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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/7/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klimkowski (WO 2017/160173)
Regarding claim 1, Klimkowski shows A fire suppression apparatus comprising a container (1) for containing both a discharge gas under pressure and a fire suppressant agent, (the gas and fire suppressant are not positively claimed and the container is fully capable of containing both of these elements) a discharge valve (fig 2b, also inherent) and a discharge conduit (5 and 10 make up the discharge conduit) for conveying gas and agent to the valve in use, wherein the apparatus comprising an agent disturbing portion (10) which is arranged in use to promote the entrainment of agent in the flow of discharge gas during a discharge operation, the disturbing portion comprising an axial end aperture (13) in the conduit which narrows in a tapered portion (fig 3b) to a short inner tube (5) of a smaller diameter than the conduit and one or more side apertures (9), which exposes the inner tube to the interior of the container (holes 9 expose the inside of the inner tube 5 to the interior of the container) and in a discharge operation the axial end aperture is upstream of the side apertures (fig 2b)
Regarding claim 2, wherein the fire suppressant agent is in powder form. The examiner notes that claim 1 merely recites a container that is capable of containing a fire suppressant agent and that agent could be a powder.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the agent disturbing portion comprises one or more apertures in the conduit (9).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the disturbing portion comprises an end aperture (13) in the conduit and one or more side apertures (9) in the conduit.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the disturbing portion comprises a venturi-effect portion (apertures 13 and 9 will inherently create a venturi effect).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the disturbing portion comprises a vortex generating portion of the conduit (apertures 13 and 9 will inherently create a vortex)
Regarding claim 7, wherein the discharge conduit comprises a discharge tube (the hose in fig 5 upstream of the nozzle or 19).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the container is a cylinder (fig 1)
Regarding claim 11, wherein the discharge valve is operable in one or more ways to discharge gas and agent including one or more of mechanical, pneumatic and/or electrical actuation (the valve inherently operates by mechanical, pneumatic and/or electrical actuation)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimkowski (WO 2017/160173) in view of Wang (9,144,699)
Regarding claim 2, Klimkowski shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose that the fire extinguishing agent is a powder.
However, Wang teaches a pressurized fire extinguisher that uses a powder (5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to extinguish a fire that responds better to a powder instead of a liquid or a gas.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimkowski (WO 2017/160173) in view of Confrey (GB 2 255 015 A)
Regarding claim 8, Klimkowski shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the discharge conduit includes at least one part that extends substantially parallel with a longitudinal axis of the container, and includes at least one other portion that deviates from parallel with a longitudinal axis of the container.
However Confrey teaches a fire suppression apparatus that includes a discharge conduit (18, 16) that conduit includes at least one part (18) that extends substantially parallel with a longitudinal axis of the container, and includes at least one other portion (16) that deviates from parallel with a longitudinal axis of the container.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary ski in the art at the time the application was effectively field to make the discharge conduit of Klimkowski two pieces just like that of Confrey, in order to help remove all fire extinguishing material form the container no matter what the orientation of the container is.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the deviating portion of the conduit is arranged to extend towards a lower side of the container as mounted in use (this is shown in both Klimkowski fig 1 and Confrey fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached on (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 11/6/2025