DETAILED ACTION
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, 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geertz Figure 3 (US 2,287,873).
Regarding claim 1, Geertz discloses a method of using an integrated fire suppression system, comprising:
providing a cabinet (Page 2, Column 1, lines 68-73) comprising:
a plurality of environmentally isolated compartments (Figure 3, the device includes a compartment in the insulation 20, and a compartment exterior to the insulation 20), wherein the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments are configured to isolate leaks from one another (Page 4, lines 38-40, the insulation is described as an envelope that completely encloses the tank, and is made of a heat insulating material; The disclosure suggests that the material is capable of isolating leakages of thermal energy and fluids from one another),
a plurality of fire suppression control systems mounted in the cabinet and comprising electrical components and controls for at least one of water and gas solenoids (42) (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) (Page 5, Column 1, lines 15-19), and at least one of fluid storage and inert gas components mounted in the cabinet (Fluid storage tanks 17);
detecting a fire (Page 5, column 1, lines 67-72);
and emitting a hybrid media (Page 5, column 1, line 32, a mixture of carbon dioxide and snow) with an emitter (44) to extinguish the fire by operating the plurality of fire suppression control systems in response to detecting the fire (Page 5, Column 1, lines 8-28) wherein the media is a hybrid media that comprises an inert gas (carbon dioxide) and fluid mist (snow), comprising a predetermined droplet size (Snow includes a predetermined droplet size and Page 5, Column 1, lines 38-47, the size of the droplet may be optimized as desired).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 4, Geertz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the emitter comprises at least one emitter nozzle (44) mounted to the cabinet to extend into an exterior environment (Figure 3) and configured to enable emission of the hybrid media as a fire suppressant during operation (Page 5, Column 1, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 5, Geertz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cabinet comprises a plurality of preinstalled interconnects (46, 45) extending exteriorly from the cabinet (Figure 3), including at least one electrical, communication, and plumbing interconnect, each configured to connect components of the cabinet to exterior infrastructure (Figure 3, 48 49, 45) (Page 5, Column 2, lines 32-51).
Regarding claim 6, Geertz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein plurality of fire suppression control systems comprises an emitter control connected with the emitter, and wherein operating the plurality of fire suppression control systems in response to detecting the fire comprises the emitter control operating the emitter (The solenoid control of the solenoid valve is connected with and controls the emitter; Page 5, Column 1, lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 12, Geertz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fire is within an enclosure (Page 5, Column 1, lines 49-51).
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) 1-3, 7-11, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm (US 5,992,530) in view of Boegli (US 3,977,474).
Regarding claim 1, Sundholm discloses a method of using an integrated fire suppression system, comprising:
providing a storage (14) (Column 4, lines 15-18) comprising:
a plurality of fire suppression control systems (109, 160) mounted in the storage (Figure 2) and comprising electrical components and controls for at least one of water and gas solenoids (Column 5, lines 54-56, the provision of a signal to the valve suggests the inclusion of electrical components and controls for the solenoid), and
at least one of fluid storage (16’) and inert gas components (21) mounted in the storage (Figure 2);
detecting a fire (Column 5, lines 52-54); and
emitting a hybrid media with an emitter (200, 300) to extinguish the fire by operating the plurality of fire suppression control systems in response to detecting the fire (Column 5, lines 52-56), wherein the media is a hybrid media that comprises an inert gas and fluid mist, comprising a predetermined droplet size (Column 6, lines 6-16, 39-42 and 61-65), but fails to disclose the storage being a cabinet comprising:
a plurality of environmentally isolated compartments, wherein the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments, wherein the plurality of compartments are configured to isolate leaks from one another.
Boegli discloses an analogous device that includes storage in the form of a cabinet (511) that includes
a plurality of environmentally isolated compartments (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), wherein the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments, wherein the plurality of compartments are configured to isolate leaks from one another (The compartments include shelving that provide for isolation of leaks from one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundholm with the disclosures of Boegli, replacing the storage of Sundholm with the cabinet of Boegli, in order to provide for a known means of containing the elements of the suppression system for discharge.
Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses a method that includes providing a cabinet (Boegli, 505) (Boegli, Column 10, lines 59-65) comprising:
a plurality of environmentally isolated compartments (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1), wherein the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments, wherein the plurality of compartments are configured to isolate leaks from one another (Boegli, The compartments include shelving that provide for isolation of leaks from one another),
a plurality of fire suppression control systems (Sundholm, 109, 160) mounted in the cabinet (Boegli, 505) (Sundholm, Figure 2) and comprising electrical components and controls for at least one of water and gas solenoids (Sundholm, Column 5, lines 54-56, the provision of a signal to the valve suggests the inclusion of electrical components and controls for the solenoid), and
at least one of fluid storage (Sundholm, 16’) and inert gas components (Sundholm, 21) mounted in the cabinet (Boegli, 505) (Sundholm, Figure 2 and Boegli, Figure 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein emitting the hybrid media with the emitter comprising adjusting the at least one of water and gas solenoids (Column 5, lines 52-56).
Regarding claim 3, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of fluid storage and inert gas components comprises tanks that are the heaviest components of the cabinet (Figure 2), but fails to discloses the fluid storage or tanks positioned to have respective centers of gravity arranged at the lowest point within the cabinet, to stabilize the cabinet.
Boegli discloses a device wherein a tank (586,588) is positioned to have its center of gravity arranged at the lowest point within the cabinet, to stabilize the cabinet (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundholm with the disclosures of Boegli, providing the fluid storage (of Sundholm) positioned to have respective centers of gravity arranged at the lowest point within the cabinet, to stabilize the cabinet, as the configurations were known means to store the tanks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the change in orientation would provide no change in the function of the respective components.
Examiner further notes that the structure is a matter of design choice, and is not critical. Applicant states in paragraph 42 that the tanks can be arranged as claimed, or in an upright orientation. Applicant has not disclosed that the structure is for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. As disclosed by Applicant, the device would perform equally well with the tank upright, as depicted in Sundholm.
Regarding claim 7, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cabinet (Boegli, 505) comprises the fluid storage and inert gas components mounted in the cabinet (As modified, Sundholm, Figure 2 and Boegli Figure 5)
Regarding claim 8, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the inert gas component comprises a tank mounted in a vertical orientation with a first end in a first walled compartment of the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments and a second end in a second walled compartment of the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments.
Boegli discloses a method wherein a inert gas component comprises a tank mounted in a vertical orientation with a first end in a first walled compartment of the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments and a second end in a second walled compartment of the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments (Figure 5, the tank 510 includes a first (top) end in a first compartment, and a bottom end in a second compartment (Examiner’s Annotated 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 Sundholm with the disclosures of Boegli, providing the cabinet to include the tank mounted in a vertical orientation with a first end in a first walled compartment of the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments and a second end in a second walled compartment of the plurality of environmentally isolated compartments, as depicted in Boegli, as the configuration of securing the tank was a known alternative structure to secure the tank, and the modification would have yielded predictable results, including provision of structure to ensure proper alignment and security of the tank.
Regarding claim 9, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the high pressure tank extends through a sealed opening between the first walled compartment and the second walled compartment (Boegli, Figure 5, the tank extends through an opening, sealed by the tight fit between the wall of the tank, and the inner wall of the floor receiving the tank).
Regarding claim 10, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of fire suppression control systems (Sundholm, 109, 160) are mounted in the first walled compartment (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1) above the tank (Sundholm, Figure 2 and Boegli, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 11, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined droplet size is less than or equal to 200 µm in average diameter (Column 6, lines 64-65)
Regarding claim 16, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the inert gas comprises at least one of argon, helium, neon and nitrogen (Column 4, line 39, nitrogen).
Regarding claim 19, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fluid mist is water (Abstract, line 4).
Regarding claim 20, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 1, wherein emitting the hybrid media comprises suspending the hybrid media around the fire (Column 2, lines 58-65).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geertz.
Regarding claims 14-15, Geertz discloses the method of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the hybrid media is emitted at a low pressure that is above a pressure of the enclosure and below an internal operating pressure of the enclosure or as to claim 15, wherein the low pressure of the hybrid media is between 5% and 20% of an ambient atmospheric pressure.
Geertz discloses that the pressure is optimized to keep the liquid at surrounding atmospheric temperatures (Page 3, Column 1, lines 59-65). The pressure is put forth as a result effective variable as changing the pressure changes the temperature of the liquid. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Geertz device to have a pressure within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the value 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 Geertz making the low pressure above a pressure of the enclosure and below an internal operating pressure of the enclosure or between 5% and 20% of an ambient atmospheric pressure 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 18, Geertz discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the emitter defines an orifice comprising a diameter of less than or equal to 200 µm.
Geertz discloses that nozzle size is optimized, in order to provide for a desired discharge rate (Page 5, column 1, lines 38-48). The orifice diameter is put forth as result effective variable, as changing of the nozzle size changes the discharge rate. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Geertz device to have a nozzle size 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 Geertz making the emitter defining an orifice comprising a diameter of less than or equal to 200 µm 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).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm in view of Boegli and Richardson (US 2010/0170684).
Regarding claim 13, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein emitting the hybrid media with an emitter to extinguish the fire comprises lowering the oxygen concentration within the enclosure to less than or equal to 16 percent.
Richardson discloses a method of suppression wherein a suppressant is supplied to a particular area in order to lower oxygen concentration to less than or equal to 16 percent (Paragraph 125).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundholm in view of Boegli with the disclosures of Richardson, providing the method to include emitting the hybrid media with an emitter to extinguish the fire comprises lowering the oxygen concentration within the enclosure to less than or equal to 16 percent, in order to provide for a system that allows for occupancy of a space during suppression for up to 5 minutes during suppression, as disclosed by Richardson (Paragraph 125).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm in view of Boegli and Khalil (WO 2009126155).
As to claim 17, Sundholm in view of Boegli discloses the method of claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein the inert gas further comprises a secondary constituent.
Khalil discloses a water misting system wherein an inert gas may contain nitrogen and a secondary constituent (Paragraph 3, lines 1-3, nitrogen, argon, neon, helium, carbon dioxide or other chemically non- reactive gas, or mixtures of any two or more of these gases may be used)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sundholm in view of Boegli with the disclosures of Khalil, providing a method wherein the inert gas material further comprises a secondary constituent (Khalil, Paragraph 3, lines 1-3), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s position that the cabinet does not includes a plurality of compartments, Examiner interprets the space within the insulation as a compartment. A compartment is a “a separate division or section.” The insulation creates a separate division or section in the cabinet of Geertz. The insulation provides for environmental separation, as highlighted above.
As to Applicants position that the cabinet does not provide environmental separation between the tank and controls, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., environmental separation between the tank and controls) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
