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
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ cancellation of claims 2-4 and amendment of claims 1, 17, 19, and 20 in the Response dated May 1, 2025 to the Non-final Office Action dated January 2, 2025. Claims 1 and 5-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and cancellation of claim 7 to resolve multiple dependency, which obviate the claim objection described in the Non-final Office Action dated March 19, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further objection.
Examiner acknowledges applicants’ arguments and amendments of claims 1, 3 and 17 to resolve indefiniteness of the claims, which obviate the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) described in the Non-final Office Action dated January 2, 2025. Therefore, Examiner withdraws further rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, upon further consideration, Examiner sets forth below new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) against claims 19 and 20.
Examiner acknowledges that any arguments applicants have made with respect to the original claims 1-20 in the Response dated May 1, 2025 are deemed moot in light of the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below for claims 1 and 5-20 since Examiner could not have reasonably anticipated any rejection of amended claims 1, 3 and 17 in the Non-final Office Action dated January 2, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “processing device” in claim 19 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. What structural element performs the function of processing? Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 20 recites the limitation, “the agent dispenser in line 9, and “the extinguishing agent” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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) 1, 10, 12, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 2012/0267126) in view of Baron (WO 2020/161643).
Examiner sets forth new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to amended features as described below because each of the features of applicants claimed invention as amended are unpatentable or obvious over the prior art.
Regarding claim 1, Volk discloses a fire extinguishing system comprising:
fire protection units (6.1, 6.2, 6.3), each being associated with a respective zone of a plurality of zones (Paragraphs 37-38), the fire protection units comprising:
a zone monitoring system (The combination of processing means 10 and the sectional fire detection device) for monitoring an environmental status of the respective zone of the plurality of zones (The limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended use, and therefore afforded limited patentable weight; Paragraph 43), wherein the zone monitoring system includes an environmental sensor (Paragraphs 43-44, Each section includes a fire detection device); and an agent dispenser (18.1, 18.2), but is silent as to whether the agent dispenser includes an aerosol agent container.
Baron discloses an analogous extinguishing system wherein a fuel tank is amongst the sections protected by the system. Within the Baron system, an aerosol agent container is the source supplying the release structure of the fuel tank section (Paragraph 20), and it is further suggested that the Baron device be implemented with a system that monitors other sections of the system (Paragraph 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volk with the disclosures of Baron, providing the system to further include a fuel tank, amongst the protected sections, and provide an aerosol agent container (Baron, Paragraph 20), in order to minimize the impact of a vehicle accident, and prevent fuel tank combustion, as disclosed by Baron (Paragraphs 2 and 4).
Examiner takes official notice that at a train may have a plurality of locomotives, and thus a plurality of fuel tanks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volk in view of Baron to include each fuel tank featuring the sectional system since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis, 193 USPQ 8.
Volk in view of Baron further discloses each fire protection unit comprising an automatic control unit comprising a processor and a memory device (Volk, 10 and Baron, Paragraph 71), the memory device storing data instructions that, when executed by the processor cause the automatic control unit to:
individually monitor the environmental status of each zone of the plurality of zones (As modified);
when the environmental status indicates presence of fire in one or more zones of the plurality of zones, automatically activate the agent dispenser [[unit]] associated with the one or more zones to dispense the fire extinguishing agent in the one or more zones (Paragraphs 13, 18-19 and 21).
Regarding claim 10, Volk in view of Baron discloses the fire extinguishing system of claim 1, wherein the monitoring system further monitors an operational status of the fire protection unit (Volk, Paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 12, Volk in view of Baron fails to discloses wherein the automatic control unit is further configured to output at least one anomaly alert, wherein the anomaly alert is based on at least one of an operational status or an environmental status (Paragraph 25, notification of a malfunction can be displayed to a user on the control unit).
Regarding claim 15, Volk in view of Baron discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the automatic control unit further comprises a manual activation control (Baron, par. 039), wherein the manual activation control is configured to receive an input from an operator (Baron, par. 039), and to activate the agent dispenser unit to dispense the fire extinguishing agent after the input is received (Baron, The fire prevention system can also be arranged to operate manually, par. 044).
Regarding claim 19, Volk in view of Baron discloses an automatic control unit for a fire extinguishing system, the automatic control unit comprising:
a processing device (Volk, 10); and
a memory device (Baron, Paragraph 71) storing data instructions that, when executed by the processor cause the automatic control unit to:
individually monitor an environmental status of each zone of a plurality of zones (Volk, Paragraphs 43-44);
and when the environmental status indicates presence of fire in one or more zones of the plurality of zones, automatically activate an agent dispenser associated with one or more zones to dispense an aerosol fire extinguishing agent (as modified by Baron, Paragraph 20) in the one or more zones (Volk, Paragraphs 13, 18-19 and 21).
Regarding claim 20, Volk in view of Baron discloses a method of extinguishing a fire, the method comprising:
individually monitoring an environmental status of each zone of a plurality of zones by an automatic control unit (Volk, Paragraphs 43-44); and
when the environmental status indicates presence of fire in one or more zones of the plurality of zones, automatically activating the agent dispenser to dispense the fire extinguishing agent from a pre-pressurized agent container (as modified by Baron, Paragraph 20) in the one or more zones (Volk, Paragraphs 13, 18-19 and 21).
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk in view of Baron (WO 2020/161643), further in view of Council et al. (US 2020/0338375).
Regarding claim 5, Volk in view of Baron discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose an output device, wherein the output device generates an alert when the fire has been detected.
Council et al. discloses an output device (output system, par. 0042), wherein the output device generates an alert when the fire has been detected (alarm module for sounding an alarm if an alert is detected, claim 6 and a remote alert system and/or responds to a local sensor that senses fire, par. 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to add an output device, wherein the output device generates an alert when the fire has been detected as taught by Council et al. in the automatic control unit of Volk in view of Baron for the benefit of notifying and alerting necessary personnel to the presence of a fire.
Regarding claim 6, Volk in view of Baron and Council discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the output device is an audible output device comprising a speaker (Council, output system, par. 0042, speaker system or interface system to a sound system).
Regarding claim 7, Volk in view of Baron and Council discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the output device is a visible output device comprising a light source (handheld display system, par. 0042).
Regarding claim 8, Volk in view of Baron and Council discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the output device is an auxiliary output device (controller 300, par. 0040) that is separate (controller 300 may include output system 302, par. 0040. Therefore, is separate.) from the automatic control unit but controllable by the automatic control unit to generate the alert. (a controller responds to an alert, and, in response, sends signals, par. 0004).
Regarding claim 9, Volk in view of Baron and Council discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the auxiliary output device is a wireless communication device that wirelessly transmits the alert to a remote computing device (controller 300 (which may include... wireless component 114 communication), which may control the delivery devices 208 and/or communications with the user, par. 0024).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk in view of Baron (WO 2020/161643), further in view of Dunster et al. (US 2013/0098637).
Regarding claim 11, Volk in view of Baron discloses the fire extinguishing system of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the operational status includes a pressure of the aerosol agent container.
Dunster et al. discloses an analogous system wherein operational status includes a pressure of a dry powder (Paragraph 13) aerosol agent container (the pressure in the canister 105 can be monitored via a switch 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volk in view of Baron with the disclosures of Dunster, providing the operational status to include a pressure of the container (Baron, paragraph 20) as taught by Dunster in order to ensure the container remains prepared for efficient performance, as disclosed by Dunster (Paragraph 16).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk in view of Baron (WO 2020/161643), further in view of Piersanti et al. (US 2003/0050713).
Regarding claim 13, Volk in view of Baron discloses the fire extinguishing system of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the anomaly alert is a flashing code, wherein the flashing code identifies a particular type of anomaly.
Piersanti et al. discloses a system wherein an anomaly alert is a flashing code, wherein the flashing code identifies a particular type of anomaly (A flashing LED indicates acknowledged events while a steady LED shows that all the events of that type have been acknowledged by an operator, par. 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volk in view of Baron with the disclosures of Piersanti providing the anomaly alert to be a flashing code, wherein the flashing code identifies a particular type of anomaly as taught by Piersanti et al. in order to provide for a known means to alert a user in a system where the method of alert is not a critical element.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk in view of Baron (WO 2020/161643), further in view of Kang (US 2021/0283437).
Regarding claim 14, Volk in view of Baron discloses the fire extinguishing system of claim 1, wherein the agent dispenser further includes a valve (Baron, paragraph 24, opening mechanism), wherein when the automatic control unit automatically activates the agent dispenser, the automatic control unit sends a signal that opens the valve allowing the fire extinguishing agent to flow from the aerosol agent container and to be dispensed through a nozzle (Baron, Paragraph 27, container exit) (Volk, Paragraph 44 and Baron, Paragraph 24) (as modified), but is silent as to whether the valve is a solenoid valve.
However, Kang discloses a system wherein an agent dispenser further comprises a solenoid valve (the electromagnetic valve 55 may be a solenoid valve., par. 0096).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volk in view of Baron with the disclosures of Kang, providing the valve to be a solenoid valve, in order to provide for a known structure that ensures precise control of aerosol dispensing.
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk in view of Baron (WO 2020/161643), further in view of Cui (US 2016/0105047).
Regarding claim 16, Volk in view of Baron discloses the fire extinguishing system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the automatic control unit further comprises a mount component connected to a back panel of the automatic control unit housing, the mount component usable to secure and support the automatic control at a desired location and in an adjustable position.
Cui discloses a system wherein a control unit (90) (mobile devices are known to provide control to extinguishing systems) further comprises a mount component (135) connected to a back panel of the automatic control unit housing (41) (Figure 16), the mount component usable to secure and support the automatic control at a desired location and in an adjustable position (Figure 16 and paragraph 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volk in view of Baron with the disclosures of Cui, providing the automatic control unit to further include a mount component (Cui, 135) connected to a back panel of the automatic control unit housing (The housing of the automatic control unit of Volk in view of Baron), the mount component usable to secure and support the automatic control at a desired location and in an adjustable position (Cui, paragraph 55), in order to provide a means to locate the unit, as desired, as disclosed by Cui (Paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 17, Volk in view of Baron, further in view of Cui discloses the system of claim 16 wherein the mount component comprises a plate (the flattened plate portion of member 136) connected to the back panel (the plate is connected to the back panel through the ball), and a ball (141) extending from the plate (Figure 15).
Regarding claim 18, Volk in view of Baron, further in view of Cui discloses the system of claim 17, further comprising a second mount component comprising an adjustable socket arm (135), wherein the adjustable socket arm includes a ball socket (Figures 14-15, the ball is received in the socket) configured to receive the ball (figures 14-15) and to support the automatic control unit in the adjustable position (Figure 16 and Paragraph 55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3725235 A to Witkowski and US 4984637 to Finnigan.
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 ARTHUR O. HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. CT..
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.
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
