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 .
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 and the lower portion of 5 with the holes 9 make up the agent disturbing portion) 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), leading directly from the inner tube to the interior of the container (holes 9 are part of the disturbing portion and they lead directly from the inner tube to the interior of the container in the same way as the holes in the present invention lead directly from the inner tube to the interior of the container. Inner tube, space between inner tube and conduit, hole, interior of the container is the order in both the present invention and Klimkowski) 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 (the tapered portion of element 10 creates a venturi).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the disturbing portion comprises a vortex generating portion of the conduit (fluid flowing through a conduit creates 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 filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicants remarks concerning claim 1, the examiner is interpreting the combination of elements 10 and 5 to be the discharging conduit, and the combination of elements 10 and the lower portion f 5 with the holes in it to be the disturbing portion. The claim merely requires a “disturbing portion” and does not require the disturbing portion to be a single element. In its broadest since, the examiner is just calling a portion of the discharge tube (10 and 5) the disturbing portion.
The holes 9 are being considered the side apertures of claim 1. In the claimed invention, the apertures lead from the space surrounding the inner conduit to the interior of the container. This is the same situation as in Klimkowski. Holes 9 lead directly from the inner tube to the interior of the container.
Regarding the applicant’s a arguments concerning claims 5 and 6. The examiner notes that any tapered interior flow path will inherently create a venturi effect. When the flow path narrows, the pressure decreases and a venturi is created. Bernoulli’s equation explains this. Additionally, fluid flowing through a conduit inherently creates a vortex at the walls of the conduit.
The above modified rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 4/10/2026
Prosecution Insights