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 response filed on June 11, 2025 is acknowledged. Four pages of amended claims were received on 6/11/2025. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 7-8, 16, and 19-21, which were previously withdrawn from consideration, are now cancelled. Claim 22 is newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the non-final rejection mailed 3/13/2025. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11-15, and 17-18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, and newly presented Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as noted below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection mailed on 3/13/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I and Extinguishing Device Species B (Fig. 3) in the reply filed on 5/7/2024 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 3/18/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 7-8 and 16, which are now cancelled, were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 19-21, which are now cancelled, were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/7/2024.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“at least one energy storage device” in Claim 14, which uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “energy storage” without reciting sufficient structure;
“at least one power generation device” in Claim 14, which uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “power generation” without reciting sufficient structure;
“at least one detection device” in Claim 15, which uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “detection” without reciting sufficient structure;
“at least one signal device” in Claim 17, which uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “in order to emit at least one audible and/or visual signal” without reciting sufficient structure; and
“at least one communication device” in Claim 18, which uses the generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “communication” without reciting sufficient structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “at least one energy storage device” in Claim 14 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 12 of the Specification which states, "In particular, the extinguishing device comprises at least one energy storage device. The extinguishing device advantageously comprises in particular a power generation device. Electrical equipment of the extinguishing device can thus advantageously be supplied with electrical power. An energy storage device can, for example, be designed as a battery”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets “at least one energy storage device” in Claim 14 to be a battery and equivalents thereof.
The “at least one power generation device” in Claim 14 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 12 of the Specification which states, “Moreover, it is also preferably possible that solar elements, wind turbines, thermal and/or mechanical systems are used as power generation devices, which then preferably provide mechanical energy”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets “at least one power generation device” in Claim 14 to be a solar panel, a wind turbine, and equivalents thereof.
The “at least one detection device” in Claim 15 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 19 of the Specification which states, “The detection device 21 is preferably designed as a temperature sensor here.”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “at least one detection device” in Claim 15 to be a temperature sensor and equivalents thereof.
The “at least one signal device” in Claim 17 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 19 of the Specification which states, “In addition, the dispensing device 2 comprises a signal device 22 here. When an extinguishing operation is initiated, the signal device 22 emits a loud alarm sound to indicate the initiation of the extinguishing operation and to warn of the potential source of danger”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “at least one signal device” in Claim 17 to be an alarm and equivalents thereof.
The “at least one communication device” in Claim 18 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 19 of the Specification which states, “Furthermore, the dispensing device 2 comprises a communication device 23. The communication device 23 has a GSM radio module to establish a telephone connection directly to the fire brigade”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “at least one communication device” in Claim 18 to be a radio and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, 13-15, 17-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2018/0099170 A1 to Baldino et al. (“Baldino”) in view of US PGPUB 2011/0139900 A1 to Somerfield et al. (“Somerfield”) and US PGPUB 2008/0128145 A1 to Butz (“Butz”).
As to Claim 1, Baldino discloses an extinguishing device (See Figs. 1-2), comprising:
at least one dispensing device (See Annotated Fig. 2) and at least one extinguishing agent supply (See Annotated Fig. 1, and Paragraphs 0016-0017. The extinguishing agent supply includes #20 along with a portion of #25), said at least one dispensing device being propellant-free (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0019. The dispensing device utilizes a pump to dispense fluid and does not use any propellant);
wherein the at least one dispensing device comprises at least one pump device (#30, See Paragraph 0018) and at least one nozzle device (#32) in order to dispense at least one extinguishing agent from the at least one extinguishing agent supply (See Paragraph 0019); and
the at least one extinguishing agent supply comprises at least one bag device (#20) having at least one flexible wall (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0016), and the at least one bag device comprises at least one bag (See Fig. 1 showing a single bag), which is mechanically glued, sealed and/or clamped (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0017, the bag #20 is mechanically sealed.);
wherein the at least one bag device comprises at least one tubular locking element (See Annotated Fig. 1, the tubular locking element is a portion of #25), which is arranged within the at least one bag device (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019, a portion of #25 goes through a cap of #20 and is thus at least partially arranged within the bag device), and
wherein the at least one locking element has a hollow inside (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019, the locking element is a tube that transfers fluid) and comprises at least one intake opening (See Annotated Fig. 2), which is operatively connected to the at least one pump device (See Figs. 1-2 and Paragraph 0019), said at least one extinguishing agent being depleted without any use of propellant or compressed gas (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0019. The dispensing device utilizes a pump to dispense fluid and does not use any propellant).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino as applied to Claim 1 above, Baldino does not disclose wherein the at least one bag is a foil bag and the at least one flexible wall of the at least one bag device is less than 10% stretchable based on a reference measure in an unstretched state (See Paragraph 0019 disclosing that the bag is made of polymer and can be sized as desired).
However, Somerfield discloses an extinguishing device (See #10 in Fig. 1. Per Paragraphs 0027 and 0057 the system #10 is a shower head that dispenses water thus it is equivalent to an extinguishing device and is capable of extinguishing a fire.), comprising a dispensing device (#18) and an extinguishing agent supply (#16, #21, and #24, which transfers water mixed with an additional fluid to #18); wherein the dispensing device comprises a nozzle device (#32) in order to dispense extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent supply (See Paragraph 0060 disclosing that water and fluid from #21 is dispensed through #32); and the extinguishing agent supply comprises a bag device (#80) having a flexible wall (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0045), and the bag device comprises a foil bag (See Paragraph 0045), wherein the flexible wall of the bag device is less than 10% stretchable based on a reference measure in an unstretched state (See Paragraph 0045 disclosing metal foil, which is understood to not be visibly stretchable.).
It is noted that while Somerfield is not specifically in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing, Somerfield is in the field of endeavor of fluid spraying and addresses problems that are reasonably pertinent to applicant’s claimed invention, specifically providing a replaceable deformable bag that can hold a fluid material and deform in response to a pressure differential (See Paragraph 0045 of Somerfield and See Pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Specification).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extinguishing device of Baldino as applied to Claim 1 above such that the bag device of Baldino comprises a foil bag as taught by Somerfield, with the at least one flexible wall of the bag device being less than 10% stretchable based on a reference measure in an unstretched state since doing so would yield the predictable result of utilizing a durable material that is suitable for containing fluid, flexible, and non-porous (See Somerfield Paragraph 0045).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield as applied to Claim 1 above, Baldino does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one locking element is arranged within the at least one bag device for preventing collapse of the at least one bag device, wherein the at least one bag device has a length, and the at least one tubular locking element extends the length of the at least one bag device, terminating at an end of the at least one bag device for preventing collapse of the at least one foil bag when filled with the extinguishing agent as the at least one extinguishing agent is depleted (See Annotated Fig. 1. #20 has a length, but Fig. 1 does not show specific details of #20, including how far the locking element extends into #20.).
However, Butz discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing, an extinguishing device (See Fig. 2) comprising an extinguishing agent supply (#216) having a tubular locking element (#212, See Annotated Fig. 2) which is arranged within a bag device (#216) for preventing collapse of the bag device (See Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0056-0059, #212 is placed inside of #216 such that #216 cannot fully collapse); and wherein the locking element has a hollow inside (See Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0057-0059, the tube #212 has perforations that lead to a hollow inside) and comprises an intake opening (See Annotated Fig. 2, a lowest perforation in #212 is an intake opening); wherein the bag device has a length (See “L” in Annotated Fig. 2), and the tubular locking element extends the length of the bag device (See Annotated Fig. 2, #212 extends substantially over an entire length of the bag device, such that #212 will extend fully over an entire length of the bag device in some states when fluid in #220 is discharged from #216 such that a bottom of #216 touches a bottom of #212), terminating at an end of the bag device (See Annotated Fig. 2) for preventing collapse of the bag device when filled with extinguishing agent (See Paragraph 0056 disclosing suppression liquid) as the extinguishing agent is depleted (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0057-0059. When suppression liquid is depleted from #216, the bladder #260 will shrink and get closer to #212. #212 will contact #216 and prevent full collapse of #216 as fluid is depleted from #216.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield as applied to Claim 1 above to use the locking element #212 of Butz arranged within the bag device #20 of Baldino, such that the locking element is arranged within the bag device for preventing collapse of the bag device and the locking element extends the length of the bag device, terminating at an end of the bag device for preventing collapse of the foil bag when filled with the extinguishing agent as the extinguishing agent is depleted, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing uniform and undisturbed flow of extinguishing agent out of the bag device (See Butz Paragraph 0059).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 1 above, Baldino further discloses comprising at least one housing (#15, See Fig. 1), in which the at least one dispensing device and/or the at least one extinguishing agent supply are at least partially arranged (See Annotated Fig. 1, the dispensing device and the extinguishing agent supply are both in #15).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 2 above, Baldino further discloses wherein the at least one housing has at least one ventilation opening (See Paragraph 0017 disclosing a portal, which is equivalent to a ventilation opening since venting of fluid is possible through the portal).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 1 above, Baldino further discloses wherein an intake side of the at least one pump device is operatively connected to the at least one extinguishing agent supply (See Annotated Fig. 2) and wherein a discharge side of the at least one pump device is operatively connected to the at least one nozzle device (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Baldino).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 1 above, Baldino as modified by Butz further discloses wherein the at least one locking element is assigned to the at least one bag device and/or is connected to the at least one bag device (See Annotated Fig. 1 of Baldino and See Annotated Fig. 2 of Butz, the locking element of Butz is assigned and connected to the bag device).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 9 above, Butz further discloses wherein the at least one locking element extends over more than half of the at least one bag device (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Butz).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 1 above, Baldino further discloses wherein the at least one dispensing device comprises at least one control device (#40) and wherein the at least one control device has at least one electrical component and/or at least one electrical circuit (#35 and #37, See Paragraph 0020).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 13 above, Baldino further discloses wherein the at least one dispensing device comprises at least one energy storage device and/or at least one power generation device (See Paragraph 0020 disclosing a battery #45 or a power generation device that is an external power source).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 13 above, Baldino further discloses wherein the at least one dispensing device comprises at least one detection device (#60 and #61, See Paragraph 0027).
As to Claim 17, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 1 above, Baldino further discloses wherein the at least one dispensing device comprises at least one signal device (#57) in order to emit at least one audible and/or visual signal (See Paragraph 0023 disclosing an audible signal and a visual signal).
As to Claim 18, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 1 above, Baldino further discloses wherein the at least one dispensing device comprises at least one communication device (See Paragraph 0025 disclosing wireless communication being performed via #40 using Bluetooth, wi-fi, or radio).
As to Claim 22, Baldino discloses an extinguishing device (See Figs. 1-2), comprising:
at least one dispensing device (See Annotated Fig. 2) and at least one extinguishing agent supply (See Annotated Fig. 1, and Paragraphs 0016-0017. The extinguishing agent supply includes #20 along with a portion of #25), said at least one dispensing device being propellant-free (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0019. The dispensing device utilizes a pump to dispense fluid and does not use any propellant);
the at least one dispensing device comprises at least one pump device (#30, See Paragraph 0018) and at least one nozzle device (#32) in order to dispense at least one extinguishing agent from the at least one extinguishing agent supply (See Paragraph 0019);
the at least one extinguishing agent supply comprises at least one bag device (#20) having at least one flexible wall (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0016), and the at least one bag device comprises at least one bag (See Fig. 1 showing a single bag), which is mechanically glued, sealed and/or clamped (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0017, the bag #20 is mechanically sealed.);
the at least one bag device comprises at least one tubular locking element (See Annotated Fig. 1, the tubular locking element is a portion of #25), which is arranged within the at least one bag device (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019, a portion of #25 goes through a cap of #20 and is thus at least partially arranged within the bag device),
the at least one locking element has a hollow inside (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0019, the locking element is a tube that transfers fluid) and comprises at least one intake opening (See Annotated Fig. 2), which is operatively connected to the at least one pump device (See Figs. 1-2 and Paragraph 0019), said at least one extinguishing agent being depleted without any use of propellant or compressed gas (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0019. The dispensing device utilizes a pump to dispense fluid and does not use any propellant); and
a housing (#15, See Fig. 1) enclosing at least said at least one bag device (See Annotated Fig. 1), said housing having at least one ventilation opening (See Paragraph 0017 disclosing a portal, which is equivalent to a ventilation opening since venting of fluid is possible through the portal).
Regarding Claim 22, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino as applied to Claim 22 above, Baldino does not disclose wherein the at least one bag is a foil bag and the at least one flexible wall of the at least one bag device is less than 10% stretchable based on a reference measure in an unstretched state (See Paragraph 0019 disclosing that the bag is made of polymer and can be sized as desired).
However, Somerfield discloses an extinguishing device (See #10 in Fig. 1. Per Paragraphs 0027 and 0057 the system #10 is a shower head that dispenses water thus it is equivalent to an extinguishing device and is capable of extinguishing a fire.), comprising a dispensing device (#18) and an extinguishing agent supply (#16, #21, and #24, which transfers water mixed with an additional fluid to #18); wherein the dispensing device comprises a nozzle device (#32) in order to dispense extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent supply (See Paragraph 0060 disclosing that water and fluid from #21 is dispensed through #32); and the extinguishing agent supply comprises a bag device (#80) having a flexible wall (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0045), and the bag device comprises a foil bag (See Paragraph 0045), wherein the flexible wall of the bag device is less than 10% stretchable based on a reference measure in an unstretched state (See Paragraph 0045 disclosing metal foil, which is understood to not be visibly stretchable.).
It is noted that while Somerfield is not specifically in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing, Somerfield is in the field of endeavor of fluid spraying and addresses problems that are reasonably pertinent to applicant’s claimed invention, specifically providing a replaceable deformable bag that can hold a fluid material and deform in response to a pressure differential (See Paragraph 0045 of Somerfield and See Pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Specification).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extinguishing device of Baldino as applied to Claim 22 above such that the bag device of Baldino comprises a foil bag as taught by Somerfield, with the at least one flexible wall of the bag device being less than 10% stretchable based on a reference measure in an unstretched state since doing so would yield the predictable result of utilizing a durable material that is suitable for containing fluid, flexible, and non-porous (See Somerfield Paragraph 0045).
Regarding Claim 22, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield as applied to Claim 22 above, Baldino does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one locking element is arranged within the at least one bag device for preventing collapse of the at least one bag device, wherein the at least one bag device has a length, and the at least one tubular locking element extends the length of the at least one bag device, terminating at an end of the at least one bag device for preventing collapse of the at least one foil bag when filled with the extinguishing agent as the at least one extinguishing agent is depleted (See Annotated Fig. 1. #20 has a length, but Fig. 1 does not show specific details of #20, including how far the locking element extends into #20.).
However, Butz discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing, an extinguishing device (See Fig. 2) comprising an extinguishing agent supply (#216) having a tubular locking element (#212, See Annotated Fig. 2) which is arranged within a bag device (#216) for preventing collapse of the bag device (See Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0056-0059, #212 is placed inside of #216 such that #216 cannot fully collapse); and wherein the locking element has a hollow inside (See Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0057-0059, the tube #212 has perforations that lead to a hollow inside) and comprises an intake opening (See Annotated Fig. 2, a lowest perforation in #212 is an intake opening); wherein the bag device has a length (See “L” in Annotated Fig. 2), and the tubular locking element extends the length of the bag device (See Annotated Fig. 2, #212 extends substantially over an entire length of the bag device, such that #212 will extend fully over an entire length of the bag device in some states when fluid in #220 is discharged from #216 such that a bottom of #216 touches a bottom of #212), terminating at an end of the bag device (See Annotated Fig. 2) for preventing collapse of the bag device when filled with extinguishing agent (See Paragraph 0056 disclosing suppression liquid) as the extinguishing agent is depleted (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Paragraphs 0057-0059. When suppression liquid is depleted from #216, the bladder #260 will shrink and get closer to #212. #212 will contact #216 and prevent full collapse of #216 as fluid is depleted from #216.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield as applied to Claim 22 above to use the locking element #212 of Butz arranged within the bag device #20 of Baldino, such that the locking element is arranged within the bag device for preventing collapse of the bag device and the locking element extends the length of the bag device, terminating at an end of the bag device for preventing collapse of the foil bag when filled with the extinguishing agent as the extinguishing agent is depleted, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing uniform and undisturbed flow of extinguishing agent out of the bag device (See Butz Paragraph 0059).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldino in view of Somerfield, Butz, and US PGPUB 2012/0211246 A1 to Zlatintsis (“Zlatintsis”).
Regarding Claim 12, in reference to the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 1 above, Baldino does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one dispensing device comprises at least one magnetic valve and/or at least one mixing chamber.
However, Zlatintsis discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing, an extinguishing device (See Fig. 4) comprising a dispensing device (See Annotated Fig. 4, the dispensing device includes #33, #38, and #34 along with #15 and #12) that comprises a magnetic valve (#33, See Paragraph 0059 and Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extinguishing device of Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz as applied to Claim 1 above such that the dispensing device of Baldino includes the magnetic valve of Zlatintsis, since doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing extinguishing agent from flowing through the dispensing device until a fire has been detected (See Zlatintsis Paragraph 0087).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
650
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
591
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
755
754
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Regarding amended independent Claim 1 and newly presented independent Claim 22 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz, applicant argues that impermissible hindsight has been used in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 to pick and choose features from the Somerfield and Butz references. Applicant argues that that the device of Somerfield is in a different art and discloses the introduction of an additive such as shampoo into water flow of a common bathing shower head and thus does not provide incentive to a designer of fire extinguishers. Applicant further argues that if one of ordinary skill in the fire extinguisher art would look to Somerfield for technical assistance, the Somerfield fails to disclose several claimed elements including the tubular locking element as recited, as well as the pump device, and that Somerfield only makes passing reference to a pressure differential in paragraph 0045 which is far from the disclosure of Baldino, so a combination of Somerfield with Baldino fails to disclose or suggest the presently claimed subject matter.
Regarding independent Claim 1 and independent Claim 22, applicant also argues that in Baldino, the supply 20 is a flexible and expandable bladder that is under pressure, with extinguishing agent being discharged from the bladder by a pump, thus the extinguishing agent supply is at least slightly preloaded in the supply by the filled bladder to ensure complete discharge of extinguishing agent, so a hollow locking element is neither necessary nor sensible for Baldino. Applicant further argues that Butz is designed as a suppression system in which a pressurized carrier gas and suppression liquid are contained in a common containment vessel and separated by a separator, with the use of such a pressurized carrier gas in Butz being undesirable for many reasons, including mechanical failure, explosion, and injury. Applicant argues that as such, Butz teaches away from the goal of the present application, to avoid the use of pressurized gas as a propellant, thus one of ordinary skill in the art desiring to construct a fire extinguisher lacking gaseous propellant would not consider Butz.
Regarding dependent Claim 3 and independent Claim 22, applicant argues that the unshown portal disclosed in Paragraph 0017 of Baldino is inconsistent with a ventilation opening in a housing that allows ventilation into a housing around and not in fluid communication with, a flexible bag filled with an extinguishing composition.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. 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 judgement 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. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding independent Claim 1 and independent Claim 22 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz, while the device of Somerfield is in a different art from fire extinguishing, the device of Somerfield is in the art of fluid spraying which Baldino can also considered to be in. The examiner also notes that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the fire extinguisher art would look to Somerfield for technical assistance in designing a bladder suitable for containing fluid used in spraying applications such that the bladder is made of a durable material that is flexible and non-porous.
Regarding independent Claim 1 and independent Claim 22 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldino in view of Somerfield and Butz, even though the supply 20 of Baldino is a flexible and expandable bladder that may be under some level of pressure with the extinguishing agent supply being at least slightly preloaded in the supply by the filled bladder to ensure complete discharge of extinguishing agent, implementing the hollow locking element of Butz into the extinguishing device of Baldino would yield the predictable beneficial results of allowing uniform and undisturbed flow of extinguishing agent out of the bag device of Baldino, while also preventing collapse of #20 of Baldino, regardless of other specific aspects of the extinguishing device of Butz, which is designed as a suppression system in which a pressurized carrier gas and suppression liquid are contained in a common containment vessel and separated by a separator. In response to Applicant's piecemeal analysis of the references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). The motivation for modifying a primary reference need not come from the primary reference itself, but may come from a secondary reference. In re Laskowski, 10 USPQ2d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1989). As to the desirability of the modification, the proper inquiry is “whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination,’ not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding dependent Claim 3 and independent Claim 22 and applicant’s argument that the unshown portal disclosed in Paragraph 0017 of Baldino is inconsistent with a ventilation opening in a housing that allows ventilation into a housing around and not in fluid communication with a flexible bag filled with an extinguishing composition, the examiner notes that in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claims 3 and 22 both require a housing “having at least one ventilation opening”. Paragraph 0017 of Baldino states that “the fill nozzle 21 defines a portal ( not shown ) in fluid communication with the bladder 20 , and a threaded cap ( not shown ) releasably securable to the portal . The fill nozzle 21 allows an owner or servicer of the AMDS 10 to refill the bladder 10 with fire suppressant material from an external supply ( not shown ) without dismantling the housing 15 and replacing the bladder 20”. Therefore, the disclosed portal of Baldino is understood to be some opening in the housing, through which ventilation of some amount of fluid is possible, and the portal of Baldino reads within a broadest reasonable limitation of a “ventilation opening” of the housing.
Therefore, Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11-15, 17-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752 September 15, 2025
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752