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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, drawings and specification, filed on 08/21/2025, are acknowledged.
Previous Drawing objections are overcome by amendment. Applicant has removed the “integral opening mechanism” and the “dispersion mechanism” from the claims.
Previous Specification objection is overcome. Applicant has amended the claims such that “the opening mechanism designed to be closed by the controller” is no longer claimed. However, Applicant amended the Specification to state that the controller is designed to close an integral sprayer. This is new matter because the originally filed disclosure does not have basis for the controller being configured to close dispensing of the fuel suppressant in any way. See new Specification objection and 112(a) below.
Previous 112(b) rejections regarding the “integral opening mechanism” and the “dispersion mechanism” are withdrawn, since these terms have been removed from the claims.
Previous 112(b) rejections of claim 3 and 11 no longer stand, since these claims were cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 12-14 are pending; claims 2-3 and 11 are cancelled.
Specification
The amendment filed 08/21/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The original disclosure did not have basis for “said controller designed to… close said integral sprayer”. Examiner assert that nowhere in the original disclosure, it is specified that the controller closes the sprayer/opening mechanism. The disclosure states that the controller opens/activates the mechanism in charge of dispensing, but it does not disclose the controller closing/shutting dispensing. As such, the amendment has introduced new matter.
The drawings introduced a “sprayer” into the fuel tank. This feature was not present in the originally filed disclosure. As such, this addition is considered new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1, 4-10 and 12-14 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.
Claim 1 was amended to include “an integral sprayer”. This feature is not disclosed in the originally filed disclosure. Examiner notes that although Par 029 discloses that examples of “dispersion mechanism are expulsion, spraying, injecting, etc.” This is not enough antecedent basis for an “integral sprayer”. The original specification does not provide any indication that an integral sprayer is used in the system. As such, this is considered new matter.
Claim 1 was amended to include “an integral sprayer designed to be… closed by said controller”. This is also a feature that is not present in the original disclosure. Nowhere in the disclosure it is stated that the controller performs the function of closing the sprayer or any other dispensing mechanism. Even without regards to the controller, the disclosure does not mention that the sprayer or any other dispensing mechanism is intended to be closed after actuation. This is considered new matter.
Claims 4-10 and 12-14 are also rejected under 112(a) for depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. 5,425,886) in view of Vandroux et al (EP 3281677 A1). Note: references made in parenthesis regarding Vandroux are referencing the English translation provided by Examiner attached herewith.
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a fire outbreak prevention system (defined by system 56 and 68, see in Fig 5) fitted within a vehicle's fuel tank (56 and 68 are within fuel cell 50, which is the fuel cell of a vehicle, see col 3, line 42)(Note: the embodiment of system 56 seen in Fig 5 works as a combination of the embodiment seen in Figs 1, 2 and 3, which disclose fire extinguishing system 26, see col 5, lines 20-22 and col 5, lines 53-55; therefore, the details disclosed regarding system 26 apply to system 56), comprising:
(a) a sealed container (system 26 includes a cartridge, see col 5, line 7) attached to an inner wall of a vehicle's fuel tank (as seen in Fig 5, the system 56 is attached to an inner wall of fuel tank 50);
(b) a fire suppressant residing within said container (col 4, line 63 to col 5, line 19); and
(c) a controller (pilot control 32) connected to one or more emergency sensors (sensor 22),
wherein said sealed container comprises:
an integral sprayer designed to be opened and closed by said controller (the system 26 includes an opening mechanism to selectively allow for dispersion of the fire suppressant, i.e. open and close, as disclosed in col 5, line 20+: “pilot controls 32 are provided in electrical connection with fire extinguishing system 26 to provide selective release of the fire extinguishing charge… the fire extinguishing charge may be released gradually to maintain the available oxygen in ullage 29 at a level that will not support combustion in the event fuel cell 20” as such, a controllable opening mechanism is disclosed by Smith); and to disperse said fire suppressant into a liquid fuel (51) within said fuel tank (as seen in Fig 5, the distributing conduit 68 which dispenses the fire suppressant is inside the fuel tank, depending on fuel levels, i.e. if the fuel tank is full, the conduit 68 would be submerged such that the suppressant is dispersed within the liquid fuel 51; moreover, even in cases when the conduit is not submerged in the liquid fuel, once dispersed the fire suppressant would penetrate the liquid fuel such that it is within it; moreover, since the system is in a vehicle, depending on vehicle motion, the liquid fuel could move around inside the fuel tank such that at the moment of activation, the fire suppressant can be dispersed within the liquid fuel, thus reading on claim language. Examiner notes that the claim is silent with respect to the actual placement of the sprayer in relation to the liquid fuel, as such the claim remains broad); and
wherein upon occurrence of an emergency situation detected by said one or more emergency sensors (as disclosed in col 4, line 66+, the system 26/56 activates in response to the sensor 22 detecting flame, light, pressure or heat, indicating a fire), the controller:
opens said integral sprayer to release a measured amount of said fire suppressant into the liquid fuel within said fuel tank (col 5, lines 20+, disclose measured amounts of fire suppressant being released, as explained above, the suppressant can be released into the liquid fuel within the tank).
However, Smith does not teach the controller connected to a fuel gauge sensor; and wherein the measured amount of fire suppressant is calculated according to the amount of fuel within the fuel tank as indicated by said fuel gage sensor.
Vandroux teaches a method for inerting a fuel tank in order to reduce risk of fire or explosion (as disclosed in Pars 001, 002 and 005) wherein a controller (management unit 6) is connected to a fuel gauge sensor (fuel gauge 5, as disclosed in Par 024); and wherein the measured amount of fire suppressant is calculated according to the amount of fuel within the fuel tank as indicated by said fuel gage sensor (as disclosed in Par 024, the controller uses data from the fuel gauge to determine the free volume of the tank to be inerted; as disclosed in Par 025 depending of this data the amount of suppressant sent to the tank is determined).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Vandroux to provide the controller in communication to a fuel gage sensor in order to inform the controller the fuel level to determine the free volume in the fuel tank that needs to be inerted (as disclosed in Par 024 of Vandroux). This would ensure that the right amount of suppressant is sent to the fuel tank of Smith. Note that Smith works in a similar manner as it teaches a system that fills all space in a hydrocarbon fuel tank that is not filled with fuel with a mixture of inert gases (as disclosed in col 3, lines 31-34). In combination, since the system of Smith teaches selective and controlled dispersion of fire suppressant, the addition of a fuel gage sensor, as taught by Vandroux, would allow for a measured amount of suppressant to be released based on fuel levels in the fuel tank.
Regarding claim 6, Smith and Vandroux teach the fire prevention system of claim 1, wherein said fire suppressant comprises aluminum oxide, antimony oxide, sodium bicarbonate, or potassium carbonate (as disclosed in col 4, line 5 of Smith).
Regarding claim 7, Smith and Vandroux teach the fire prevention system of claim 1, wherein said emergency situation is selected from an accident, a collision, an impact, a fire, excessive heat, or any combination thereof (sensor 22 of Smith detects excessive heat, col 4, line 67).
Regarding claim 8, Smith and Vandroux teach a method for preventing fire outbreak within a vehicle's fuel tank or expulsion thereof (col 3, lines 38-50 of Smith), the method comprising attaching a fire suppressant sealed container as defined in claim 1 to the inner wall of said vehicle's fuel tank (Fig 5 of Smith), such that upon occurrence of an emergency situation detected by said one or more emergency sensors (sensor 22 detects an occurrence), the controller opens said opening mechanism and activates said dispersion mechanism to release a measured amount of said fire suppressant into said fuel tank (as disclosed in col 5, lines 20+ of Smith), said measured amount being calculated according to the amount of fuel within the fuel tank as indicated by said fuel gage sensor, thereby preventing fire outbreak or expulsion (as disclosed by Vandroux Par 024).
Regarding claim 10, Smith and Vandroux teach the method of claim 8, wherein the activation of said controller is automatic in response to an emergency situation (col 4, lines 63+ of Smith disclose automatic controller activation in response to an emergency detected by the sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Smith and Vandroux teach the method of claim 8, wherein said emergency situation is selected from an accident, a collision, an impact, a fire, excessive heat, or any combination thereof (sensor 22 of Smith detects excessive heat, col 4, line 67).
Regarding claim 13, Smith and Vandroux teach the method of claim 9, wherein the activation of said controller is automatic in response to an emergency situation (col 4, lines 63+ of Smith disclose automatic controller activation in response to an emergency detected by the sensor).
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. 5,425,886) in view of Vandroux et al (EP 3281677 A1); further in view of Holland et al (U.S. 2004/0226726).
Regarding claim 4, Smith and Vandroux teach the fire prevention system of claim 1, wherein said one or more emergency sensors comprise any one of: a thermometer (temperature sensor disclosed in abstract of Smith) for detecting a fire or excessive heat (as disclosed in col 4, line 48 of Smith); an accelerometer for detecting a crash/collision; and an airbag opening sensor; or any combination thereof (Examiner notes that “or” is alternate language, as such the prior art does not need to teach all of these features, since they are not all positively claimed).
Nonetheless, Holland teaches a vehicle fire extinguisher system that includes a controller (processor 402) that is connected to an accelerometer (acceleration and deceleration sensors 408 and 410) for detecting a collision (Par 0049); and an airbag opening sensor (as disclosed in Par 0013).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith and Vandroux to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide different sensors that detect collision in order to increase the safety factor of the fire preventing system of Smith. Note that Smith discloses using its system in ground vehicles as well (see col 1, line 23).
Regarding claim 5, Smith and Vandroux teach the fire prevention system of claim 1. However, they do not teach the system wherein said controller further receives data from a vehicle's airbag system, such that activation of the vehicle's airbag system serves as an indication to the controller to release said fire suppressant.
Holland teaches a vehicle fire extinguisher system that includes a controller (processor 402) that is connected to an airbag opening sensor (as disclosed in Par 0013) such that activation of the vehicle's airbag system serves as an indication to the controller to release said fire suppressant (as disclosed in Par 0013); Holland teaches a system that detects collisions which serve as an indication to release the fire suppressant (see Par 0012).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith and Vandroux to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide the system with communication to the air bag’s system in order to act as a sensor and inform the controller to activate the system in the event of a collision (as disclosed in Par 0013 of Holland); this would add an extra safety aspect to the fire protection system. Note that Smith discloses using its system in ground vehicles as well (see col 1, line 23).
Regarding claim 9, Smith and Vandroux teach the method of claim 8. However, they do not teach the method further comprising a step of connecting the controller to a vehicle's airbag system, such that activation of said airbag system also activates the controller to release said fire suppressant.
Holland teaches a vehicle fire extinguisher system that includes a controller (processor 402) that is connected to an airbag opening sensor (as disclosed in Par 0013) such that activation of the vehicle's airbag system serves as an indication to the controller to release said fire suppressant (as disclosed in Par 0013); Holland teaches a system that detects collisions which serve as an indication to release the fire suppressant (see Par 0012).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide a step in which the system communicates with the air bag’s system in order to act as a sensor and inform the controller to activate the system in the event of a collision (as disclosed in Par 0013 of Holland). Note that Smith discloses using its system in ground vehicles as well (see col 1, line 23).
Regarding claim 14, Smith and Vandroux teach the method of claim 9. However, they do not teach the method wherein the activation of said controller is manual
Holland teaches a vehicle fire extinguisher system that can be activated manually (as disclosed in Par 0015).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith and Vandroux to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide manual activation as a failsafe in case the system does not activate automatically in the presence of fire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the 112(a) new matter of the limitation regarding the controller being configured to close the dispensing mechanism, in this case, a sprayer. Applicant states that a “sprayer” is known for its ability to be opened and closed for spraying according to need. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the new matter rejections above, the original disclosure does not have antecedent basis for “sprayer” either. As such, this argument is non-commensurate with the original disclosure. In other words, the original disclosure fails to disclose both an integral sprayer and the sprayer being configured to be closed by the controller. For this reason, Examiner maintains both rejections are stated above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections in view of Smith and Holland have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Nonetheless, Applicant argues that the system of Smith does not disperse/release the fire suppressant within the liquid fuel of the fuel tank. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that this function can be achieved by smith. As explained in the rejection above, there’s different scenarios where this function can occur: as seen in Fig 5 of Smith, the distributing conduit 68 which dispenses the fire suppressant is inside the fuel tank, depending on fuel levels, such as when the fuel tank is full, the conduit 68 would be submerged such that the suppressant is dispersed within the liquid fuel 51; moreover, even in cases when the conduit is not submerged in the liquid fuel, once dispersed the fire suppressant would penetrate the liquid fuel such that it is within it; moreover, since the system is in a vehicle, depending on vehicle motion, the liquid fuel could move around inside the fuel tank such that at the moment of activation, the fire suppressant can be dispersed within the liquid fuel, thus reading on claim language. Examiner notes that the claim is silent with respect to the actual placement of the sprayer in relation to the liquid fuel, as such the claim remains broad enough so that Smith still applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. 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.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
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.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights