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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 3rd, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 4th, 2024.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk (U.S. Patent 8,973,670) in view of NPL (Consumer Unit World).
Regarding claim 1, Enk discloses a compact cooling and extinguishing system (10, Fig. 2) arranged in a protected device, the compact cooling and extinguishing system (10, Fig. 2) comprising:
a carrier (14, 16, 24, Fig. 3) containing inside a pressurized cooling and extinguishing medium (“compressed gas”, Col. 5, Ln. 17-50) and including an indicator (26, Fig. 3) for monitoring a condition of the cooling and extinguishing medium (Col. 5, Ln. 51-55),
a battery (92, Fig. 3) which is connected to a first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch (34, 58, battery 92 is connected to pressure conduit 34 and control panel 58, control panel 58 may contain one or more switches, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33), which is connected to a valve (28, 42, 50, Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 10, Ln. 46-49),
the valve (28, 42, 50, Figs. 1 and 3) is mechanically connected to the carrier (14, 16, Figs. 1A and 3) by a connection (34b, 38, 46, shown in Figs. 1A and 3),
the valve (28, 42, 50, Figs. 1 and 3) is further provided with a nozzle (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, 20e, shown in Figs. 1 and 3) and the valve (28, 42, 50, Figs. 1 and 3) is further connected to a relay contact (58, control panel may contain one or more relays, Fig. 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33), and
the compact cooling and extinguishing system (10, Fig. 2) is further provided with a compact cover (60, Fig. 2) for mounting on a DIN rail (fire suppression system 10 has many applications and can be configured to effectively suppress fires in a variety of transportation vessels and any contained space, Col. 10, Ln. 53-56);
means for setting the first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch to a value (34, 58, interpreting the means for setting the first pressure, temperature, or smoke as a switch, control panel 58 may contain one or more switches, Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33);
means for monitoring a temperature in the protected device (22, 58, interpreting the means for monitoring a temperature in the protected device as a sensor or pressure indicator, control panel 58 may contain one or more sensors, Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33) in a manner so that in response to the temperature in the protected device rising to the value to which the first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch is set (34, 58, control panel 58 may contain one or more switches, Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33), the first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch (34, 58, control panel 58 may contain one or more switches, Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33) closes, which opens the valve (28, 42, 50, Figs. 1 and 3) and closes the relay contact (58, control panel may contain one or more relays, Fig. 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33) at a same time to allow the cooling and extinguishing medium to enter the protected device through the nozzle (Col. 7, Ln. 16-40, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33).
However, Enk does not disclose the compact cooling and extinguishing system comprising a residual-current-device (RCD) of the protected device. Consumer Unit World teaches a residual-current-device (RCD) (annotated in Figure under “How an RCD Works – The Power of Electromagnetism”) of a protected device (shown in Figure under “Introduction”);
close of the relay contact which results in bringing a pulse to the RCD of the protected device (“How an RCD Works – The Power of Electromagnetism”); and
means for disconnecting the RCD (“electrical supply”, interpreting means for disconnecting the RCD as a switch, shown in Figure under “How an RCD Works – The Power of Electromagnetism”) in response to a set temperature of the first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch being reached in event of a failure of power from the battery (“How an RCD Works – The Power of Electromagnetism”).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Enk and Consumer Unit World are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of compact electrical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a RCD taught by Consumer Unit World to Enk’s system, in order to have the compact cooling and extinguishing system comprising a residual-current-device (RCD) of the protected device, close of the relay contact which results in bringing a pulse to the RCD of the protected device, and means for disconnecting the RCD in response to a set temperature of the first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch being reached in event of a failure of power from the battery. Doing so prevents electric shock by detecting an imbalance between the output and input total current of a circuit (Consumer Unit World, Introduction, Paragraph 2).
With respect to claim 3, Enk and Consumer Unit World teach the compact cooling and extinguishing system as set forth in claim 1 above. Enk further discloses the carrier (14, 16, 24, Fig. 3) being made of metal or plastic or alloy or fiber or glass (industrial metal or carbon fiber can be used, Col. 5, Ln. 30-34).
Regarding claim 6, Enk and Consumer Unit World teach the compact cooling and extinguishing system as set forth in claim 1 above. Enk further discloses an external power supply (56, 90, power source 56 provides power to the system and can be controlled externally, Figs. 1 and 4, Col. 8, Ln. 4-32).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk (U.S. Patent 8,973,670) in view of NPL (Consumer Unit World), and further in view of Disimile (U.S. Patent 10,207,133).
In regards to claim 2, Enk and Consumer Unit World teach the compact cooling and extinguishing system as set forth in claim 1 above. However, Enk and Consumer Unit World do not teach a second switch/sensor. Disimile teaches a compact cooling and extinguishing system (10, Figs. 1, 3-5) including a first sensor (24, Figs. 1, 4, 6) and a second sensor (26, Figs. 1, 4, 6).
Enk, Consumer Unit World, and Disimile are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of compact electrical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a second sensor taught by Disimile to the system taught by the combination of Enk and Consumer Unit World, in order to have the system including a second sensor. Doing so provides an additional sensor that detects the event of interest in the system, and confirms the information received in the first sensor (Disimile, Col. 5, Ln. 33-39).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk (U.S. Patent 8,973,670) in view of NPL (Consumer Unit World), and further in view of Lu (CN 102908742 A).
In regards to claim 4, Enk and Consumer Unit World teach the compact cooling and extinguishing system as set forth in claim 1 above. However, Enk and Consumer Unit World do not teach a safety switch. Lu teaches a compact cooling and extinguishing system (entire system in Fig. 1, 11 and 12 in Figs. 2-3) including a safety switch (13, Fig. 1).
Enk, Consumer Unit World, and Lu are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of compact electrical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a safety switch taught by Lu to the system taught by the combination of Enk and Consumer Unit World, in order to have the system including a safety switch. Doing so prevents wiring error in the installation (Lu, Paragraph 0020).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk (U.S. Patent 8,973,670) in view of NPL (Consumer Unit World), and further in view of Chattaway (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0147431 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Enk and Consumer Unit World teach the compact cooling and extinguishing system as set forth in claim 1 above. However, Enk and Consumer Unit World do not teach an external switch. Chattaway teaches a compact cooling and extinguishing system (8, Figs. 2A-3A) including an external switch (24, Figs. 2A-3A).
Enk, Consumer Unit World, and Chattaway are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of compact electrical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of an external switch taught by Chattaway to the system taught by the combination of Enk and Consumer Unit World, in order to have the system including an external switch. Doing so provides easier installation and allows the user to control the system directly (Chattaway, Paragraphs 0006 and 0012).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk (U.S. Patent 8,973,670) in view of NPL (Consumer Unit World), and further in view of Stimek (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0015688 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Enk and Consumer Unit World teach the compact cooling and extinguishing system as set forth in claim 1 above. However, Enk and Consumer Unit World do not teach a fuse. Stimek teaches a compact cooling and extinguishing system (100, Figs. 1A-1B, 4) including a fuse (114, Figs. 1A-2, 4-5B).
Enk, Consumer Unit World, and Stimek are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of compact electrical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a fuse taught by Stimek to the system taught by the combination of Enk and Consumer Unit World, in order to have the system including a fuse. Doing so provides an additional mechanism to trigger the carrier, due to its heat sensitivity to trigger the carrier (Stimek, Paragraph 0030).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk (U.S. Patent 8,973,670) in view of NPL (Consumer Unit World), further in view of Stimek (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0015688 A1), and further in view of Stager (US Patent 6,105,677).
Regarding claim 8, Enk, Consumer Unit World, and Stimek teach the compact cooling and extinguishing system as set forth in claim 7. However, Enk, Consumer Unit World, and Stimek do not teach the fuse is a plug configure. Stager teaches a compact cooling and extinguishing system (entire system, Fig. 1) comprising a fuse (54, Fig. 2) is a plug configure (“fusible plug”, Col. 4, Ln. 22) so that in response to failure of all electronic components of the compact cooling and extinguishing system, a burn-through of the plug because of high temperatures causes release of the pressurized cooling and extinguishing medium (Col. 4, Ln. 25-38).
Enk, Consumer Unit World, Stimek, and Stager are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of compact electrical devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the fuse taught by Stager to the system taught by the combination of Enk, Consumer Unit World, and Stimek, in order to have the fuse is a plug configure so that in response to failure of all electronic components of the compact cooling and extinguishing system, a burn-through of the plug because of high temperatures causes release of the pressurized cooling and extinguishing medium. Doing so provides an an efficient way to suppress fire in the system (Stager, Col. 1, Ln. 33-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3rd, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Enk and Consumer Unit World do not teach the new amended features of claim 1, Enk in view of Consumer Unit World does teach these features. Enk discloses means for setting the first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch to a value (34, 58, interpreting the means for setting the first pressure, temperature, or smoke as a switch, control panel 58 may contain one or more switches, Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33) and means for monitoring a temperature in the protected device (22, 58, interpreting the means for monitoring a temperature in the protected device as a sensor or pressure indicator, control panel 58 may contain one or more sensors, Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33) in a manner so that in response to the temperature in the protected device rising to the value to which the first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch is set (34, 58, control panel 58 may contain one or more switches, Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33), the first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch (34, 58, control panel 58 may contain one or more switches, Figs. 1 and 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33) closes, which opens the valve (28, 42, 50, Figs. 1 and 3) and closes the relay contact (58, control panel may contain one or more relays, Fig. 3, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33) at a same time to allow the cooling and extinguishing medium to enter the protected device through the nozzle (Col. 7, Ln. 16-40, Col. 8, Ln. 4-33).
However, Enk does not disclose a residual-current-device (RCD), but Consumer Unit World provides a motivation to combine a RCD to Enk’s system because it prevents electric shock by detecting an imbalance between the output and input total current of a circuit (Consumer Unit World, Introduction, Paragraph 2). Consumer Unit World further teaches close of the relay contact which results in bringing a pulse to the RCD of the protected device (“How an RCD Works – The Power of Electromagnetism”) and means for disconnecting the RCD (“electrical supply”, interpreting means for disconnecting the RCD as a switch, shown in Figure under “How an RCD Works – The Power of Electromagnetism”) in response to a set temperature of the first pressure, temperature, or smoke switch being reached in event of a failure of power from the battery (“How an RCD Works – The Power of Electromagnetism”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O Hall can be reached 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 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
//CHEE-CHONG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 20, 2024
Prosecution Insights