DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 56-67 are pending. New claims 68-78 have been added. Claims 1-55 were previously canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 77 and 78 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of claim 77, “inputs” should be changed to --input--, and in line 2 of claim 78, the “T” at the end of the line should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 56-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 56-77 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 56-77 recites at least one step or instruction for determining the risk of a wildfire to a structure, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The recited limitations involve using a control system having a processor and an algorithm, which performs calculations to determine a “risk” for the structure, wherein the control system transmits a signal comprising the defined risk, which involves mitigating risk (i.e., determining the risk of a wildfire damaging or destroying property).
Accordingly, each of Claims 56-77 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 56 recites a method of protecting a structure from wildfires, the structure having a wildfire suppression system configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from wildfires, the method comprising:
a) a control system comprising a processor, and an algorithm (additional element);
b) the processor, based upon the algorithm (additional element), conducting calculations, based upon a plurality of factors, to determine a defined risk for the structure, and thereby provide the defined risk (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
c) the processor (additional element) determining that the structure is threatened by a wildfire, based upon using the algorithm to conduct calculations based upon the defined risk (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
d) whereby the determination that the structure is threatened by the wildfire is based upon the defined risk provided by the processor (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
e) the control system then transmitting a signal to a device at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system; wherein the signal comprises the defined risk (additional element); thereby defining a transmitted defined risk (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));and
f) based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk, activating the wildfire suppression system from the device at the location remote from the wildfire suppression system (involves mitigating the risk of damage/loss of property, a fundamental economic practice and/or involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, either of which is grouped as a method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and/or an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) based on paragraph [0089] of Applicant’s specification where “activating the wildlife suppression system” includes cell phone input).
Independent Claim 68 recites a method of protecting a structure from wildfires, the structure having a wildfire suppression system configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from wildfires, the method comprising:
a) a control system, the control system comprising a processor and an algorithm; (additional element);
b) the control system (additional element), conducting calculations, based upon a plurality of factors, to determine a defined risk for the structure, and thereby provide the defined risk (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
c) the control system (additional element), based at least in part upon the defined risk, determining that the structure is threatened by a wildfire; (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
d) the control system then transmitting a signal to a device at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system; wherein the signal comprises the defined risk, the determination that the structure is threatened by the wildfire, or both (additional element); thereby defining a transmitted defined risk (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));and
f) based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk, activating the wildfire suppression system (involves mitigating the risk of damage/loss of property, a fundamental economic practice and/or involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, either of which is grouped as a method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and/or an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) based on paragraph [0089] of Applicant’s specification where “activating the wildlife suppression system” includes cell phone input).
Independent Claim 75 recites a method of protecting a structure from wildfires, the structure having a wildfire suppression system configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from wildfires, the method comprising:
a) a control system comprising a processor, and an algorithm (additional element);
b) the processor, based upon the algorithm (additional element), conducting calculations, based upon a plurality of factors, to determine a defined risk for the structure, and thereby provide the defined risk (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
c) the processor (additional element) determining that the structure is threatened by a wildfire, based at least in part upon using the algorithm to conduct calculations based upon the defined risk (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
d) whereby the determination that the structure is threatened by the wildfire is based upon the defined risk provided by the processor (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
e) the control system then transmitting a signal to a device at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system; wherein the signal comprises the defined risk, the determination that the structure is threatened by the wildfire, or both (additional element); thereby defining a transmitted defined risk (involves an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));and
f) based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk, activating the wildfire suppression system (involves mitigating the risk of damage/loss of property, a fundamental economic practice and/or involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, either of which is grouped as a method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and/or an evaluation or judgement, which is an abstract idea grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) based on paragraph [0089] of Applicant’s specification where “activating the wildlife suppression system” includes cell phone input).
Further, dependent Claims 57-67, 69-74, 76 and 77 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of independent Claims 56, 68, and 75 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 56, 68, and 75), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Specifically, the additional element of a control system transmitting a signal comprising the defined risk to a device at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., sending data). Further, the additional elements of: “a control system comprising a processor, and an algorithm” are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 56, 68, and 75 which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 56, 68, and 75 is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract ideas are not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implement the above-identified abstract ideas (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a control system comprising a processor, and an algorithm and a device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 56, 68, and 75 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 56, 68, and 75 (and their respective dependent claims 57-67, 69-74, 76 and 77) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 56-77 includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “a control system comprising a processor, and an algorithm” and “the control system transmitting a signal comprising the defined risk to a device at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system.”
The above-identified additional elements of “a control system comprising a processor, and an algorithm” are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. Additionally, the above-identified additional element of “the control system transmitting a signal comprising the defined risk to a device at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system” is nothing more than receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, paragraphs 125-128 and figure 4 describe the “control system comprising a processor” as a generic “computer device” which may include additional generic components and peripheral devices. Specifically, Applicant’s specification discloses
[00125] FIG. 11 is a diagram of an example computer (e.g., processing) device 1104 (which may be incorporated near and/or within the control system 16 and/or near and/or within the remote activation/access 76) wherein one or more of the devices, methods, and/or systems disclosed herein may be implemented, at least in part. In FIG. 11, the computer device 1104 may include one or more of: a processor 1132, a transceiver 1112, a transmit/receive element (e.g., antenna) 1114, a speaker 1116, a microphone 1118, an audio interface (e.g., earphone interface and/or audio cable receptacle) 1120, a keypad/keyboard 1122, one or more input/output devices 1124, a display/touchpad/touch screen 1126, one or more sensor devices 1128,Global Positioning System (GPS)/location circuitry 1130, a network interface 1134, a video interface 1136, a Universal Serial Bus (USB) Interface 1138, an optical interface 1140, a wireless interface 1142, in-place (e.g., non-removable) memory 1144,removable memory 1146, an in-place (e.g., removable or non-removable) power source 1148, and/or a power interface 1150 (e.g., power/data cable receptacle). The computing device 1104 may include one or more, or any sub-combination, of the aforementioned elements.
[00126] The computing device 1104 may take the form of a laptop computer, a desktop computer, one or more circuit boards, a computer mainframe, a server, a terminal, a tablet, a smartphone, and/or a cloud-based computing device (e.g., at least partially), and/or the like.
[00127] The processor 1132 may be a general-purpose processor, a special-purpose processor, a conventional processor, a digital-signal processor (DSP), a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in association with a DSP core, a controller, a microcontroller, one or more Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), one or more Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGAs) circuits, any other type of integrated circuit (IC), and/or a finite-state machine, and/or the like. The processor 1132 may perform signal coding, data processing, power control, sensor control, interface control, video control, audio control, input/output processing, and/or any other functionality that enables the computing device 1104 to serve as and/or perform as (e.g., at least partially) one or more of the devices, methods, and/or systems disclosed herein.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “a control system comprising a processor, and an algorithm” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe in detail any special programming or algorithm required for the “ control system comprising a processor”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in 56, 68, and 75 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods of Claims 56, 68, and 75 (and their respective dependent claims) are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 56, 68, and 75 (and their respective dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 56-77 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 56-77 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 56-67, 75, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “the processor…conducting calculations…to determine a defined risk…and provide a defined risk” in lines 6-7 of claim 56 and lines 5-6 of claim 75 is not supported by the as-filed application. The Specification is devoid of any description that the processor conducts calculations to determine the defined risk and then provides the defined risk.
The as-filed Specification explicitly describes the processor having the following capabilities: sending and receiving data, receiving user input data and sending output data, receiving data stored on a memory and writing data to a memory, receiving specific data from an external device (e.g., GPS device, digital camera, headset, media player), receiving data from a sensor, and connecting to a network interface, a video interface, a USB interface, an optical interface, and a wireless interface. There is no explicit disclosure of the processor having an algorithm, performing calculations, and making a determination that the structure is threatened by a fire.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 56-57, 60-61, 66, 68-69, 72-73, and 75-78 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2010/0000743) in view of Wall (US 7,275,604).
Regarding claim 56, Cohen discloses a method of protecting a structure from wildfires (par. 2; fig. 1), the structure including a wildfire suppression system (10) configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from wildfires (par. 2; fig. 1), the method comprising:
a control system (38/39/40) comprising an algorithm (par. 52 - “programmed”; par. 59 – “identify the need to apply fire retardant and automatically initiate the system”; par. 68 – “But once the system of the present invention identifies a potential fire approaching the area, the system automatically switches from irrigation mode to fire protection mode”), the control system based upon the algorithm determining that at least the structure is threatened by a wildfire using the algorithm to conduct calculations based upon a plurality factors (par. 46 - inputs from the humidity sensors and fire sensors; par. 59 – “measures a drop in humidity” then activates system) and thereby providing a defined risk for the structure (par. 46 - “precipitous drop in humidity” and “rise in heat” indicating the “approach of a wildland fire”; par. 52 - “apply suppressant over intervals or through cycles in the event of a fire so that the suppressant supply does not run out”; par. 53 - “open select distribution valves 34, providing for the application of a mixture of water and fire suppressant to a structure or landscape through appropriate zones 36”);
the control system transmitting a signal (68, see par. 57) to a device (66A or 66B) at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system (par. 56; fig. 1); wherein the signal comprises the defined risk (par. 56 - “monitoring”, which inherently requires the defined risk to be transmitted to the remote location; par. 57 - “provide for supplemental human supervision”); thereby defining a transmitted defined risk (since the signal represents information regarding environmental conditions indicative of a fire and it sent to an alternate location); and,
based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk (par. 57 - “supplemental human supervision” at the remoted control unit inherently requires the human that is monitoring the system to consider the “defined risk”, i.e., the approach of a fire, when making the decisions regarding how to “control” the system), activating the wildfire suppression system from the device at the location remote from the wildfire suppression system (par. 57 - “provide for…control of fire control efforts from a safe location”).
Cohen does not further disclose that the control system comprises a processor.
Wall teaches a method of protecting a structure (11) from fire, the structure having a wildfire suppression system (10) configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from the fire (col. 1, ln. 21-24), the method comprising: a control system (20) comprising a processor (21), the processor comprising an algorithm (col. 5, ln. 9-10); determining a defined risk for the structure (col. 6, ln. 54-56 – “an ambient temperature is detected to be higher than a maximum threshold temperature”), and thereby provide a defined risk (col. 6, ln. 52 – “instruct the control panel 20”); and, based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk, activating the fire suppression system (col. 6, ln. 50-53 – “activate and deactivate the lawn 40 and fire 50 sprinkler assemblies”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to have modified the method of Cohen such that the control system comprises a processor, as taught by Wall, since this was known to provide a structure configured to allow automatic operation of a wildfire suppression system without the need for user input (col. 4, ln. 67-col. 5, ln. 4).
Regarding claim 57, Cohen in view of Wall discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56, and wherein the control system is not located at the structure (par. 42; fig. 1 - control system 38 is located in an underground vault that is separate from the structure).
Regarding claim 60, Cohen in view of Wall discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56, and wherein the plurality of factors include a perimeter of an actively burning wildfire (par. 64).
Regarding claim 61, Cohen in view of Wall discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56, and wherein the plurality of factors include flame detection (par. 60).
Regarding claim 66, Cohen in view of Wall discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56, and wherein the device (66A/66B) at the location remote from the wildfire suppression system is configured to determine one or more activation triggers (par. 46), and based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk the device determines at least one of the activation triggers (par. 57 – “a remote control unit 66 communicate with the control unit 38”), thereby providing an activation trigger; and the activation of the wildfire suppression system is based in part upon the determined activation trigger (par. 57 – “remote control unit 66 will provide for supplemental human supervision and control of fire control efforts”).
Regarding claim 68, Cohen teaches a method of protecting a structure from wildfires (par. 2; fig. 1), the structure having a wildfire suppression system (10) configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from wildfires (par. 2; fig. 1), the method comprising:
a control system (38/39/40), the control system comprising an algorithm (par. 52 - “programmed”; par. 59 – “identify the need to apply fire retardant and automatically initiate the system”; par. 68 – “But once the system of the present invention identifies a potential fire approaching the area, the system automatically switches from irrigation mode to fire protection mode”); the control system conducting calculations, based upon a plurality factors (par. 46 - inputs from the humidity sensors and fire sensors; par. 59 – “measures a drop in humidity” then activates system) to determine a defined risk for the structure, and thereby provide the defined risk (par. 46 - “precipitous drop in humidity” and “rise in heat” indicating the “approach of a wildland fire”; par. 52 - “apply suppressant over intervals or through cycles in the event of a fire so that the suppressant supply does not run out”; par. 53 - “open select distribution valves 34, providing for the application of a mixture of water and fire suppressant to a structure or landscape through appropriate zones 36”);
the control system, based at least in part upon the defined risk, determining that the structure is threatened by a wildfire (par. 59 – “once a drop in humidity is identified, to be a threat for a wildland fire”);
the control system then transmitting a signal (68, see par. 57) to a device (66A or 66B) at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system (par. 56; fig. 1); wherein the signal comprises the defined risk, the determination that the structure is threatened by the wildfire, or both (par. 56 - “monitoring”, which inherently requires the defined risk to be transmitted to the remote location; par. 57 - “provide for supplemental human supervision”); thereby defining a transmitted defined risk (since the signal represents information regarding environmental conditions indicative of a fire and it sent to an alternate location); and,
based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk (par. 57 - “supplemental human supervision” at the remoted control unit inherently requires the human that is monitoring the system to consider the “defined risk”, i.e., the approach of a fire, when making the decisions regarding how to “control” the system), activating the wildfire suppression system (par. 57 - “provide for…control of fire control efforts from a safe location”).
Cohen does not further disclose that the control system comprises a processor.
Wall teaches a method of protecting a structure (11) from fire, the structure having a wildfire suppression system (10) configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from the fire (col. 1, ln. 21-24), the method comprising: a control system (20) comprising a processor (21), the processor comprising an algorithm (col. 5, ln. 9-10); determining a defined risk for the structure (col. 6, ln. 54-56 – “an ambient temperature is detected to be higher than a maximum threshold temperature”), and thereby provide a defined risk (col. 6, ln. 52 – “instruct the control panel 20”); and, based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk, activating the fire suppression system (col. 6, ln. 50-53 – “activate and deactivate the lawn 40 and fire 50 sprinkler assemblies”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to have modified the method of Cohen such that the control system comprises a processor, as taught by Wall, since this was known to provide a structure configured to allow automatic operation of a wildfire suppression system without the need for user input (col. 4, ln. 67-col. 5, ln. 4).
Regarding claim 69, Cohen in view of Wall discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 68, and wherein the control system is not located at the structure (par. 42; fig. 1 - control system 38 is located in an underground vault that is separate from the structure).
Regarding claim 72, Cohen in view of Wall discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 68, and wherein the plurality of factors include a perimeter of an actively burning wildfire (par. 64).
Regarding claim 73, Cohen in view of Wall discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56, and wherein the plurality of factors include flame detection (par. 60).
Regarding claim 75, Cohen discloses a method of protecting a structure from wildfires (par. 2; fig. 1), the structure including a wildfire suppression system (10) configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from wildfires (par. 2; fig. 1), the method comprising:
a control system (38/39/40) comprising an algorithm (par. 52 - “programmed”; par. 59 – “identify the need to apply fire retardant and automatically initiate the system”; par. 68 – “But once the system of the present invention identifies a potential fire approaching the area, the system automatically switches from irrigation mode to fire protection mode”), the control system based at least in part upon the algorithm determining that at least the structure is threatened by a wildfire using the algorithm to conduct calculations based upon a plurality factors (par. 46 - inputs from the humidity sensors and fire sensors; par. 59 – “measures a drop in humidity” then activates system) and thereby providing a defined risk for the structure (par. 46 - “precipitous drop in humidity” and “rise in heat” indicating the “approach of a wildland fire”; par. 52 - “apply suppressant over intervals or through cycles in the event of a fire so that the suppressant supply does not run out”; par. 53 - “open select distribution valves 34, providing for the application of a mixture of water and fire suppressant to a structure or landscape through appropriate zones 36”);
the control system then transmitting a signal (68, see par. 57) to a device (66A or 66B) at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system (par. 56; fig. 1); wherein the signal comprises the defined risk, the determination that the structure is threatened by the wildfire, or both (par. 56 - “monitoring”, which inherently requires the defined risk to be transmitted to the remote location; par. 57 - “provide for supplemental human supervision”); thereby defining a transmitted defined risk (since the signal represents information regarding environmental conditions indicative of a fire and it sent to an alternate location); and,
based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk (par. 57 - “supplemental human supervision” at the remoted control unit inherently requires the human that is monitoring the system to consider the “defined risk”, i.e., the approach of a fire, when making the decisions regarding how to “control” the system), activating the wildfire suppression (par. 57 - “provide for…control of fire control efforts from a safe location”).
Cohen does not further disclose that the control system comprises a processor.
Wall teaches a method of protecting a structure (11) from fire, the structure having a wildfire suppression system (10) configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from the fire (col. 1, ln. 21-24), the method comprising: a control system (20) comprising a processor (21), the processor comprising an algorithm (col. 5, ln. 9-10); determining a defined risk for the structure (col. 6, ln. 54-56 – “an ambient temperature is detected to be higher than a maximum threshold temperature”), and thereby provide a defined risk (col. 6, ln. 52 – “instruct the control panel 20”); and, based at least in part upon the transmitted defined risk, activating the fire suppression system (col. 6, ln. 50-53 – “activate and deactivate the lawn 40 and fire 50 sprinkler assemblies”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was made to have modified the method of Cohen such that the control system comprises a processor, as taught by Wall, since this was known to provide a structure configured to allow automatic operation of a wildfire suppression system without the need for user input (col. 4, ln. 67-col. 5, ln. 4).
Regarding claims 76-78, Cohen, in view of Wall, discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claims 56, 68, and 75, respectively, and further wherein the control system is in communication with a sensor (40, see par. 46 and fig. 1), whereby the control system receives an input from the sensor (par. 46; fig. 1).
Claims 59, 62-63, 67, 71, and 74 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cohen, in view of Wall, and further in view of Smagac et al. (US 5,165,482).
Regarding claims 59 and 71, Cohen, in view of Wall, discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claims 56 and 68, respectively. Cohen, in view of Wall, does not disclose wherein the plurality of factors include fuel distribution patterns for a region proximate to the structure, wherein the fuel distribution patterns comprising fuel distribution patterns of vegetative plant communities, or patterns of structures.
Smagac teaches a method of protecting a structure from fire (col. 1, ln. 7-11), the structure (“R”) including a wildfire suppression system (fig. 2) configured to protect the structure and a desired area around the structure from the fire (fig. 1 - interpreted to be the area in sector “E”), the method comprising: a control system (1) comprising an algorithm (col. 5, ln. 59-63) determining that at least the structure is threatened by the fire using the algorithm to conduct calculations based upon one or more factors (col. 5, ln. 63-65); and activating the fire suppression system from an activation location remote from the wildfire suppression system (col. 5, ln. 68 to col. 6, ln. 1); and wherein the one or more factors include fuel distribution patterns for a region proximate to the structure, the fuel distribution patterns comprising fuel distribution patterns of vegetative plant communities (col. 4, ln. 12-15 and 25-26 - sectors are selected based on vegetation; col. 7, ln. 6-16 - sectors are defined in the computer and used in the calculation to determine risk of fire and application of firefighting resources).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cohen, in view of Wall, such that the plurality of factors include fuel distribution patterns for a region proximate to the structure, the fuel distribution patterns comprising fuel distribution patterns of vegetative plant communities, as taught by Smagac, since these factors were known to intensify the fire danger (Smagac - col. 4, ln. 26).
Regarding claims 62 and 74, Cohen, in view of Wall, discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claims 56 and 68, respectively. Cohen, in view of Wall, does not disclose wherein the plurality of factors include volumetric sensing, video imaging sensing, or multimodal object recognition.
Smagac teaches the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 59, and further wherein the one or more factors include volumetric sensing (col. 6, ln. 9-12; cl. 13; fig. 3, step 305 - the method senses the volume of water available).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cohen, in view of Wall, such that the plurality of factors include volumetric sensing, as taught by Smagac, since this was known to account for the available supply of water to fight the fire.
Regarding claim 63, Cohen, in view of Wall, discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56. Cohen, in view of Wall, does not disclose wherein the plurality of factors include an occurrence of one or more fires burning within a set radius from the structure.
Smagac teaches the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 59, and further wherein the one or more factors include an occurrence of one or more fires burning within a set radius from at least the structure (fig. 3 - step 301).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cohen, in view of Wall, such that the plurality of factors include an occurrence of one or more fires burning within a set radius from the structure, as taught by Smagac, since this was known to allow the method to use the available firefighting resources at the optimum time to protect the structure.
Regarding claim 67, Cohen, in view of Wall, discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 66. Cohen, in view of Wall, does not disclose the method further comprises providing the device with information and/or data; the device performing a reconfiguration of itself using the information, data or both; and the device adjusting the determined activation trigger based on the reconfiguration.
Smagac teaches the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56, and further wherein the activating is performed by a device (1) configured to determine one or more activation triggers (col. 5, ln. 65-67) and the method further comprising: providing the device with information, data or both (col. 8, ln. 3-6 - the computer receives the latest information on a fire thread); the device performing a reconfiguration of itself using the information, data or both (col. 8, ln. 6-11 - based on information indicating the fire is moving away, the computer reconfigures to a different protection mode); and the device adjusting the determined activation trigger based on the reconfiguration (col. 8, ln. 15-20 - in the new protection mode the activation triggers are adjusted to a reduced frequency based on fire threat and availability of water).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cohen, in view of Wall, to further comprise providing the device with information, data or both; the device performing a reconfiguration of itself using the information, data or both; and the device adjusting the determined activation trigger based on the reconfiguration, as taught by Smagac, since this enables the system to adjust the response as the fire threat to the structure and desired area around the structure, as well as the available firefighting resources changes.
Claims 58, 64, and 70 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cohen, in view of Wall, in view of Aamodt et al. (US 2006/0113403).
Regarding claims 58 and 70, Cohen, in view of Wall, discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56 and 68, respectively. Cohen, in view of Wall, does not disclose wherein the plurality of factors include historical fire patterns for a region proximate to the structure.
Aamodt teaches a method of protecting a structure from fire (par. 1), the structure including a wildfire suppression system (10/12/14) operative to protect a desired area around the structure from the fire (par. 18; fig. 1), the method comprising: determining that at least the structure is threatened by the fire based upon one or more factors (par. 37 - the detectors, 78, or "heat sensors", which are located "around the building" or "near the edge of a canyon area", detect a wildfire); and activating the fire suppression system from an activation location remote from the wildfire suppression system (par. 37 - the system can be activated by telephone); and wherein the one or more factors include historical fire patterns for a region proximate to the structure (par. 46 - "historical fire data...provides a reliable statistical indicator of the direction that wildfires travel").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cohen, in view of Wall, such that the plurality of factors include historical fire patterns for a region proximate to the structure, as taught by Aamodt, since this was known to provide a reliable statistical indicator of the direction that wildfires will travel (Aamodt, par. 46).
Regarding claim 64, Cohen, in view of Wall, discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56, and further wherein the activating includes wireless remote access (par. 57). Cohen, in view of Wall, does not disclose wherein the activating includes remote access via a satellite link.
Aamodt teaches the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 58, and wherein the activating includes remote access via a satellite link (par. 37 - "cellular or satellite phones systems").
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cohen, in view of Wall, such that the activating includes remote access via a satellite link, as taught by Aamodt, since this was a known wireless communication system.
Claim 65 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cohen, in view of Wall, in view of Archer et al. (US 2016/0304051).
Cohen, in view of Wall, discloses the method of protecting a structure from fire described regarding claim 56. Cohen, in view of Wall, does not disclose that the activating includes the use of an authorization code, the authorization code including at least one of a fingerprint or facial recognition.
Archer teaches a fire suppression system (100) that is activated by an authorization code comprising a fingerprint or facial recognition (par. 51) since this prevents the system to be controlled by an unauthorized user (par. 51).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cohen, in view of Wall, to further require the authorization code to be either a fingerprint or facial recognition, as taught by Archer, since this would also prevent unauthorized control of the system and would not require a user to rely on memorization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a) rejection of claim 56 for having new matter, Applicant argues that the written description “need not be in ipsis verbis [i.e., “in the same words”] to be sufficient”, but that it should be evaluated from the perspective of one of skill in the art, based upon the specification as a whole. Applicant further argues that the Examiner has applied the “legally improper ‘explicit disclosure’ standard”, and has failed to follow the correct legal standard and has ignored the Specification as a whole.
In regards to the 112(a) rejection for new matter for the limitation “the processor…conducting calculations…to determine a defined risk…and thereby provide a defined risk”, Applicant identifies that support is provided by Figure 11 and paragraphs 125 and 127. These portions describe the control system having a processor (fig. 11; par. 125), and the processor having the capability of performing “one or more of the…methods…disclosed herein (par. 127). In response, it is noted that this is not considered to be adequate specificity to support the subject limitation and overcome the rejection for being new matter. This limitation further narrows the claim scope from that of the originally filed claims and is narrower than any embodiment of the invention explicitly disclosed in the as-filed Specification and Drawings. It is also noted that the Examiner does not consider that the Specification must explicitly disclose every detail, as alleged by the Applicant; however, disclosure of a genus does not necessarily constitute support for every species, see MPEP 2163.05(II). As such, the subject claim limitation is considered to contain new matter and the rejection under 112(a) is maintained.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 56, Applicant argues that Cohen does not disclose that the system has an “algorithm” because Cohen’s use of the term “programmed” conveys no more than setting the timers on the sprinklers”. In response, it is noted that Cohen discloses that the system is programmed to provide the following functionality, which is more than just simple on/off operation in response to a single input. Cohen discloses a system that is configured to operate automatically in the event of a fire or threat of fire (par. 2). To do this, it performs the step of “conducting calculations”, which is construed to require the system to work out the risk of a fire to the structure, as described above. Further, the programming of the system of Cohen is not merely an “on/off timer” that operates in a fixed manner in accordance only with the timer. Cohen discloses a system that automatically provides irrigation and fire protection depending on current environmental conditions; the system is configured to automatically change its configuration depending on the inputs from the environmental sensors. Among other features and advantages, the control system of Cohen,
“is designed to identify the need to apply fire retardant and automatically initiate the system” and “Once a drop in humidity is identified, to be a threat for a wildland fire, the system of the present invention is activated, and fire retardant is distributed to the exterior of a structure and/or landscape to prevent a fire.” (par. 59);
can operate automatically even when a person is not available based on the signals of a fire sensor (par. 60);
is able “to sense the presence of an approaching wildland fire and to distribute the fire retardant before it begins to break down and become inviable” (par. 61);
is able “to identify a fire and efficiently distribute fire suppressant to an area without exhausting the fire suppressant supplies” (par. 64);
is able “to prioritize which mode, irrigation or fire fighting, the system should be in” and “once the system of the present invention identifies a potential fire approaching the area, the system automatically switches from irrigation mode to fire protection mode” (par. 68).
Regarding the limitation to “an algorithm”, it is noted that the claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01(I). The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “algorithm” is interpreted to be a step-by-step procedure for accomplishing some end, consistent with the definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Cohen is interpreted to disclose this for the reasons described in the rejection above.
Further regarding claim 56, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the processor performs “two distinct steps, each building upon the other”) 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).
Regarding the steps of identifying a defined risk that is then used as the basis to determine that the structure is threatened by fire, Cohen discloses this as described in the rejection above and repeated here for clarity. When a “precipitous drop in humidity” and “rise in heat” are detected (par. 46), a risk of fire to the structure is determined (the “defined risk”), and the fire suppression system is activated (par. 52, 53).
Further regarding claim 56, Applicant argues that Cohen does not provide a defined risk based upon a plurality of factors, and that the defined risk is determined by the processor conducting calculations based upon the algorithm. In response, it is noted that the control system of Cohen identifies a risk of fire based on the inputs from humidity sensors and fire sensors, which are interpreted to be the “plurality of factors”, as described in the rejection above. Cohen’s control system provides a “defined risk” when it automatically decides to initiate distribution of the fire suppressant to protect the structure/grounds based on the various environmental conditions (par. 46), which is “a plurality of factors”. Further, the control system includes the sensors, they are not separate and apart. The interpretation is consistent with the principle of broadest reasonable interpretation—the limitation is to a system, which can include a number of individual components that are operatively connected. Additionally, the control system performs “calculations or evaluations” regarding the defined risk by opening select valves in the system to apply fire suppressant through appropriate zones (par. 53) and by applying suppressant over intervals or through cycles in order to conserve the supply of suppressant (par. 52) and by measuring a drop in humidity (par. 59).
Regarding the term “calculations”, it is noted that the claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01(I). The term “calculations” is interpreted to be careful estimation and planning of likely outcomes, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. As explained above, the system of Cohen is configured to estimate and plan for the likelihood or risk of fire depending on the inputs from the sensors.
Also regarding claim 56, Applicant further argues that the control system of Cohen does not transmit the defined risk to a device at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system only after the control system determines that the structure is threatened by fire. In response, it is noted that this feature is 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). Claims 56 requires only that the defined risk is transmitted; it does not recite any limitations that would exclude transmitting the defined risk if no threat of fire is determined.
Further, regarding the Examiner’s interpretation that the defined risk is inherently transmitted, Cohen discloses that information regarding operation of the system is transmitted to a remote location for monitoring and to provide supplemental human supervision. Without providing information that characterizes and defines the risk, such monitoring and supervision is not possible. Examiner further notes that Cohen teaches that the remote device monitors the defined risk provided by the control system and based on that defined risk the fire suppression system can be activated (par. 57). Therefore, the Examiner concludes that in order for the “monitoring” or “supplemental human supervision” to be performed, the defined risk must be transmitted because if it is not than there would be no way to monitor or supervise.
In particular, it is noted that Cohen teaches “supplemental human supervision and control of fire control efforts from a remote location” (par. 57) and this “necessarily and always” requires information pertaining to the presence and likelihood of a fire (in other words, “defined risk”) to do. Cohen further teaches that this information is provided by the control unit 38 and environmental sensors (par. 57).
Finally, regarding claim 56, Applicant argues that Wall does not disclose or suggest a processor or an algorithm. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, Wall is not far removed from the claimed invention. Wall is directed to a multi-zone fire detection system to detect fires in many different types of settings, including rural residences and buildings (col. 4, ln. 60-63).
Regarding claim 57, Applicant’s argues that Cohen does not teach the limitation that the control system is not located at the structure since paragraph 42 is devoid of any discussion of the control system and since figure 1 does not disclose that the underground vault 10 is not located at the structure. Applicant further notes that patent drawings cannot be relied upon to provide precise proportions. In response, it is noted that paragraph 42 teaches that the vault can be located underground and houses the components of the wildfire suppression system, which includes the control system. Figure 1 shows the that the vault is not located at the structure and shows the control system disposed within the vault. The Office has not relied upon the figures to teach or disclose any precise proportions; therefore, Applicant’s argument in that regard is moot. Regarding the limitation “at the structure”, it is noted that this is construed to mean contained within or mounted on the structure, and even if the underground vault is disposed under or near the structure, it is not considered to be “at the structure”. Therefore, Cohen is still interpreted to teach each and every limitation of claim 2 and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 66, Applicant’s argues that Cohen does not teach that devices (66A/66B) determine activation triggers. Since Cohen teaches that the device (66A/66B) is in communication with the sensors (40) via the control system, and is able to monitor the “alarm status” (par. 56) and “control fire control efforts” it is considered to teach this limitation and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 59, Applicant argues that Smagac does not teach the defined risk is determined based upon “fuel distribution patterns”. Applicant argues that Smagac teaches only that any fuel sources are identified as things that need to be treated to prevent a fire. In response it is noted that the subject limitation has been construed to mean that any factor that increases the risk of fire to the structure and desired area must be considered to determine the “defined risk”. Therefore, since Smagac teaches that the computer system accounts for these fuel sources in its calculations and takes action when necessary to prevent them from catching on fire, Smagac is interpreted to teach this limitation. Further, it is noted that Applicant’s argument is against Smagac individually, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further regarding claim 59 in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 62, Applicant argues that Smagac does not disclose the defined risk is determined based on “volumetric sensing” since Smagac discloses only filling the water tank when empty. In response, it is noted that Smagac discloses much more than just sensing the tank level and refilling it as necessary. Smagac discloses that the amount of water available for firefighting is considered when the computer system calculates the best strategy to use (see claim 13 of Smagac), and thus the amount/availability of water is a factor in determining the threat of a wildfire to the structure. For these reasons, Smagac is interpreted to disclose this limitation, and the obviousness rejection is maintained. Applicant further argues that this is speculation on the part of the Office. In response it is noted that Smagac explicitly teaches this as noted in the references herein (i.e., claim 13). Applicant’s argument that the Office has failed to provide any support from Smagac for this teaching is not found convincing, and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 63, Applicant argues that Smagac does not disclose the limitation to “a set radius” because Smagac’s reference to “in the vicinity of” is “non-specific, vague, and is not a set area.” In response, it is noted that the phrase “in the vicinity of” as used by Smagac is no less “non-specific, vague” than Applicant’s recitation of “a set radius”. Neither phrase indicates a specific distance. In both cases, these phrases set forth a requirement that the system has a distance at which it is capable of sensing a fire and responding to that fire to protect the structure. Therefore, Smagac is interpreted to disclose this limitation, and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 67, Applicant argues that Smagac does not teach the limitation that the device performs a reconfiguration of itself using the information and/or data. Applicant’s representative argues that the system of Smagac operates in a predetermined manner based on the received information, and this does not constitute a reconfiguration. In particular, Applicant argues that because Smagac teaches reconfiguring the system “when the fire has ceased to approach the structure” this does not relate to a threat of fire. Applicant further argues that the limitation in claim 56, from which claim 67 depends, “threatened by a fire” further limits the type of “information, data or both” of claim 67. In response it is noted that Smagac teaches that the response of the system is adjusted, or reconfigured, based on the information gathered by the sensors regarding the location of the fire and the direction it is moving. Regarding the phrase “a threat of fire”, this phrase can indicate either an increased or a decreased threat of fire. Further, there is no connection that the further information or data must indicate an increased threat of fire. Therefore, the rejection of claim 13 as being obvious over Cohen in view of Smagac is maintained.
Therefore, Smagac is considered to disclose the limitations of claim 13 as explained above, and the rejection of the claim as being obvious over Cohen in view of Smagac is maintained.
Regarding claim 58, Applicant argues that Aamodt does not disclose the limitation that the plurality of factors includes “historical fire patterns” since paragraph 46 of Aamodt states solely that “firefighters are able to reliably predict wildfire direction and behavior” for placement of a sprinkler head. In response, it is noted that the general teaching that would be gleaned from paragraph 46 of Aamodt is that historical fire patterns can be studied to provide reliable predictions as to where future fires will go. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to consider this as a factor in determining the defined risk of the control system of Cohen.
Further it is noted in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). One of ordinary skill in the art when considering the disclosures of Cohen and Aamodt would find it obvious to consider the historical fire patterns for a region when determining a defined risk for a structure.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In particular, Applicant asserts that “gleaning” is “nothing more than hindsight”. Examiner disagrees and reiterates that one having ordinary skill in the art and considering, or gleaning, only the information presented in the disclosures of Cohen and Aamodt would find the claimed invention to be obvious.
Lastly, regarding Applicant’s submission of evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness showing commercial success, unexpected results, and praise from others, it is noted that this evidence has been considered. Applicant has not shown the nexus between the claimed invention and the evidence. These news reports demonstrate only that sprinkler systems for the exterior of a building that are used to presoak the structure and grounds is effective in protecting that structure from a fire. Applicant has not established a nexus between the claimed invention and the objective evidence of nonobviousness, specifically, by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the 'direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’" Id. at 1373-74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Further, it is noted that "Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention." In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 716.01(b) and 716.03.
Applicant has not specifically shown how the commercial success, unexpected results, and praise from others is due to the unique characteristics described by the limitations of the claimed invention. The evidence provided does not mention or describe many of the features recited by the claims. The elements described or shown are sprinklers, piping, fire retardant, a cellular phone with an app, and software. None of these elements are specifically recited by the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights