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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12097395B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Instant Application
Conflicting Patent US12097395
Claims 1 and 2
Claim 1
Claims 3-20
Claim 3-20 respectively
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.
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, 4-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryczek (US 20190374803 A1) in view of Moffa (US 20180169450 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ryczek discloses a fire suppression system (10), comprising: a cartridge (20) for holding a pressurized gas (para [0029]), the cartridge (20) operatively connected to a valve (30) (para [0030]); and a monitoring assembly (50, 56, 100) connected to the cartridge (20), the monitoring assembly comprising: a support bracket (34) for securing the cartridge (20) to the monitoring assembly. Ryczek fails to explicitly disclose at least one weight sensor for detecting a weight of the cartridge.
Moffa discloses a spring- based mechanism to measure the weight of the agent tank 320 (para [0011 and 0061]). Moffa further discloses in accordance with various embodiments, one or more sensors and at least one communications module can be included within fire suppression system 200. The sensors can be used to measure a current state at the nozzle 210, the cartridge, the agent tank, the release assembly, or other component states (e.g., temperatures, pressures, flow rates, volumes, and the like, (para [0051]). In addition, Moffa discloses Release assembly 330 can include one or more sensors (e.g., switches, accelerometers, scales, spring-based mechanism, etc.) to determine whether the cartridge is installed and to identify whether release assembly 330 is loaded or unloaded. These sensors can be provided by a number of manufacturers and can be integrated into various points on the assembly or included as part of an aftermarket add-on kit. When these sensors (e.g., micro switches) are available, the system can monitor the outputs of these sensors as I/O points allowing the system to determine whether cartridge 310 is installed and whether release assembly 330 is loaded or unloaded (para [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Ryczek’s fire suppression system with Moffa’s weight sensor because this can provide better indication of whether sufficient fire suppression agent is present within the tank.
Regarding claim 4, Ryczek discloses a fire suppression system (10), wherein the fire suppression system (10) further comprises a cylinder (20, 12) for holding a fire suppression agent (para [0028]).
Regarding claim 5, Ryczek discloses a fire suppression system (10), with the support bracket (34). Ryczek fails to explicitly disclose at least one weight sensor.
Moffa discloses a spring- based mechanism to measure the weight of the agent tank 320 (para [0011 and 0061]). Moffa further discloses in accordance with various embodiments, one or more sensors and at least one communications module can be included within fire suppression system 200. The sensors can be used to measure a current state at the nozzle 210, the cartridge, the agent tank, the release assembly, or other component states (e.g., temperatures, pressures, flow rates, volumes, and the like, (para [0051]). In addition, Moffa discloses Release assembly 330 can include one or more sensors (e.g., switches, accelerometers, scales, spring-based mechanism, etc.) to determine whether the cartridge is installed and to identify whether release assembly 330 is loaded or unloaded. These sensors can be provided by a number of manufacturers and can be integrated into various points on the assembly or included as part of an aftermarket add-on kit. When these sensors (e.g., micro switches) are available, the system can monitor the outputs of these sensors as I/O points allowing the system to determine whether cartridge 310 is installed and whether release assembly 330 is loaded or unloaded (para [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Ryczek’s fire suppression system with Moffa’s weight sensor because this can provide better indication of whether sufficient fire suppression agent is present within the tank.
Regarding claim 6, Ryczek discloses a fire suppression system (10), wherein the at least one sensor (58) is in contact with the valve (30) (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Ryczek discloses the fire suppression system (10), wherein the valve (30) comprises a piercing pin (36), the piercing pin positioned approximately central to the support bracket (para [0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Ryczek discloses the fire suppression system (10), wherein the valve (30) and the cartridge (20) are vertically oriented, with the cartridge (20) positioned above the valve (30) (Figs. 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 9, Ryczek discloses the fire suppression system (10) wherein the valve (30) and the cartridge (20) are vertically oriented. the cartridge (50) positioned below the valve (30).
Regarding claim 11, Ryczek discloses a cartridge monitoring assembly (100), comprising: a support bracket (34) for securing a cartridge (20) containing a pressurized gas to the cartridge monitoring assembly (100) for a pressurized gas triggering device (36).
Ryczek fails to explicitly disclose at least one weight sensor for detecting a weight of the cartridge.
Moffa discloses a spring- based mechanism to measure the weight of the agent tank 320 (para [0011 and 0061]). Moffa further discloses in accordance with various embodiments, one or more sensors and at least one communications module can be included within fire suppression system 200. The sensors can be used to measure a current state at the nozzle 210, the cartridge, the agent tank, the release assembly, or other component states (e.g., temperatures, pressures, flow rates, volumes, and the like; para [0051]). In addition, Moffa discloses Release assembly 330 can include one or more sensors (e.g., switches, accelerometers, scales, spring-based mechanism, etc.) to determine whether the cartridge is installed and to identify whether release assembly 330 is loaded or unloaded. These sensors can be provided by a number of manufacturers and can be integrated into various points on the assembly or included as part of an aftermarket add-on kit. When these sensors (e.g., micro switches) are available, the system can monitor the outputs of these sensors as I/O points allowing the system to determine whether cartridge 310 is installed and whether release assembly 330 is loaded or unloaded (para [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Ryczek’s fire suppression system with Moffa’s weight sensor because this can provide better indication of whether sufficient fire suppression agent is present within the tank.
Regarding claim 12, Ryczek discloses the cartridge monitoring assembly (100); the support bracket (34) of the monitoring assembly (the actuator 30 may additionally or alternatively be configured to activate in response to receiving an electrical signal from the automatic activation system 50). Referring to Fig. 1, the automatic activation system 50 includes a controller 56 that monitors signals from one or more fire detectors or sensors, shown as temperature sensor 58 (e.g., thermocouples, resistance temperature detectors, etc., para [0036]).
Ryczek fails to explicitly disclose one weight sensor comprises at least one electrical weight sensor.
Moffa teaches at least one weight sensor comprises at least one electrical weight sensor (para [0011], [0061] and [0066]).
The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Ryczek discloses the cartridge monitoring (100); connected to the support bracket (34) of the monitoring assembly (para [0031]) [the fire suppressant tank 12 may include a valve, a puncture device, or another type of opening device or activator assembly that is configured to fluidly couple the internal volume 14 to the pipe 40 in response to the pressure within the internal volume 14 exceeding the threshold pressure. Such an opening device may be configured to activate mechanically (e.g., the force of the pressure causes the opening device to activate, etc.) or the opening device may include a separate pressure sensor in communication with the internal volume 14 that causes the opening device to activate; para [0032].
Ryczek fails to explicitly disclose at least one weight sensor comprises at least one mechanical weight sensor.
Moffa teaches at least one weight sensor (para [0011 and 0061]) comprises at least one mechanical weight sensor (para [0011], [0061] and [0066]).
The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Ryczek discloses the cartridge monitoring assembly (100); Ryczek fails to explicitly disclose the at least one weight sensor [0066]) comprises at least one of: a spiral spring, a cantilever, a helical coil, a strain gauge, and a load cell
Moffa teaches wherein the at least one weight sensor (para [0011], [0061], comprises at least one of: a spiral spring, a cantilever, a helical coil, a strain gauge, and a load cell (para [0011], [0061], [0066]).
The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Ryczek discloses the cartridge monitoring assembly (100); contact with a valve (30), the valve comprising a piercing pin positioned approximately central to the support bracket (34), the valve (30) configured to release the pressurized gas when activated (para [0029]-[0030]). Ryczek fails to explicitly disclose at least one weight sensor.
Moffa teaches at least one weight sensor (para [0011 and 0061]).
The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryczek in view of Moffa in further view of Rousseau et al (US 9993673 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Ryczek discloses the fire suppression system (10); the valve (30) and cartridge (20). Rydzek and Moffa fail to explicitly disclose wherein the valve and the cartridge are horizontally oriented.
Rousseau teaches the valve (95) and the cartridge (50) are horizontally oriented (Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use fire suppression system as modified with Rousseau valve and the cartridge configuration because this allows to save vertical space and fit in tight low-clearance areas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowable over the prior of record.
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 2-3 the prior art of record taken alone and in combination does not disclose a fire suppression system comprising a controller to trigger a communication of a trouble condition when the monitoring assembly detects a weight variance greater than a threshold and the threshold is determined based upon a minimum amount of pressurized gas needed to actuate the valve.
Regarding claims 16-20, the prior art of record taken alone and in combination does not disclose a method for detecting a weight of a cartridge installed within a fire suppression system, the method comprising comparing the weight of the cartridge with a previously calculated full weight value to determine a weight variance of the cartridge; and triggering a communication, with the controller, when the weight variance of the cartridge is greater than a threshold and wherein the fire suppression system further comprises a controller to trigger a communication of a trouble condition when the monitoring assembly detects a weight variance greater than a threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIREILLE SANDRA SADATE-MOUALEU whose telephone number is (571)272-2862. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0730-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/MIREILLE S SADATE-MOUALEU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights