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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026. The examiner notes that applicant has stated “Applicant believes that Claims 1-20 are readable on the elected species.” Upon further examination of applications specification, claims, and the elected figures it was noted that species E figures 7-8 could not read on claim 1. Claim 1 requires “an internal cross-sectional area of the interior cavity taken at any location along a central axis X-X of the nozzle portion is equal to a total open area of the plurality of exit orifices arranged downstream from that location.” Which is not possible in figures 7-8, as there are locations along the central axis x-x where the nozzle portion does not equal a total open area of the plurality of exit orifices, see below annotated figure.
PNG
media_image1.png
551
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The area between the top and bottom line in the annotated figure has the same cross0sectional area, however the total area of the plurality of exit orifices arranged in that area changes as one moves from the top line to the bottom line. Therefore, only claims 19 and 20 are believed to read on the elected species and will be examined.
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 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,186,606. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claim 19 are found in claim 1 of the patent 12,186,606.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmadzadegan (U.S. 20180272166) in view of Boretti (U.S. 6109387).
With respect to claim 19, Ahmadzadegan discloses a nozzle assembly for a fire suppression system (title, figure 6), comprising:
a body (body portion of 126, the body being at and above 124 towards 102) having an inlet end (inlet at 102) for receiving a flow of fire extinguishing agent from the fire suppression system at an inlet pressure (abstract);
a nozzle portion extending from the body (figure 6, the portion about 132), the nozzle portion having: an interior cavity (inside 128) having an outlet end (the end where 1342 is located); a center body (136) arranged within the interior cavity adjacent the outlet end (shown in figure 6); and a plurality of exit orifices (132) are formed in an outer wall of the nozzle portion (figure 6, the wall portion where 132 is formed), in communication with the interior cavity (128), for vectoring the flow of fire extinguishing agent exiting therefrom and to reduce a noise level of the nozzle assembly (as the fluid flows from 132 from 128, and noise reduction being the primary goal of the system, title and abstract); Ahmadzadegan fails to disclose at least one perforated filter member positioned upstream from the plurality of exit orifices formed in the nozzle portion, for reducing the inlet pressure of the flow of fire extinguishing agent.
Boretti, figures 6-7, discloses at least one perforated filter member (being the filters of 39) positioned upstream from the exit in the nozzle portion (being upstream of the outlet see figures 1-7, as 39 is before the nozzle portion extending after), for reducing the inlet pressure of the flow of gas (column 5 rows 25-35 and abstract) as the use of layers of the porous mesh allows for dissipation of energy within the gas which decreases the noise within the system (see background of the invention).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the at least one perorated filter member of Boretti into the system of Ahmadzadegan, allowing for further sound suppression to occur as well as the indicated decreasing pressure.
With respect to claim 20, Ahmadzadegan as modified discloses the at least one perforated filter member is a plurality of perforated filter members (Boretti, figure 6 discloses multiple mesh filters 39) and the plurality of perforated filter members decrease in a porosity from the inlet end to the nozzle portion (Boretti, column 7 rows 10-15, discloses that the stack of 39’s have either a larger or smaller mesh size within the stack from one another, the mesh size going from large to small would result in a decreasing porosity in the direction from inlet to outlet).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights