’s sprinkler system to Silva, Jr.’s system, to have a fluid supply system capable of providing a static pressure of greater than 200 psi and a sealing assembly which has a rated pressure greater than 200 psi. Doing so allows the system to withstand higher pressures and provide a sufficient coverage area (Dibble, Paragraphs 0003, 0025).
However, Silva, Jr. and Dibble do not teach a sealing assembly configured to withstand a hydrostatic strength test pressure of greater than 700 psi.
Sekula teaches a sprinkler system (10, Fig. 1) comprising a body (50, Fig. 1) with an orifice (200, Fig. 1), the orifice (200, Fig. 1) being sealed by a sealing assembly (100, Fig. 1) configured to withstand a hydrostatic strength test pressure of greater than 700 psi (Col. 12, Ln. 5-7).
Silva, Jr., Dibble, and Sekula are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprinkler systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the sprinkler rating taught in Sekula’s sprinkler system to Silva, Jr.’s system, as modified by Dibble above, to have a sealing assembly configured to withstand a hydrostatic strength test pressure of greater than 700 psi. Doing so allows the system to withstand higher pressures (Sekula, Col. 12, Ln. 5-7).
Regarding claim 12, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble and Sekula, discloses the claim 11 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses the fluid supply system (12, 16 comprises a fluid source (12, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0020) and at least one pump (not explicitly shown, but the wet portion 12 can further include pumps, Paragraph 0020).
In regards to claim 14, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble and Sekula, discloses the claim 11 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses the plurality of storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) are located proximate to the ceiling (shown in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 15, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble and Sekula, discloses the claim 14 above. Silva Jr. further discloses each storage sprinkler head (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) of the plurality of storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) includes a fluid deflector (300, Figs. 7A-7H) located at a distance of between approximately 4 inches and approximately 30 inches from the ceiling (a deflector-to-ceiling distance of seven inches is disclosed as an example, Paragraph 0036).
With respect to claim 16, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble and Sekula, discloses the claim 11 above. Silva, Jr. discloses the sprinkler system (10, Fig. 1) further comprising at least one storage rack (50, Figs. 1, 2A-2B), the at least one storage rack (50, Figs. 1, 2A-2B) having at least one commodity (individual boxes within the rack array, shown in Figs. 1, 2A-2B) stored thereupon at a storage height of greater than twelve feet above the floor (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 17, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble and Sekula, discloses the claim 16 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses at least a portion of the plurality of storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) are disposed within the at least one rack (50, shown in Figs. 1, 2A-2B).
In regards to claim 18, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble and Sekula, discloses the claim 11 above. Silva, Jr. further discloses the plurality of storage sprinkler heads (20, 200, Figs. 1, 7A-7H, 9B) are chosen from a group consisting of upright sprinklers (Paragraph 0005).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva, Jr. (US 20190143162 A1) in view of Dibble (US 20220379150 A1) and Sekula (US Patent 11,511,145) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pope et al. (US Patent 6,221,263).
With respect to claim 13, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble and Sekula, discloses the claim 11 above. However, Silva, Jr., Dibble, and Sekula do not teach the fluid supply system comprises a main pump and a jockey pump.
Pope teaches a storage occupancy sprinkler system (10, Fig. 1) comprising a fluid supply system (20, Fig. 1) comprises a main pump (12, Fig. 1) and a jockey pump (14, Fig. 1).
Silva, Jr., Dibble, Sekula, and Pope are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprinkler systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the fluid supply system taught in Pope’s sprinkler system to Silva, Jr.’s system, as modified by Dibble and Sekula above, to have the fluid supply system comprises a main pump and a jockey pump. Doing so allows the system to provide a sufficient amount of fluid to the sprinklers (Pope, Col. 2, Ln. 21-64).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva, Jr. (US 20190143162 A1) in view of Dibble (US 20220379150 A1) and Sekula (US Patent 11,511,145) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Silva, Jr. et al. (US 20190247692 A1, herein referenced as Silva, Jr. ‘692).
In regards to claim 19, Silva, Jr., as modified by Dibble and Sekula, discloses the claim 11 above. In another reference, Silva, Jr. teaches a sprinkler system (entire system, Figs. 2-3) comprising each storage sprinkler head (10, Figs. 1-3) of the plurality of storage sprinkler heads (10, Figs. 1-3) is an ESFR sprinkler (Paragraph 0026).
Silva, Jr., Dibble, Sekula, and Silva, Jr. ‘692 are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sprinkler systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the fluid supply system taught in Silva, Jr. ‘692’s sprinkler system to Silva, Jr.’s system, as modified by Dibble and Sekula above, to have each storage sprinkler head of the plurality of storage sprinkler heads is an ESFR sprinkler. Doing so provides the system to suppress the fire in a faster response (Silva, Jr. ‘692, Paragraph 0026).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-19, and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 O 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights