DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the present application.
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 .
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 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas (US 10729925) in view of Lloyd et al. (US 5680329; hereinafter Lloyd).
Regarding claim 1, Lomas teaches a pressure probe measurement system (abstract) comprising:
a pressure measurement device (at least 18; see also 118) including a port (24) configured to removably access and fluidly connect with a dry or wet portion of a fire sprinkler system (col. 2, ¶ at 59 – tester is removable; col. 5, ¶ at 65 – testing is for fire sprinkler system), a pressure sensor fluidly connected to the port (col. 4, ¶ at 45 – pressure gauge is fluidly attached via a valve; see abstract teaching water flowing through), and hardware electrically interconnected with the pressure sensor and configured to measure pressure in the fire sprinkler system and to monitor changes in the pressure in the fire sprinkler system (abstract; col. 4, ¶ at 45 teaches using a digital pressure gauge and gives an example of a DPGWB-08 which has electronics and a display for monitoring pressure; see figs. 1 and 4).
Lomas lacks specific teaching regarding the hardware including a time keeping device and firmware and/or software that allows a fire sprinkler technician to determine times when key events occur in a trip test and/or full flow trip test of the fire sprinkler system.
However, Lloyd teaches details regarding hardware for a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), specifically a time keeping device (abstract teaches a recorder for recording and date/time stamping) and software (see at least fig. 1) for providing information regarding trip testing of the fire sprinkler system to a user (abstract teaches regarding testing the fire protecting systems; col. 2, ¶ at 11 teaches regarding trip tests for sprinkler systems specifically; see abstract regarding real-time notification to users; col. 5, ¶ at 62 regarding time stamping the provided test data).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of using the hardware/software with a clock/timer for time stamping trip test data of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of this hardware and software allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as times of key events such as trip testing. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 2, Lomas lacks specific teaching that the system includes a controller, the controller having its own clock and an interface that allows the technician to record times of events and then synchronize the times of those events to pressure measurements of the pressure measurement device to determine the key events that occur in the trip test and/or full flow trip test of the fire sprinkler system.
However, Lloyd teaches details regarding hardware for a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), having a controller (10/14) with a time keeping device (abstract teaches a recorder for recording and date/time stamping; see col. 5, ¶ at 62 regarding time stamping via the controller recorder 14 which “a microprocessor-based recorder” ... “or a computer system capable of digitally recording sensor data, that receives signals from the sensors and date/time stamps such data”) and software (see at least fig. 1) for providing information regarding trip testing of the fire sprinkler system to a user (abstract teaches regarding testing the fire protecting systems; col. 2, ¶ at 11 teaches regarding trip tests for sprinkler systems specifically; see abstract regarding real-time notification to users; col. 5, ¶ at 62 regarding time stamping the provided test data).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of using the hardware/software with a clock/timer for time stamping trip test data of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of this hardware and software allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as times of key events such as trip testing. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 3, Lomas teaches that the pressure measurement device is configured to permit the fire sprinkler technician to display pressure in the fire sprinkler system (via display of pressure gauge 18; see also least col. 1, lines 51-52 “The pressure gauge included with the test assembly displays residual pressure during the flow test”) and start and/or stop the time keeping device (at least col. 1, lines 49-52 teaches that “water is allowed to flow for a timed period” during the testing and col. 5, ¶ at 31 teaches that “other time periods may be utilized, with the appropriate calculations performed to determined rate of flow over a given period of time”).
Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the device comprises on board memory and a clock, and wherein the system includes a controller.
However, Lloyd teaches details regarding hardware for a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), having a controller (10/14) with a time keeping device (abstract teaches a recorder for recording and date/time stamping; see col. 5, ¶ at 62 regarding time stamping via the controller recorder 14 which “a microprocessor-based recorder having a memory such as RAM, ROM” ... “or a computer system capable of digitally recording sensor data, that receives signals from the sensors and date/time stamps such data”) and software (see at least fig. 1) for providing information regarding trip testing of the fire sprinkler system to a user (abstract teaches regarding testing the fire protecting systems; col. 2, ¶ at 11 teaches regarding trip tests for sprinkler systems specifically; see abstract regarding real-time notification to users; col. 5, ¶ at 62 regarding time stamping the provided test data).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of using the hardware/software with a clock/timer for time stamping trip test data of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of this hardware and software allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as times of key events such as trip testing. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 5, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to determine a trip time during a trip test of a dry sprinkler system.
However, Lloyd teaches regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), having timing (see at least abstract) and trip testing (col. 2, ¶ at 11) of a dry sprinkler system (col. 1, ¶ at 5 “fire protection systems include, for example, … dry pipe systems”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of using the hardware/software with a clock/timer for time stamping trip test data for trip tests and dry sprinkler systems of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of this hardware and software allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as times of key events such as trip testing. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 6, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to determine a full flow trip time during a full flow trip test of a dry sprinkler system.
However, Lloyd teaches regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), having timing (see at least abstract) and trip testing (col. 2, ¶ at 11) of a dry sprinkler system (col. 1, ¶ at 5 “fire protection systems include, for example, … dry pipe systems”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of using the hardware/software with a clock/timer for time stamping trip test data for trip tests and dry sprinkler systems of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of this hardware and software allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as times of key events such as trip testing. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 7, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to monitor, record or remotely view air pressure of a dry sprinkler system during a trip test of the dry sprinkler system.
However, Lloyd teaches details regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), having trip testing (col. 2, ¶ at 11) of a dry sprinkler system (col. 1, ¶ at 5 “fire protection systems include, for example, … dry pipe systems”) and teaches that “Sprinkler system test, inspection, and maintenance requirements are as diverse as the systems themselves. Requirements vary depending on system type, but can be generalized in simplified terms to include, but not be limited to: testing of flow switches, tamper switches, pressure switches, and alarm devices; and inspection of water levels, water temperature, valve-room temperatures, control valves, alarm valves, deluge valves, dry pipe valves, air pressure maintenance devices, foam supply levels, and proportioning systems.” (col. 5, ¶ at 4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of using air pressure testing/monitoring for trip tests and dry sprinkler systems of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of these tests allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as times of key events such as trip testing. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 8, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to determine a valve opening point during a trip test of a dry sprinkler system.
However, Lloyd teaches details regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), having trip testing (col. 2, ¶ at 11) of a dry sprinkler system (col. 1, ¶ at 5 “fire protection systems include, for example, … dry pipe systems”) and teaches regarding the pressure transducer sensing valve opening status (col. 12, ¶ at 52).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of using valve open information with respect to testing/monitoring for trip tests and dry sprinkler systems of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of these tests allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as times of key events such as trip testing. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 9, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to determine a compressor initiation point during a trip test of a dry sprinkler system.
However, Lloyd teaches regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), having trip testing (col. 2, ¶ at 11) of a dry sprinkler system (col. 1, ¶ at 5 “fire protection systems include, for example, … dry pipe systems”) and teaches the system has a compressor power sensor (132).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of using air pressure testing/monitoring for trip tests and dry sprinkler systems with a compressor power sensor of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of these tests allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as times of key events such as trip testing. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 10, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to verify an accuracy of pressure measurements of analog gauges permanently installed on the fire sprinkler system.
However, Lomas does disclose a removable pressure sensing system for fire sprinkler systems (abstract).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the removable pressure sensing system for fire sprinkler systems of Lomas with comparing the pressure measurement to any other pressure measurement including an analogue gauge. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected comparing pressure measurements to be one of several straightforward ways of of improving a technicians understanding of the system because multiple data points allows for determining various datum including a broker sensor, a broken gauge or a clog in the system.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automate such comparisons, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result (measuring the pressure) involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04 (III)).
Regarding claim 11, Lomas teaches that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to monitor pressures during a hydrostatic test (col. 5, lines 27-33 teaches regarding monitoring static pressure in the system).
Regarding claim 12, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to monitor pressures during a deluge system test.
However, Lloyd teaches regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), and teaches that “Sprinkler system test, inspection, and maintenance requirements are as diverse as the systems themselves. Requirements vary depending on system type, but can be generalized in simplified terms to include, but not be limited to: … deluge valves, dry pipe valves,” (col. 5, ¶ at 4) as well as “Such water-based fire protection systems include, for example, sprinkler systems, … deluge systems, …” (col. 1, ¶ at 5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of pressure testing/monitoring for deluge systems of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of these tests allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as for testing deluge systems. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 13, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to monitor pressures during a main drain test.
However, Lloyd teaches regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), and teaches that “Sprinkler system test, inspection, and maintenance requirements are as diverse as the systems themselves. Requirements vary depending on system type” (col. 5, ¶ at 4) as well as “Sprinkler systems, etc. also have frequent testing requirements such as, but not limited to, quarterly main drain tests” (col. 2, ¶ at 11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of pressure testing/monitoring for main drain tests of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of these tests allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as for main drain tests. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 14, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system allows the fire sprinkler technician to monitor pressures during a pre-action system pressure test.
However, Lloyd teaches regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract), and teaches that “Sprinkler system test, inspection, and maintenance requirements are as diverse as the systems themselves. Requirements vary depending on system type” (col. 5, ¶ at 4) as well as testing of “preaction systems” (col. 5, ¶ at 44).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of pressure testing/monitoring for preaction systems of Lloyd. This is because such knowledge of these tests allows for providing a desired system with user indicated functionality such as for preaction systems. This is important to properly record and monitor a fire sprinkler system test.
Regarding claim 15, Lomas teaches that the system includes a controller configured to permit the fire sprinkler technician to display pressure in the fire sprinkler system (via display of pressure gauge 18; see also least col. 1, lines 51-52 “The pressure gauge included with the test assembly displays residual pressure during the flow test”) and start and/or stop the time keeping device (at least col. 1, lines 49-52 teaches that “water is allowed to flow for a timed period” during the testing and col. 5, ¶ at 31 teaches that “other time periods may be utilized, with the appropriate calculations performed to determined rate of flow over a given period of time”).
Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the pressure measurement device and/or the controller allows the fire sprinkler technician to download information displayed and/or stored on the pressure measurement device and/or the controller to a computer.
However, Lloyd teaches regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract) and teaches regarding transmitting the data to/from the device via a communication link (18/18a/18b; see fig. 1) to a computer (at least 24).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of the communication link for transmitting / downloading data of Lloyd. This is because such transmittal / downloading of the data allows for storage in a computer or the like. This is important to properly store and analyze the data collected regarding a fire sprinkler system test.
Claims 4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas (US 10729925) in view of Lloyd et al. (US 5680329; hereinafter Lloyd) as applied to claims 1 as well as 2 (for claim 17) above and further in view of Goyette et al. (US 20190224513; hereinafter Goyette).
Regarding claim 4, Lomas teaches regarding the concept of allowing for start and/or stop the time keeping device (at least col. 1, lines 49-52 teaches that “water is allowed to flow for a timed period” during the testing and col. 5, ¶ at 31 teaches that “other time periods may be utilized, with the appropriate calculations performed to determined rate of flow over a given period of time”).
Lomas and Lloyd lack direct and specific teaching that the system includes a controller configured to wirelessly communicate with the pressure measurement device and to permit the fire sprinkler technician to display pressure in the fire sprinkler system.
However, Goyette teaches pressure monitoring (abstract) for a fire sprinkler system ([0038]) having a controller ([0133]); a display (abstract) on a mobile device ([0120] “The display can be a web browser-based application and/or another type of application on the mobile device 210”; see fig. 10 showing that the remote device may be a mobile phone; see also [0120] with a list of example mobile devices).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device/system of Lomas and Lloyd with the specific knowledge of using the wireless communication with a mobile device with a display of Goyette. This is because such communication allows an end user to receive desired data on a mobile device. This is important to simplify user operation of the device/system.
Regarding claim 16, Lomas teaches that the system includes a controller configured to permit the fire sprinkler technician to display pressure in the fire sprinkler system (via display of pressure gauge 18; see also least col. 1, lines 51-52 “The pressure gauge included with the test assembly displays residual pressure during the flow test”) and start and/or stop the time keeping device (at least col. 1, lines 49-52 teaches that “water is allowed to flow for a timed period” during the testing and col. 5, ¶ at 31 teaches that “other time periods may be utilized, with the appropriate calculations performed to determined rate of flow over a given period of time”).
Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the pressure measurement device and/or the controller allows the fire sprinkler technician to transmit information displayed and/or stored on the pressure measurement device and/or the controller to a mobile device.
However, Lloyd teaches regarding a system of water-based fire protection system testing (abstract) and teaches regarding transmitting the data to/from the device via a communication link (18/18a/18b; see fig. 1) to a computer (at least 24).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital pressure sensor for a fire sprinkler system of Lomas with the specific knowledge of the communication link for transmitting / downloading data of Lloyd. This is because such transmittal / downloading of the data allows for storage in a computer or the like. This is important to properly store and analyze the data collected regarding a fire sprinkler system test.
Lomas and Lloyd lack direct and specific teaching that the controller is a mobile device.
However, Goyette teaches pressure monitoring (abstract) for a fire sprinkler system ([0038]) having a controller ([0133]) and a display (abstract) on a mobile device / mobile phone ([0120] “The display can be a web browser-based application and/or another type of application on the mobile device 210”; see fig. 10 showing that the remote device may be a mobile phone; see also [0120] with a list of example mobile devices).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device/system of Lomas and Lloyd with the specific knowledge of using the wireless communication with a mobile device with a display of Goyette. This is because such communication allows an end user to receive desired data on a mobile device. This is important to simplify user operation of the device/system.
Regarding claim 17, Lomas and Lloyd lack direct and specific teaching that the controller is a mobile phone.
However, Goyette teaches pressure monitoring (abstract) for a fire sprinkler system ([0038]) having a controller ([0133]) and a display (abstract) on a mobile device / mobile phone ([0120] “The display can be a web browser-based application and/or another type of application on the mobile device 210”; see fig. 10 showing that the remote device may be a mobile phone; see also [0120] with a list of example mobile devices).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device/system of Lomas and Lloyd with the specific knowledge of using the wireless communication with a mobile device with a display of Goyette. This is because such communication allows an end user to receive desired data on a mobile device. This is important to simplify user operation of the device/system.
Regarding claim 18, Lomas lacks direct and specific teaching that the system comprises one or more additional pressure sensors, each additional pressure sensor including an additional pressure sensor port configured to removably access and fluidly connect with the dry or wet portion of the fire sprinkler system, and wherein the controller is configured to permit the fire sprinkler technician to display pressure measured by each additional pressure sensor.
However, Lloyd does disclose that it is more cost-effective to have a central portion 20 that can communicate with a plurality of independent on-site portions 10 to acquire data from and verify code compliance of several separate, independent fire systems at the same time. (col. 19, ¶ at 9)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plural systems reporting pressure sensor data of Lloyd with specific port and display pluralities. This is because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (here plural pressure sensors with displayed pressure) involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best prior art of record Lomas (US 10729925), Lloyd et al. (US 5680329), and Goyette et al. (US 20190224513), fail to specifically teach the invention as claimed. The limitations of independent claim 1 when combined with the limitations regarding the steps of connecting; recording; starting a timer; using a GUI; and stopping the timer as specifically recited in dependent claims 19 and 20 distinguish the present invention from the combined prior art.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 19 and 20. The examiner cannot find specific teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine the elements of these references other than applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
See especially:
Decker et al. (US 20230330465) teaching systems and methods for the remote testing of a fire sprinkler system having pressure sensing, portable controller and timing – see abstract, [0041], [0049] and fig. 1.
Seip et al. (US 10166420) teaching a sensor assembly having a sensor reservoir with probe for fire sprinkler and other systems to monitor and measure the internal characteristics of a pipe system with removability and wireless connectivity and a plurality of sensors – see abstract, col. 6, lines 5-7; col. 7, lines 35-38 and figs. 2-3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights