DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 31-55 remain pending in the application.
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 31-55 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 31 recites the limitation “wherein the processor is configured to reconfigure the control system based at least in part upon information about the structure, data comprising a fire risk factor, and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire”, which is not supported by the as-filed disclosure. The Specification discloses “The computing device 1104 and/or control system 214 may perform a reconfiguration of the computing device 1104 and/or control system 214, perhaps for example using the information and/or data.” (Par. 111). But this does not support the recited limitation that the control system is reconfigured by the “processor…based at least in part upon information about the structure, data comprising a fire risk factor, and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire”. The as-filed disclosure does not specifically identify a specific portion or part of the computing device and/or control system that performs the reconfiguration. The as-filed disclosure also fails to further describe the information and/or data used, or to connect or tie particular types of information and/or data described elsewhere in the disclosure to “the information and/or data” of Paragraph 111.
Claims 32-44 are rejected for depending from claim 31.
Similarly, claim 45 recites the limitation “reconfiguring the reconfigurable control system based at least in part upon information about the structure, data comprising a fire risk factor, and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire”, which is not supported by the as-filed disclosure. The Specification discloses “The computing device 1104 and/or control system 214 may perform a reconfiguration of the computing device 1104 and/or control system 214, perhaps for example using the information and/or data.” (Par. 111). But this does not support the recited limitation that the control system is reconfigured based upon “information about the structure, data comprising a fire risk factor, and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire”. The as-filed disclosure fails to further describe the information and/or data used, or to connect or tie particular types of information and/or data described elsewhere in the disclosure to “the information and/or data” of Paragraph 111.
Claims 46-55 are rejected for depending from claim 45.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 31-55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2010/0000743) in view of Smagac et al. (US 5,165,482).
Regarding claim 31, Cohen discloses a method of protecting a structure from a wildfire (par. 2), using a reconfigurable control system in control communication with a wildfire suppression system configured to protect the structure and an area associated with the structure from the wildfire (fig. 1), the method comprising:
a reconfigurable control system comprising: a processor (38); an algorithm (par. 45, 52 - “programmed”; par. 59 — “identify the need to apply fire retardant and automatically initiate the system”; par. 68 — “But once the system of the present invention identifies a potential fire approaching the area, the system automatically switches from irrigation mode to fire protection mode”); an input for receiving input communications (par. 45-47 - “inputs” from the sensors); an output for transmitting output communications (par. 57; fig. 1);
the reconfigurable control system receiving an input communication (par. 45-47 - “inputs” from the sensors), wherein the input communication comprises a wildfire information (par. 46);
the reconfigurable control system, based at least in part upon the input communication, defining a risk; and, thereby providing a defined risk (par. 46 - “…analyze the likelihood of a fire…”);
the reconfigurable control system, associating the defined risk with a structure (par. 47 - “application of fire retardant from the fire retardant supply 42 to the outside of the structure”); and,
the reconfigurable control system, based at least in part upon one or more of the input communication, the defined risk and the structure, transmits an output communication to a device for receiving and transmitting information (66, see par. 57 - “supplemental human supervision and control of fire control efforts”; fig. 1); and,
wherein the output communication causes a display (66A, see fig. 1) on the device for receiving and transmitting information (par. 57 - “supplemental human supervision and control of fire control efforts”).
Cohen does not disclose the processor reconfiguring the reconfigurable control system based at least in part upon information about the structure, data comprising a fire risk factor, and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire; whereby after reconfiguration of the reconfigurable control system, the wildfire suppression system is activated and thereby protects the structure from a wildfire.
Smagac teaches a method of protecting a structure from a fire (col. 1, ln. 7-11; figs. 1, 2), using a reconfigurable control system (1/2/10/12) in control communication with a wildfire suppression system (4, 11-17) configured to protect the structure and an area associated with the structure from the fire (fig. 2), the method comprising: the reconfigurable control system comprising: a processor (inherent to a computer); the reconfigurable control system receiving an input communication upon which a defined risk is based (col. 5, ln. 36-55), and the processor reconfiguring the reconfigurable control system based at least in part upon information about the structure (col. 5, ln. 38-40), data comprising a fire risk factor (col. 5, ln. 63-65), and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire (col. 7, ln. 1-11); whereby after reconfiguration of the reconfigurable control system, the wildfire suppression system is activated and thereby protects the structure from a wildfire (col. 6, ln. 4-30; col. 6, ln. 50-54; col. 7, ln. 12-16; col. 7, ln. 27-30; col. 7, ln. 42-46; col. 8, ln. 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cohen to further include the step of the processor reconfiguring the reconfigurable control system based at least in part upon information about the structure, data comprising a fire risk factor, and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire; whereby after reconfiguration of the reconfigurable control system, the wildfire suppression system is activated and thereby protects the structure from a wildfire, as taught by Smagac, since this allows the firefighting strategy to be tailored to the position and movement of a fire in order to maximize the efficiency of the limited fire retardant resources (col. 5, ln. 36-41).
Regarding claim 32, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 31, and Smagac further teaches comprising one or more feedback loops employed in steps c and/or g (figs. 3-5 – steps 321, 323, 326 – depending on the location of a detected fire threat the system is reconfigured in order to most efficiently and effectively use and apply limited firefighting resources).
Regarding claim 33, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 31, but not further wherein the display is a menu.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have modified the method of Cohen in view of Smagac such that the display is a menu since Cohen discloses that the display is a personal computer (par. 56), and the Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well-known that a personal computer has a menu.
Regarding claim 34, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 31 and further wherein the display is configured to receive an instruction and transmit the instruction to the reconfigurable control system (par. 56 - “a personal computer” and “remote control unit 66 may be configured to override the control unit 38 from a safe distance”).
Regarding claim 35, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 31 and further wherein the display is configured to receive an instruction (par. 56 - “a personal computer”) and transmit the instruction to the reconfigurable control system (par. 56 - “remote control unit 66 may be configured to override the control unit 38 from a safe distance”); and wherein the instruction is to activate a wildfire suppression system (par. 57 - “provide for supplemental human supervision and control of fire control efforts”).
Regarding claim 36, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 35 and further whereby the wildfire suppression system is activated (par. 46).
Regarding claim 37, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 31 and further wherein the device for receiving and transmitting information is at a location remote from a wildfire suppression system (par. 56 - “from a safe distance”; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 38, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 34 and further wherein the device for receiving and transmitting information is at a location remote from a wildfire suppression system (par. 56 - “from a safe distance”; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 39, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 35, and further wherein the device for receiving and transmitting information is at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system (par. 56 - “from a safe distance”; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 40, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 36, and further wherein the device for receiving and transmitting information is at a location remote from the wildfire suppression system (par. 56 - “from a safe distance”; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 41, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 31, and further comprising the reconfigurable control system associating the defined risk with an area (36a/36b, see par. 59 - “a threat for a wildland fire, the system of the present invention is activated, and fire retardant is distributed to the exterior of a structure and/or landscape”); and, wherein the structure is located within the area (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 42, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 31, and further comprising the reconfigurable control system associating the defined risk with an area (par. 64 - “hot spots”); and, wherein the structure is at a location remote from the area (par. 64 - the structure is at “other locations that are not impacted by a wildland fire”).
Regarding claim 43, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 31, and further wherein the wildfire information comprises one or more of an ember detection (par. 60), a flame detection (par. 60), and a humidity measurement (par. 62).
Regarding claim 44, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 35, and further wherein the wildfire information comprises one or more of an ember detection (par. 60), a flame detection (par. 60), and a humidity measurement (par. 62).
Regarding claim 45, Cohen discloses a method of protecting a structure from a wildfire (par. 2), using a reconfigurable control system in control communication with a wildfire suppression system configured to protect the structure and an area associated with the structure from the wildfire (fig. 1), the method comprising:
a reconfigurable control system comprising: a processor (38); an algorithm (par. 45, 52 - “programmed”); an input for receiving input communications (par. 45-47 - “inputs” from the sensors); an output for transmitting output communications (par. 57; fig. 1);
the reconfigurable control system receiving an input communication (par. 45-47 - “inputs” from the sensors), wherein the input communication comprises a wildfire information (par. 46);
the reconfigurable control system, based at least in part upon the input communication (par. 47 – “input from the humidity sensor”), defining a risk for an area; and, thereby providing a defined risk area (par. 46 - “…analyze the likelihood of a fire…”; par. 47 - “select landscape features”);
the reconfigurable control system, associating the defined risk with a structure (par. 47 - “application of fire retardant from the fire retardant supply 42 to the outside of the structure”); and,
the reconfigurable control system, based at least in part upon the input communication and the defined risk area, determines an action trigger (par. 47 - “input from the humidity sensor 40 can cause the control unit 38 to open select distribution valves 34 for the application of fire retardant from the fire retardant supply 42 to the outside of the structure or select landscape features”);
upon the occurrence of the action trigger, the reconfigurable control system transmits an output communication to a device for receiving information (66, see par. 57 - “supplemental human supervision and control of fire control efforts”; fig. 1); and,
wherein the output communication causes a display (66A, see fig. 1) on the device for receiving information (par. 57 - “supplemental human supervision and control of fire control efforts”).
Cohen does not disclose reconfiguring the reconfigurable control system based at least in part upon information about the structure, data comprising a fire risk factor, and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire; whereby after reconfiguration of the reconfigurable control system, the wildfire suppression system is activated and thereby protects the structure from a wildfire.
Smagac teaches a method of protecting a structure from a fire (col. 1, ln. 7-11; figs. 1, 2), using a reconfigurable control system (1/2/10/12) in control communication with a wildfire suppression system (4, 11-17) configured to protect the structure and an area associated with the structure from the fire (fig. 2), the method comprising: the reconfigurable control system comprising: a processor (inherent to a computer); the reconfigurable control system receiving an input communication upon which a defined risk is based (col. 5, ln. 36-55), and reconfiguring the reconfigurable control system based at least in part upon information about the structure (col. 5, ln. 38-40), data comprising a fire risk factor (col. 5, ln. 63-65), and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire (col. 7, ln. 1-11); whereby after reconfiguration of the reconfigurable control system, the wildfire suppression system is activated and thereby protects the structure from a wildfire (col. 6, ln. 4-30; col. 6, ln. 50-54; col. 7, ln. 12-16; col. 7, ln. 27-30; col. 7, ln. 42-46; col. 8, ln. 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cohen to include the step of reconfiguring the reconfigurable control system based at least in part upon information about the structure, data comprising a fire risk factor, and data comprising a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire; whereby after reconfiguration of the reconfigurable control system, the wildfire suppression system is activated and thereby protects the structure from a wildfire, as taught by Smagac, since this allows the firefighting strategy to be tailored to the position and movement of a fire in order to maximize the efficiency of the limited fire retardant resources (col. 5, ln. 36-41).
Regarding claim 46, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 45, and further wherein upon the occurrence of the action trigger the reconfigurable control system activates a wildfire suppression system, associated with a structure, associated with the defined risk area (par. 47 - “input from the humidity sensor 40 can cause the control unit 38 to open select distribution valves 34 for the application of fire retardant from the fire retardant supply 42 to the outside of the structure or select landscape features”).
Regarding claim 47, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 45, and further wherein the wildfire information comprises one or more of an ember detection (par. 60), a flame detection (par. 60), and a humidity measurement (par. 62).
Regarding claim 48, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 46, and further wherein the wildfire information comprises one or more of an ember detection (par. 60), a flame detection (par. 60), and a humidity measurement (par. 62).
Regarding claim 49, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claims 45, 46, or 47, and Smagac further teaches comprising one or more feedback loops (fig. 3-5).
Regarding claim 50, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claims 45, 46, or 47, but not further wherein the display is a menu.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to have modified the method of Cohen in view of Smagac such that the display is a menu since Cohen discloses that the display is a personal computer (par. 56) and the Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well-known that a personal computer has a menu.
Regarding claim 51, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 45, and further wherein the device for receiving information is at a location remote from a wildfire suppression system (par. 56 - “from a safe distance”; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 52, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 46, and further wherein the device for receiving information is at a location remote from a wildfire suppression system (par. 56 - “from a safe distance”; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 53, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 47, and further wherein the device for receiving information is at a location remote from a wildfire suppression system (par. 56 - “from a safe distance”; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 54, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 46, and further wherein a structure is located within the area (par. 47 - fire retardant is applied to the structure; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 55, Cohen in view of Smagac discloses the method described regarding claim 46, and further wherein a structure is at a location remote from the area (par. 64 - the structure is at “other locations that are not impacted by a wildland fire”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a) rejection for new matter, Applicant argues that the Examiner “continues to ignore the teachings of the Specification as a whole when viewed through the eyes of one of skill in the art”. Applicant further asserts that the Examiner has relied only upon one paragraph from the Specification, and ignored the Specification as a whole. This is untrue as evidenced on pages 11-12 in the Office Action of 18 March 2025 in which the Examiner explained why the “information and/or data” described in paragraphs 96-111 are not adequate to support the subject limitation.
Applicant further argues that the as-filed disclosure supports this limitation in paragraphs 96-111 of the Specification. Applicant points to paragraph 97 as support for reconfiguring based on “information about the structure”, paragraphs 102 and 105 as support for reconfiguring based on “a fire risk factor”, and paragraph 106 as support for reconfiguring based on “a georeferenced perimeter location of a wildfire”. Applicant further argues that the description of ranking the structures in paragraph 97, “refinement” and “evolution” of the algorithm in paragraph 102, artificial intelligence machine learning loops in paragraph 105, and machine learning of the control system in paragraph 107 all support the limitation “reconfigure the control system”. Finally, Applicant argues that the description in paragraph 127 that the processor has “any other functionality that enables the computing device 1104 to serve as and/or perform as (e.g., at least partially) one or more of the devices, methods, and/or systems disclosed herein” supports the limitation that the processor is configured to reconfigure the control system.
In response, Examiner notes that these portions of the Specification do not “describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention” (See MPEP 2163.I). Paragraph 111 states only generically that the control system may be reconfigured “using the information and/or data”. It does not specifically identify what information/data is used. While the preceding paragraphs identify different sources and types of data, it is in the context of describing algorithms for determining a risk of fire for public safety and property protection. Each of these paragraphs is devoid of any mention of reconfiguring the control system. In fact, other than paragraph 111, the Specification is devoid of any mention of the term “reconfiguration” (or reconfigure, reconfigured, reconfiguring, etc.). Further the “refinement” and “evolution” and “machine learning” are all described as being applied to these algorithms, not to the operation of the control system to control the fire suppression system. Applicant’s Specification describes multiple different types of information/data used for a variety of purposes: historical fire data to define a desired area to be protected (par. 43) or to provide an indicator of the direction that wildfires travel (par. 77), data from feedback loops to improve algorithms (par. 102), public data from Internet sources to identify fire incidents (par. 105), government data that identifies the georeferenced locations of burned areas (par. 106), population data correlated to fire incidents (par. 107, 117), infrastructure availability correlated to fire fighting success data (par. 108, 118), area of combustible material data (par. 109, 119). Because of the number of different types of information/data described in the Specification and the fact that no specific type or subset of this data is explicitly described as being used to reconfigure the control system, claims 31 and 45 are again rejected under 112(a) for reciting new matter.
Further, Applicant argues that paragraphs 110 and 111 “are a summary or ultimate paragraphs wrapping up the various ways in which the control system can be reconfigured”. But Applicant does not appear to support this argument with any analysis or support. To the Examiner, paragraph 110 appears to be a conclusory paragraph because it refers to “a control system algorithm capable of such analysis”, and each of paragraphs 96-109 is also directed to an “algorithm”. But, paragraph 111 appears to shift away from discussion of the “algorithm” to “techniques”. Paragraph 111 does not appear to contain any references back to paragraphs 96-109, it is devoid of the term “algorithm”, and does not contain any summary or conclusory statements regarding any of the subject matter discussed in paragraphs 96-109.
Applicant further argues that “the law does not require ipsis verbis disclosure of the claim element to meet the written description requirement.” In response, it is noted that this is stated in regards to “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail.” MPEP 2163.II.A.3(a). Applicant’s arguments do not provide evidence or analysis in support of the subject limitation being directed to “what is conventional or well known”.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 31 and 45, Applicant argues firstly that Cohen does not disclose a reconfigurable control system.
In response, it is noted that the claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01(I). The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “reconfigurable” is interpreted to be able to rearrange the settings thereof, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. Since the system of Cohen can be configured for irrigation or for firefighting (par. 45 and 46), it is interpreted to be “reconfigurable”.
Applicant further states that the Examiner has read the requirements that “the system itself performs the reconfiguration based on the required information and/or data” out of the claim. In response, it is noted that these requirements have been considered as explained in the prior art rejections above.
Secondly, Applicant argues that element 38 of Cohen cannot be interpreted to be a processor.
In response, it is noted that the claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01(I). Element 38 is disclosed to receive inputs from sensors 39 or 40 and, based on these inputs, to electrically open valves 34 (par. 45, 46); therefore, it is interpreted to be a “processor”.
Applicant's argument that the claims require the processor to be a computer processor or to be part of a computer are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thirdly, Applicant argues that Smagac does not teach a “reconfigurable control system” because it has “predetermined” functionality. In response, it is noted that Applicant's argument amounts to a general allegation that Smagac cannot be “reconfigurable” because it has predetermined functionality without any additional evidence or analysis specifically pointing out why this must be the true. The system of Smagac reconfigures itself in response to a fire threat as explained in the rejection above.
Fourthly, Applicant argues that Smagac does not teach a processor or an algorithm that reconfigures the control system. In response to the former, it is noted that Smagac is interpreted to teach a processor as explained in the rejection above. In response to the latter, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Fifthly, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to modify Cohen with Smagac is provided by the teaching of Smagac, as explained in the rejections above.
Sixthly, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Seventhly, Applicant argues that Cohen fails to disclose the limitation to “the reconfigurable control system, associating the defined risk with a structure”. In response it is noted that the application of fire retardant to the outside of a structure, as disclosed in paragraph 47 of Cohen, is only done after associating the risk of fire with the structure; therefore, it is interpreted to disclose this limitation.
Eighthly, Applicant argues that Cohen fails to disclose the limitation “the reconfigurable control system, based at least in part upon one or more of the input communication, the defined risk and the structure transmits an output communication to a device for receiving and transmitting information.”
In response, it is noted that in order to provide supplemental human supervision and control (see par. 57) an output communication must be transmitted and the “alarm status of the subject property” is interpreted to be a “defined risk” to the structure.
Ninthly, Applicant argues that Cohen fails to disclose the limitation “wherein the output communication causes a display on the device for receiving and transmitting information.” In response, it is noted that in order to provide supplemental human supervision and control the output communication must be presented (i.e., displayed) in a manner that is understandable to that human. Further, figure 1 of Cohen discloses a display.
Regarding claim 45, Applicant argues that Cohen fails to disclose “a defined risk area”. In response, it is noted that the valves for “select landscape features” are opened to apply water to these features because they have been determined to be a defined risk area for fire.
Further regarding claim 45, Applicant argues that Cohen fails to disclose the limitation that the reconfigurable control system “determines an activation trigger” that is “based at least in part upon the input communication and the defined risk area”. In response, it is noted that the “input from the humidity sensor” (input communication) “can cause the control unit to open select distribution valves (activation trigger) to apply fire retardant to “the outside of the structure or select landscape features” (defined risk area), as explained in the rejection above.
Lastly regarding claim 45, Applicant argues that Cohen fails to disclose that “an output communication” is transmitted “upon occurrence of the action trigger”. In response, it is noted that Cohen discloses that output communication is provided for “supplemental human supervision and control”, and this would include a communication upon occurrence of the action trigger. If not, “supplemental human supervision and control” would be impossible.
Regarding claim 41, Applicant argues that Cohen fails to disclose that the structure is located within the area of the defined risk. In response, it is noted that the system of Cohen is capable of determining the locations at risk of starting on fire (par. 59), and the structure is located within this area, as shown in figure 1.
Regarding claim 42, Applicant also argues that Cohen fails to disclose the limitation that the structure is remote from the area. In response, it is noted that Cohen teaches that fire sensors are used to determine the area of defined risk, that is, at risk of starting on fire, and the structure may be in a location remote from this area.
Regarding claim 46, Applicant also argues that Cohen fails to disclose that the activation trigger activates the systems. In response, it is noted that Cohen discloses this limitation as explained in the rejection above. Examiner has not ignored the express language of this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights