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 .
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.
Claims 48, 50-55 and 58-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golinveaux (US 8,714,274) in view of Fischer (US 6,976,543).
Regarding claim 48, Golinveaux discloses a fire protection system, comprising:
a plurality of sprinklers (20) installed beneath a ceiling of a storage occupancy (Column 6, lines 28-32), the plurality of sprinklers having a sprinkler-to-sprinkler spacing greater than or equal to six-by-six feet and less than or equal to twenty-by-twenty feet (Column 23, lines 23-28), the plurality of sprinklers arranged in a hydraulic design area greater than or equal to six and less than or equal to eighteen sprinklers (Column 59, lines 28-30),
each sprinkler of the plurality of sprinklers having a K-factor greater than or equal to 11 gpm/(psi)1/2 and less than or equal to 36 gpm/(psi)1/2 (Column 23, lines 36-40),
each sprinkler of the plurality of sprinklers having a deflector shaped to output fluid in a spray pattern, (Figure 1A depicts the pattern 27), but is silent as to whether the pattern is a spray pattern having a non-circular shape in a plane below the deflector and perpendicular to an axis through the sprinkler, the non-circular shape comprising a central area and an outer area outward from the central area to a periphery of the non-circular shape, the central area having greater fluid distribution than the outer area.
Fischer discloses a sprinkler that includes a spray pattern having a non-circular shape in a plane below the deflector and perpendicular to an axis through the sprinkler (Column 6, lines 16-17 and Abstract line 13-16), the non-circular shape comprising a central area and an outer area outward from the central area to a periphery of the non-circular shape, the central area having greater fluid distribution than the outer area (Column 9, lines 58-65, The deflector is configured to provide discharge such that more water is collected in a one foot by one foot area; Column 15, lines 23-25, A lengthened flow is directed to the corner of the spray patterns).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Golinveaux with the disclosures of Fischer, providing a sprinkler that includes a spray pattern having a non-circular shape in a plane below the deflector and perpendicular to an axis through the sprinkler (Column 6, lines 16-17 and Abstract line 13-16), the non-circular shape comprising a central area and an outer area outward from the central area to a periphery of the non-circular shape, the central area having greater fluid distribution than the outer area (Column 9, lines 58-65, The deflector is configured to provide discharge such that more water is collected in a one foot by one foot area; Column 15, lines 23-25, A lengthened flow is directed to the corner of the spray patterns), in order to provide for a system that ensures effective management of resources available to protect against hazards, as disclosed by Fischer (Column 12, line 62-Column 13, line 3).
Regarding claims 50, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising: a network of pipes coupled with the plurality of sprinklers (Column 14, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 51, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising: the spray pattern is such that fluid density decreases from a center of an edge of the periphery to a corner of the periphery (Column 9, lines 58-65, The deflector is configured to provide discharge such that more water is collected in a one foot by one foot area; Column 15, lines 23-25, A lengthened flow is directed to the corner of the spray patterns).
Regarding claim 52, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising a water control valve coupled with the plurality of sprinklers (Column 11, line 38, control valve).
Regarding claim 53, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising: one or more sprinklers of the plurality of sprinklers has a K-factor of greater than 28 (Column 23, lines 39-40).
Regarding claim 54, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising: the plurality of sprinklers are upright sprinklers (Column 23, line 38).
Regarding claim 55, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising: the storage occupancy comprises at least one of Class I, Class II, Class III, Class IV, Group A, Group B, and Group C commodities (Column 25, lines 50-52).
Regarding claim 58, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claims 48 comprising: each sprinkler of the plurality of sprinklers comprises an outlet (20), a seal in the outlet (28), and a thermal trigger 26) coupled with the seal (Figure 6), the thermal trigger at a distance from the ceiling greater than or equal to two inches and less than or equal to twelve inches (Column 75, lines 19-21, The deflector is 7 inches from the ceiling; Considering the structure of the device, the trigger distance falls within the specified range).
Should it be found that Golinveaux fails to disclose the thermal trigger spaced as claimed, Golinveaux discloses that the ceiling to deflector (and thereby ceiling to trigger) distance is a result effective variable (Column 75, lines 20-25) in that changing the distance affects the ability of the sprinkler to overwhelm a fire (Column 70, lines 26-37) Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Golinveaux device to have a distance within the claimed range, 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 Golinveaux by making the thermal trigger at a distance from the ceiling greater than or equal to two inches and less than or equal to twelve inches 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).
Regarding claim 59, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising: the plurality of sprinklers are arranged in a tree configuration, a gridded configuration, or a looped system configuration (Column 11, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 60, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising: the plurality of sprinklers are coupled with a network of pipes to receive fluid from the network of pipes, the pipes having a main pipe and one or more branch pipes (Column 14, lines 15-28).
Regarding claim 61, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising: the plurality of sprinklers form a ceiling-only protection system (Column 6, line 37).
Regarding claim 62, Golinveaux discloses a fire protection system, comprising:
a plurality of sprinklers (20) installed beneath a ceiling of a storage occupancy (Column 6, lines 28-32), the plurality of sprinklers having a sprinkler-to-sprinkler spacing greater than or equal to six-by-six feet and less than or equal to twenty-by-twenty feet (Column 23, lines 23-28), the plurality of sprinklers arranged in a design area of greater than or equal to six and less than or equal to eighteen sprinklers (Column 59, lines 28-30), each sprinkler of the plurality of sprinklers having a K-factor greater than or equal to 11 gpm/(psi)1/2 and less than or equal to 36 gpm/(psi)1/2 (Column 23, lines 36-40), but is silent as to whether the pattern is a spray pattern having a non-circular shape in a plane below the deflector and perpendicular to an axis through the sprinkler, the non-circular shape comprising a plurality of areas from a center area to a perimeter, an amount of fluid outputted being less towards the perimeter than in the center area.
Fischer discloses a sprinkler that includes a spray pattern having a non-circular shape in a plane below the deflector and perpendicular to an axis through the sprinkler (Column 6, lines 16-17 and Abstract line 13-16), the non-circular shape comprising a plurality of areas from a center area to a perimeter (The shape has a more dense center area and a less dense outer area),an amount of fluid outputted being less towards the perimeter than in the center area (Column 9, lines 58-65, The deflector is configured to provide discharge such that more water is collected in a one foot by one foot area; Column 15, lines 23-25, A lengthened flow is directed to the corner of the spray patterns).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Golinveaux with the disclosures of Fischer, providing a sprinkler that includes a spray pattern having a non-circular shape in a plane below the deflector and perpendicular to an axis through the sprinkler (Column 6, lines 16-17 and Abstract line 13-16), the non-circular shape comprising a plurality of areas from a center area to a perimeter (The shape has a more dense center area and a less dense outer area), an amount of fluid outputted being less towards the perimeter than in the center area (Column 9, lines 58-65, The deflector is configured to provide discharge such that more water is collected in a one foot by one foot area; Column 15, lines 23-25, A lengthened flow is directed to the corner of the spray patterns), in order to provide for a system that ensures effective management of resources available to protect against hazards, as disclosed by Fischer (Column 12, line 62-Column 13, line 3).
Regarding claim 63, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 62, comprising: the perimeter of the non-circular shape comprising two or more linear edges equidistantly disposed about each sprinkler of the plurality of sprinklers (Fischer, Column 8, line 66-Column 9, line 4).
Regarding claim 64, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 62, comprising: the non-circular shape is rectangular (Fischer, Column 8, lines 66-67).
Regarding claim 65, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 62, comprising: the spray pattern is such that in an outer area between the center area and the perimeter, fluid density decreases from a center of an edge of the perimeter to a corner of the perimeter (Fischer, Column 15, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 66, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 62, comprising: the spray pattern comprises a two foot-wide outer area forming the perimeter and spaced from the central area (Column 9, lines 3-4), but is silent as to whether the outer area having a concentration of less than five percent of a total of the fluid outputted by the deflector.
Fischer discloses that the density of the flow may be varied as interactions of the constituent components may be varied (Column 15, lines 6-25). The concentration is put forth as a result effective variable, as changing of the interactions changes the concentration at different points in the flow. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation in optimizing the system to have an outer area with a concentration of less than five percent, as it involves optimizing the interactions of parts 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 Golinveaux in view of Fischer by making the outer area to have a concentration of less than five percent of a total of the fluid outputted by the deflector, as a matter of routine optimization of the interactions, 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). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spray preferably has the claimed concentration (Specification, paragraphs 52-54).
Regarding claim 67, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 62, comprising: the deflector comprises a plurality of tines (Fischer, 58).
Claims 49 and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golinveaux (US 8,714,274) in view of Fischer (US 6,976,543) and Bonneau (WO 2015/100367).
Regarding claims 49 and 56-57, Golinveaux in view of Fischer discloses the fire protection system of claim 48, comprising: each sprinkler of the plurality of sprinklers has a coverage area greater than or equal to 80 square feet and less than or equal to 100 square feet (Fischer, Column 6, lines 23-24), the storage occupancy having a commodity below the plurality of sprinklers (Abstract, lines 13-16) and having a storage height greater than or equal to forty-five feet and less than or equal to 60 feet (Column 41, lines 9-14), but fails to disclose the ceiling having a height less than or equal to 65 feet.
Bonneau discloses an analogous system that provides for protection of commodities in a system with a ceiling height less than or equal to 65 ft. (Paragraph 49, lines 11-15), and a commodity having a maximum storage height ranging from about 45 ft. to no more than 60 ft. (Paragraph 49, lines 16-19), by optimizing parameters of the occupancy and storage commodity impacting the system installation and performance (Paragraph 48).
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 Golinveaux in view of Fischer with the disclosures of Bonneau, optimizing the parameters of the occupancy and storage commodity impacting the system installation and performance (Bonneau, Paragraph 48), thereby providing a system that includes a ceiling height ranging from 50 ft.-65 ft. (Bonneau, Paragraph 49, lines 11-15), in order to provide for a system that provides maximal storage space for the class I, class II, and class III commodities, at heights not available under current installation standards, as disclosed by Bonneau (Paragraph 68, lines 1-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached on M-T 9am-7pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights