DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-26 is/are objected to. Applicants next response needs to include claims 1-18 as cancelled, and new claim 27 as a replacement for the incorrectly listed claim 18 from 1/18/2024 as the claims cannot be renumbered. Dependencies for claims 19-26 also require appropriate correction.
Additionally, claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “assessing a assessment of thermodynamic state” should be re-worded as “assessing a thermodynamic state” or another more clear alternative.
Claim 21 is objected to. Claim 21 states, “Regarding claim 21(new): Claim 19 (new)”. Claims cannot be renumbered.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “terminations” is misspelled as “teminations”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 18, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 states “and the medium carrier being is adapted to create an opening in the medium carrier”. This statement makes no logical sense as the carrier cannot create an opening in itself. The examiner will interpret the limitation to mean an opening is created in the carrier, by any means whether it be a compartment opening, a rupture, explosion, or simply the extension of a device by any means through an opening.
Additionally, claim 18 also states "the real temperature conditions" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear what the term “real” is meant to denote in this context as compared to their other sensor arranged in the area of the “protected facility”. Further, the term “real” is not defined in the specification.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 states “wherein in case of the medium carrier being of regular shape”. However, the phrase, “in case” suggests this might be an optional rather than a mandatory requirement, raising questions about whether the regular shape of the medium carrier is actually necessary.
Claim 24 further states “regular shape”. This is not further defined in the specification. If shape is somehow necessary to the design or function of the invention then it needs to be further defined.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “regular shape” in claim 24 is used by the claim to mean “shape,” while the accepted meaning is “a two-dimensional shape with sides of equal length and angles of equal measure.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Further, applicant’s figures, which are not to scale, do not appear to demonstrate a ‘regular shape’ per the accepted definition.
Additionally, claim 24 states “enclosing the medium within the carrier, or with glue or a weld.” It is unclear what is being modified by the language “or with glue or a weld” and whether these are alternatives to the polymer material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0227989) in view of Blanchong (US 5,040,610), Felten et al. (US 8,083,003), and Melink et al. (US 6,170,480).
Regarding claim 18(new), Thomas discloses an automatic cooling and equipment system (a fire detection device, abs.) intended for arrangement in a protected facility (an area to be monitored for a fire, par. 0006), comprising:
a medium carrier (container 102, fig. 1) and having an extinguishing medium (extinguishing agent, par. 0022) that is enclosed (fig. 1), under pressure (par. 0023), inside the medium carrier (retained within the container 102, par. 0023), and the medium carrier being is adapted to create an opening in the medium carrier.
to release the extinguishing medium in response to an initiation temperature being reached in the protected facility (when the monitored local temperature exceeds a threshold temperature indicative of the presence of a fire, the automatic activation apparatus 112 can induce removal (e.g., breakage) of the removable valve release of the valve 104, par. 0024), whereby the extinguishing medium is a cooling mixture with extinguishing effects (“The extinguishing agent can vary depending on application and may include one or more of water, foam, or agent with nano-particles”, par. 0022. Water has a dual purpose of cooling and extinguishing),
at least one sensor arranged in an area of the protected facility yet outside the medium carrier for assessment of thermal processes in the area of the protected facility (a temperature sensor provided in an area to be monitored for a fire, par. 0006),
Thomas fails to disclose that a medium carrier (container 102, fig. 1) made of polymer material.
However, Blanchong teaches a medium carrier (vessel 16, fig. 3) made of polymer (polymeric, abstract) material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing of the present invention to have the motivation to construct the medium carrier of Thomas with polymeric materials as taught by Blanchong for the benefit of cost effectiveness as they are extremely thin walled and capable of withstanding very high internal pressures (col. 2, line 42).
Thomas fails to disclose a passive internal sensor arranged within the medium carrier and/or an external sensor, arranged outside the carrier, yet in contact therewith, for monitoring and assessing a assessment of thermodynamic state of the medium inside the medium carrier or of leakage of medium from the carrier.
However, Felten et al. teaches a passive internal sensor (manometer 94, fig. 11) arranged within the medium carrier (located within fire-extinguishing substance container 10’, fig. 1 and fig. 11) and/or an external sensor, arranged outside the carrier, yet in contact therewith, for monitoring and assessing a assessment of thermodynamic state of the medium inside the medium carrier (for checking the internal pressure of the pressure cylinder 28, col. 12, line 50) or of leakage of medium from the carrier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing of the present invention to have the motivation to add a passive internal sensor arranged within the medium carrier for monitoring and assessing a assessment of thermodynamic state of the medium inside the medium carrier as taught by Felten et al. for the benefit of checking the internal pressure of the medium carrier (col. 12, line 50).
Thomas fails to disclose an additional element, arranged outside the protected facility, for detecting the real temperature conditions of the surroundings of the protected.
However, Melink et al. teaches an additional element (ambient air environment sensor 94, fig. 1), arranged outside the protected facility (ambient air environment sensor 94 shown outside of the exhaust hood 34, fig. 1), for detecting the real temperature conditions of the surroundings of the protected (in the reference the protected area is the exhaust hood 34 and the section underneath containing the cooking units 18, fig. 1 and temperature sensor 94 is located outside said exhaust hood 34, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing of the present invention to have the motivation to add an additional element, arranged outside the protected facility, for detecting the real temperature conditions of the surroundings of the protected as taught by Melink et al. for the benefit comfort, health or safety.
Thomas teaches the claimed invention except for the initiation temperature, which is 30°C. However, Thomas does teach an “adjustable” temperature activation, or “trip point” (paragraph 0002). Specifically, Thomas teaches that using a linear sensor allows the controller to select the “trip point” (temperature activation) for a peculiar application. Further, the last paragraph of p. 3 of applicant’s specification states “Protected equipment in different applications have different critical values of temperature for which suitable parameters of the ACFES system are modelled based on a combination of the aforementioned parameters.”
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. As the last paragraph of p. 3 states “the initiation temperature, at which the process inside the protected equipment subject to monitoring is regarded as critical and at which the formation of the emergency nozzle for the medium release is desirable, is modelled” which does not require a specific temperature, the last paragraph of p. 3 then merely states “thanks to the aforementioned prerequisites the ACFES system can be effective from 30°C” which does not explicitly require the specific temperature or stipulate that specific temperature as critical. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the initiation temperature, which is 30°C, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20 (new), Thomas discloses wherein the system (for a given fire detection system, par. 0035) is wirelessly (a wireless communication channel can be utilized, par. 0035) connected to a control system (automatic activation apparatus 112, par. 0035) of the protected facility (Par. 0035 states, “the automatic activation apparatus 112, and… can be positioned differently with respect to a fire extinguisher or can be remotely located from the fire extinguisher).
Regarding claim 21(new): Claim 19 (new), Thomas discloses wherein the system is wirelessly connected to a system of electronic signaling of the protected facility (one or more wires and or a wireless communication channel can be utilized to provide one or more control signals, par. 0035).
Regarding claim 24(new), Thomas discloses wherein in case of the medium carrier being of regular shape with one or more openings (fig. 1, opening 108), the openings are covered with terminations (nozzle opening 108, fig. 1, closed with valve 104) and enclosing the medium within the carrier (container 102, fig. 1), or with glue or a weld.
Thomas fails to disclose the medium carrier being made of polymer material.
However, Felten et al. discloses made of polymer material (diffusion-tight polymer material, par. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing of the present invention to have the motivation to add wherein in case of the medium carrier being of regular shape with one or more openings, the openings are covered with terminations made of polymer material and enclosing the medium within the carrier as taught by Felten et al. for the benefit of polymer materials being designed to fail at certain pressures and temperatures thereby allowing extinguishing agents to be dispersed (col. 10, line 62).
Claim(s) 19, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0227989) in view of Blanchong (US 5,040,610), Felten et al. (US 8,083,003), Melink et al. (US 6,170,480), and further in view of Ford et al. (US 6,029,751).
Regarding Claim 19, Thomas fails to disclose wherein the system is wirelessly connected to a system of disconnecting a source of power of the protected facility.
However, Ford et al. teaches wherein the system is wirelessly connected to a system of disconnecting a source of power of the protected facility (radio frequency signal to a receiver which in turn activates a control circuit within a remote energy removal unit to disconnect gas or electricity, col. 5, line 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing of the present invention to have the motivation to add wherein the system is wirelessly connected to a system of disconnecting a source of power of the protected facility as taught by Ford et al. in order to eliminate or shut off the heat sources (col. 5, line 25).
Regarding Claim 23, Thomas fails to disclose wherein an arrangement of the automatic cooling and extinguishing system is multiplied in case of larger protected facilities.
However, Ford discloses wherein an arrangement of the automatic cooling and extinguishing system (thermocouple valves and/or dispersion nozzles, col. 5, line 54) is multiplied in case of larger protected facilities (larger fire areas, col. 5, line 54) in order to ensure better safety (for appropriate coverage, col. 5, line 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing of the present invention to have the motivation to modify the automatic cooling and extinguishing system of Thomas to have an arrangement as taught by Ford where it is multiplied in case of larger protected facilities for appropriate area coverage (col.5, line 54).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0227989) in view of Blanchong (US 5,040,610), Felten et al. (US 8,083,003), Melink et al. (US 6,170,480), and further in view of Chavez (US 2008/0289835).
Regarding Claim 22, Thomas fails to disclose wherein there is another automatic cooling and extinguishing system with a different initiation temperature arranged within the protected facility.
However, Chavez discloses wherein there is another automatic cooling and extinguishing system (sprinkler heads, par. 0028) with different initiation temperatures (a range of activation temperatures, par. 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing of the present invention to have the motivation add another automatic cooling and extinguishing system as taught by Chavez to the system of Thomas and utilizing different initiation temperatures as disclosed by Chavez for the benefit of commercial availability (par. 0028).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0227989) in view of Blanchong (US 5,040,610), Felten et al. (US 8,083,003), and Melink et al. (US 6,170,480), further in view of Kronebusch et al. (US 2015/0129246).
Regarding claim 25, Thomas fails to disclose wherein at least one of the terminations of the medium carrier is designed with an internal opening for installation of a passive sensor.
However, Kronebusch et al. discloses wherein at least one of the terminations (fitting pipe 300, fig. 9) of the medium carrier (container 106, fig. 1) is designed with an internal opening (312; paragraphs 0083 & 0085) for installation of a passive sensor (gauge 314, fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing of the present invention to have the motivation to add an internal opening for installation of a passive sensor as taught by Kronebusch et al. to the termination of Thomas for the benefit of accommodating a pressure gauge for measuring the pressure of an agent stored in the container (paragraph 0083).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0227989) in view of Blanchong (US 5,040,610), Felten et al. (US 8,083,003), Melink et al. (US 6,170,480), and Taniguchi et al. (US 2016/0074686), further in view of Malovec (WO 2017/208166).
Regarding claim 26 Thomas fails to disclose wherein a minimal length of a hose is 10 mm or more and an internal diameter of 3 mm or more.
However, Malovec discloses wherein a minimal length of a hose is 10 mm or more (polyamide hose 1 with a length at least 400 mm, page 6, line 21) and an internal diameter of 3 mm or more (The diameter of the hose in this example is 18 mm, page 6, last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the filing of the present invention to have the motivation add wherein a minimal length of a hose is 10 mm or more and an internal diameter of 3 mm or more as taught by Malovec in the system of Thomas as the extinguishing substance can be regulated by the length and diameter of the hose (page 7, line 23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to "Kyle Beers" whose telephone number is (571) 270-0460. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 8:00-4:30 PST. 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 on (571) 270-1814 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYLE GARRETT BEERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights