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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, “removable” should be amended to read, “removably,” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "fire suppression powder" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "powder" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Does the limitation refer back to the fire suppression powder, or put forth a different powder?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "gas " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "gas" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Does the limitation refer back to the previously recited gas, or put forth a different gas?
Claim 1 recites a rupture disk and a rupture disk assembly. The claim is unclear as to whether the disk and assembly are the same element, or different elements.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "gas-generating propellant." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The same rejection applies to the first instance in claim 12.
Claim 12 puts forth “a gas-generating propellant.” The limitation is an improper double inclusion of the previously recited, “gas-generating propellant.”
The term “turbulent” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “turbulent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What degree of disturbance qualifies as a turbulent flow?
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berezovsky (US 2014/0305668).
Regarding claim 1, Berezovsky discloses a dry powder fire suppression system comprising:
a container (110);
fire suppression powder (120) disposed within the container (Figure 1);
a rupture disk assembly (140) coupled to the container (Figure 1) and configured to allow powder to flow therethrough when at a specified pressure (Abstract); and
a gas generator (130) coupled to the container (Figure 1), the gas generator (130) being configured to generate gas when triggered (Paragraph 18, lines 6-7), the gas generator having a plurality of gas expulsion apertures (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), each gas expulsion aperture being configured to allow gas generated by the gas generator to flow into the container to pressurize the container and activate the rupture disk to allow the fire suppression powder to discharge from the container (Paragraphs 8 and 12, the outlets are capable of performing the claimed function).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 3, Berezovsky discloses the dry powder fire suppression system of claim 1, wherein the gas generator includes a cylindrical sidewall extending into the container (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Berezovsky discloses the dry powder fire suppression system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of gas expulsion apertures includes at least some gas expulsion apertures that are axially spaced from one another on the sidewall (Figure 1 depicts axial spacing between the apertures).
Regarding claim 5, Berezovsky discloses the dry powder fire suppression system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of gas expulsion apertures includes at least some gas expulsion apertures that are rotationally spaced from one another on the sidewall (Figure 1, the apertures are circumferentially aligned about the sidewall).
Regarding claim 6, Berezovsky discloses the dry powder fire suppression system of claim 1, wherein the gas generator includes an ignitor (180) coupled to gas-generating propellant (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Berezovsky discloses the dry powder fire suppression system of claim 6, wherein the ignitor (180) is an electrical ignitor (Paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 12, Berezovsky discloses a gas generation system for a dry powder fire suppression system, the gas generation system comprising:
a body (Figure 1, the screw mounting the sidewall to the tank) mountable to a container of dry powder fire suppression material (Figure 1, The screw is mountable by the hexagonal nut);
a sidewall (The sidewall of container 130 including the sidewall of the portion with the apertures) extendable into the container (Figure 1, the sidewall is capable of being extended into a container), the sidewall having a plurality of gas expulsion apertures (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) and being configured to contain gas generating propellant (Paragraph 18, the sidewall is capable of performing the claimed function);
a gas generating propellant (184) disposed within the sidewall (Paragraph 18) and being configured to generate a gas when ignited (Paragraph 18, lines 6-7); and an ignitor (180) disposed at least partially within the sidewall in contact with the gas generating propellant (Figure 1 and Paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 15, Berezovsky discloses the gas generation system of claim 12, wherein the ignitor is an electrical ignitor (Paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 18, Berezovsky discloses the gas generation system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of gas expulsion apertures includes at least two gas expulsion apertures that are spaced axially apart on the sidewall (Figure 1 depicts axial spacing between the apertures).
Regarding claim 19, Berezovsky discloses the gas generation system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of gas expulsion apertures includes at least two gas expulsion apertures that are spaced rotationally apart on the sidewall (Figure 1, the apertures are circumferentially aligned about the sidewall).
Regarding claim 20, Berezovsky discloses the gas generation system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of gas expulsion apertures is configured to generate turbulent gas flow from the gas generation system (Paragraph 19, The apertures are capable of providing flow of a turbulence sufficient to discharge powder from the system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Berezovsky or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Berezovsky.
Regarding claims 8, Berezovsky discloses the dry powder fire suppression system of claim 1, wherein the gas generator is removably mounted to the container (Figure 1, the generator is screwed to the container).
Should it be found that the generator is not removably mounted, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to removably mount the generator, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177,179.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berezovsky in view of Kho (US 2022/0072353)
Regarding claim 2, Berezovsky discloses the dry powder fire suppression system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the gas generator is mounted asymmetrically to the container.
Kho discloses a device wherein a gas generator (114) is mounted asymmetrically to a container (106) (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berezovsky with the disclosures of Kho, providing the gas generator (Berezovsky, 130) to be mounted asymmetrically to the container (Berezovsky, 110), as the configurations were known alternative structures before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of discharged pressurizing fluid in a system where the position of the generator is not a critical element.
Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berezovsky in view of Wierenga (US 2004/0216903).
Regarding claim 9, Berezovsky discloses the dry powder fire suppression system of claim 8, but fails to disclose the system further comprising a seal disposed between the gas generator and the container.
Wierenga discloses a device that includes a seal (152) is disposed between a container (102) and generator (170).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berezovsky with the disclosures of Wierenga, providing an alternative known configuration wherein a seal is provided between the cartridge and container, in order to provide for a structure that ensures safe, efficient discharge of fluid into the container.
Regarding claims 10-11, Berezovsky discloses the dry powder fire suppression system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the rupture disk assembly is removably mounted to the container;
Or as to claim 11, further comprising a seal disposed between the rupture disk assembly and the container.
Wierenga discloses a device that includes a rupture disk (106) removably mounted to a container (102) (Paragraph 26), and further comprising a seal (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2) between the rupture disk assembly (106) and the container (102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berezovsky with the disclosures of Wierenga, providing the rupture disk removably mounted to the container (Wierenga, Paragraph 26), and further comprising a seal (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2) between the rupture disk assembly and the container, in order to provide for means to replace the rupture disk (Paragraph 26) and security of the burst disk to the container.
PNG
media_image2.png
874
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 2
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berezovsky in view of Galbraith (US 5449041).
Regarding claims 13-14, Berezovsky discloses the gas generation system of claim 12, but is silent as to whether the system further comprises a plurality of cylindrical members disposed adjacent to one another within the sidewall, each cylindrical member having a central aperture;
Or wherein the gas generating propellant is disposed within the central apertures of the cylindrical members.
Berezovsky discloses that the propellant is potassium nitrate based, but is silent as to the particular structure of the propellant. Galbraith discloses a potassium nitrate based propellant that includes a cylindrical member (74) disposed within a sidewall (12), having a central aperture (Figure 4, the central aperture receives the propellant 72); wherein the gas generating propellant (72) is disposed within the central aperture of the cylindrical member (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berezovsky with the disclosures of Galbraith, providing the propellant of Berezovsky to include a potassium nitrate based propellant including a cylindrical member (Galbraith, 74) disposed within the sidewall (Berezovsky, 130), having a central aperture (Galbraith, Figure 4, the central aperture receives the propellant); wherein the gas generating propellant is disposed within the central aperture of the cylindrical member (Galbraith, Figure 4), as the configurations were known alternative structures before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of propellant structure in a system where the propellant structure is not a critical element.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a plurality of cylindrical members adjacent to one another, each member having a central aperture, as opposed to a single member having a central aperture, as Applicant has not disclosed that the structure solves a stated problem or is for a particular purpose. It appears the device would perform equally well with a single member having a central aperture.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berezovsky in view of Vaughan (WO 2006138733).
Regarding claims 16-17, Berezovsky discloses the gas generation system of claim 12, but fails to disclose the device further comprising an endcap removable coupled to a distal end of the sidewall,
or wherein the endcap is a flat endcap.
Vaughan discloses a system wherein a generator includes an endcap (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3) removably coupled to a distal end of a sidewall (The endcap is threadably secured to a distal end of the sidewall), and wherein the endcap is a flat endcap (The endcap is a flat endcap that protrudes from the discharge end of the sidewall).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berezovsky with the disclosures of Vaughan, providing an endcap (Vaughan, Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3) removably coupled to a distal end of a sidewall (The endcap is threadably secured to a distal end of the sidewall), and wherein the endcap is a flat endcap (The endcap is a flat endcap that protrudes from the discharge end of the sidewall), in order to provide for access to the components of the generator for replacement and repair.
Should it be found that the endcap is not a flat endcap. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a flat endcap since it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image3.png
830
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 3
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 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 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights