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 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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a monitoring system for monitoring an environmental status” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, 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 § 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.
Claim 1, 3, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “a monitoring system for monitoring an environmental status " in line 3. It is unclear what the corresponding structure is/are. Examples of the monitoring devices and associated sensors are described in further detail herein with reference to FIGS. 7 and 8 (par. 0039). Also, the example receptacle 194 is provided for connecting the automatic control unit 102 with one or more environmental sensors (e.g., of the zone monitoring systems 106, shown in FIG. 1), for monitoring the respective zones. Additionally, the pressure gauge 224 is an example of a sensor of the zone monitoring system 106 (FIG. 1), which detects operational status information and provides it to the sensor inputs 144 (FIG. 5). In some embodiments the automatic control unit 102 receives status information from the respective zone monitoring systems 106 (par. 0017). In some configurations, the automatic control unit 102 monitors the status information, and when the status information indicates that a fire has started (par. 0018). It is unclear if the monitoring system is the sensors, or separate and/or it is a component of the automatic control unit.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation “a plurality of fire protection units.” It is unclear if this limitation is referring to multiple of the “fire protection units” in claim 1 or additional different ones from the unit in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation “mount component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 doesn’t recite the limitation “mount component”. It will be presumed that claim 17 depends upon claim 16 until further clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baron (WO 2020/161643).
Regarding claim 1, Baron discloses a fire extinguishing system (Device and Method of Anti-Inflammation Capsule) comprising:
a fire protection unit (fire suppressant system, abs.) comprising:
a monitoring system (emergency sensors, abs.) for monitoring an environmental status; and
an agent dispenser (opening mechanism, par. 024) including an aerosol agent container (capsule, fig. 1) storing aerosol fire extinguishing agent (powder aerosol, par. 020); and
an automatic control unit (computer, par. 077/ controller, par. 052) comprising a processor and a memory device (par. 071), the memory device storing data instructions (receive instructions from a memory, par. 071) that, when executed by the processor (par. 071) cause the automatic control unit to:
receive the environmental status from the monitoring system (emergency sensors, par. 024); and automatically activate the agent dispenser unit to dispense the fire extinguishing agent when the environmental status indicates the presence of a fire (occurrence of an emergency situation detected by said one or more emergency sensors, the controller activates said opening mechanism to release a measured amount of said fire suppressant, par. 024).
Regarding claim 2, Baron discloses wherein the monitoring system is a zone monitoring system (the ref. discloses a vehicle fuel tank, par. 012. This is considered the zone) that monitors the environmental status of a particular zone including a protected region (preventing fire outbreak within a vehicle's fuel tank, par. 012. The protected zone is the fuel tank. The system is designed to prevent and control fires in this region in particular, par. 012).
Regarding claim 3, Baron discloses comprising a plurality of fire protection units (one or more emergency sensors and… a fuel gage sensor, par. 011), wherein each of the fire protection units is associated with a particular zone of a plurality of zones (a novel fire prevention safety system for vehicles, par. 041. Said sensors monitoring different parts of the vehicle for abnormalities), including a particular protected region of a plurality of protected regions (in specific embodiments, the safety system of the invention focuses upon three specific fire areas of a vehicle: the fuel tank, the engine and the ignition system, par. 041, where following such emergency situation the system further: shuts off the ignition system; and/or shuts off the flow of fuel to the engine, par. 041).
Regarding claim 15, Baron discloses wherein the automatic control unit further comprises a manual activation control (par. 039), wherein the manual activation control is configured to receive an input from an operator (par. 039), and to activate the agent dispenser unit to dispense the fire extinguishing agent after the input is received (The fire prevention system can also be arranged to operate manually, par. 044).
Regarding claim 19, Baron discloses an automatic control unit for a fire extinguishing system (see claim 1 rejection), the automatic control unit (see claim 1 rejection) comprising:
a processing device (see claim 1 rejection); and
a memory device storing data instructions (see claim 1 rejection) that, when executed by the processor cause the automatic control unit to:
receive an environmental status from a monitoring system (see claim 1 rejection); and automatically activate an agent dispenser unit to dispense an aerosol fire extinguishing agent when the environmental status indicates the presence of a fire (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 20, Baron discloses a method of extinguishing a fire (fire suppressant system, abs.), the method comprising:
receiving an environmental status (connected to one or more emergency sensors, abs.) of a protected region at an automatic control unit of a fire extinguishing system;
determining that a fire is in the protected region (preventing fire outbreak within a vehicle's fuel tank, par. 012. The protected zone is the fuel tank. The system is designed to prevent and control fires in this region in particular, par. 012) using a processing device (processor, par. 071) of the automatic control unit (computer, par. 077) based on the environmental status; and
automatically activating the agent dispense unit (occurrence of an emergency situation detected by said one or more emergency sensors, the controller activates said opening mechanism to release a measured amount of said fire suppressant, par. 024) from the automatic control unit (computer, par. 077) to cause the agent dispense unit to dispense fire extinguishing agent from a pre-pressurized agent container (each capsule/container may be pressured-filled with the fire suppressant, par. 067).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (WO 2020/161643) in view of Shavit (WO 2021/165972).
Regarding claim 4, Baron fails to disclose wherein the automatic control unit individually monitors each of the zones for a fire, and individually activates a particular one of the fire protection units when the fire is detected in the zone associated with the particular one of the fire protection units.
However, Park discloses wherein the automatic control unit (sensors, par. 0083) individually monitors each of the zones for a fire (If there is a fire detected by sensors of an individual endpoint, par. 0083), and individually activates a particular one of the fire protection units when the fire is detected in the zone associated with the particular one of the fire protection units (then the COFD application may start an “isolated” mode of operation, activating the water gun of just the given endpoint, par. 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to modify the automatic control unit of Baron to individually monitors each of the zones for a fire, and individually activates a particular one of the fire protection units when the fire is detected in the zone associated with the particular one of the fire protection units as taught by Shavit for the benefit of controlling fires in individual zones.
Claim(s) 5-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (WO 2020/161643) in view of Council et al. (US 2020/0338375).
Regarding claim 5, Baron fails to disclose an output device, wherein the output device generates an alert when the fire has been detected.
However, 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 for one skilled in the art at the time of the 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 Baron for the benefit of notifying and alerting necessary personnel to the presence of a fire.
Regarding claim 6, Baron fails to disclose wherein the output device is an audible output device comprising a speaker.
However, Council et al. discloses the output device (output system, par. 0042) is an audible output device comprising a speaker (speaker system or interface system to a sound system, par. 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add the output device is an audible output device comprising a speaker as taught by Council et al. in the automatic control unit of Baron for the benefit of audibly alert necessary personnel to the presence of a fire.
Regarding claim 7, Baron fails to disclose wherein the output device is a visible output device comprising a light source.
However, Council et al. discloses wherein the output device is a visible output device comprising a light source (handheld display system, par. 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add wherein the output device is a visible output device comprising a light source as taught by Council et al. in the automatic control unit of Baron for the benefit of visually alerting necessary personnel to the presence of a fire.
Regarding claim 8, Baron fails to disclose wherein the output device is an auxiliary output device that is separate from the automatic control unit but controllable by the automatic control unit to generate the alert.
However, Council et al. discloses 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add wherein the output device is an auxiliary output device that is separate from the automatic control unit but controllable by the automatic control unit to generate the alert as taught by Council et al. in the automatic control unit of Baron for the benefit of allowing external control of said fire extinguishing system.
Regarding claim 9, Baron fails to disclose wherein the auxiliary output device is a wireless communication device that wirelessly transmits the alert to a remote computing device.
However, Council et al. discloses 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add wherein the output device is an auxiliary output device that is separate from the automatic control unit but controllable by the automatic control unit to generate the alert as taught by Council et al. in the automatic control unit of Baron for the benefit of allowing external control of said fire extinguishing system.
Regarding claim 12, 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.
However, Council et al. discloses wherein the automatic control unit is further configured to output at least one anomaly alert (for sounding an alarm, claim 6), wherein the anomaly alert is based on at least one of an operational status or an environmental status (an alarm module for sounding an alarm if an alert is detected, claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation 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 in the automatic control unit of Baron for the benefit of sensing and communicating the detection of fires.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (WO 2020/161643) in view of Enk (US 8,973,670).
Regarding claim 10, Baron fails to discloses wherein the monitoring system further monitors an operational status of the fire protection unit.
However, Enk discloses wherein the monitoring system (control panel 58, col. 9, line 22) further monitors an operational status of the fire protection unit (The tracking device may also be in electronic communication with control panel 58 and when scanned can convey the real-time operational status of one or more components of the fire suppressions system, col. 9, line 21-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to modify the monitoring system of Baron with further monitoring an operational status of the fire protection unit as taught by Enk for the benefit of real-time status updates about the fire suppression system.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (WO 2020/161643) in view of Dunster et al. (US 2013/0098637).
Regarding claim 11, Baron fails to disclose wherein the operational status includes a pressure of the aerosol agent container.
However, Dunster et al. discloses wherein the operational status includes a pressure of the aerosol agent container (the pressure in the canister 105 can be monitored via a switch 106, and the canister 105 is configured to receive both gaseous fire suppression agents and propellant gases, par. 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add wherein the operational status includes a pressure as taught by Dunster in the aerosol agent container of Baron for the benefit of knowing the remaining pressure in said container.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (WO 2020/161643) in view of Council et al. (US 2020/0338375), further in view of Piersanti et al. (US 2003/0050713).
Regarding claim 13, Baron fails to disclose wherein the anomaly alert is a flashing code, wherein the flashing code identifies a particular type of anomaly.
However, Piersanti et al. discloses the 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 skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add disclose wherein the anomaly alert is a flashing code, wherein the flashing code identifies a particular type of anomaly as taught by Piersanti et al. in the automatic control unit of Baron for the benefit of being able to quickly identify alerts.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (WO 2020/161643) in view of Kang (US 2021/0283437).
Regarding claim 14 Baron fails to disclose wherein the agent dispenser further comprises a solenoid valve, wherein when the automatic control unit automatically activates the agent dispenser, the automatic control unit sends a signal that opens the solenoid valve allowing the fire extinguishing agent to flow from the aerosol agent container and to be dispensed through a nozzle.
However, Kyung discloses wherein the agent dispenser further comprises a solenoid valve (the electromagnetic valve 55 may be a solenoid valve., par. 0096), wherein when the automatic control unit (controller, par. 0095) automatically activates the agent dispenser (pump, par. 0095), the automatic control unit sends a signal that opens the solenoid valve (the electromagnetic valve 55 are operated in response to a control signal output from the controller 20, par. 0095) allowing the fire extinguishing agent (cooling water, par. 0095) to flow from the aerosol agent container (tank, par. 0095) and to be dispensed through a nozzle (to be discharged through the nozzle 54, par. 0095).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add wherein the agent dispenser further comprises a solenoid valve, wherein when the automatic control unit automatically activates the agent dispenser, the automatic control unit sends a signal that opens the solenoid valve allowing the fire extinguishing agent to flow from the aerosol agent container and to be dispensed through a nozzle as taught by Kyung combined with the Fire extinguishing aerosol of Baron for the benefit of precision control of aerosol dispensing.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (WO 2020/161643) in view of Hofmann et al. (US 2021/0228927).
Regarding claim 16 Baron 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.
However, Hofmann et al. discloses wherein the automatic control unit (a fire locator device, par. 0006) further comprises a mount component connected to a back panel of the automatic control unit housing (fig. 5, device 7 is mounted on the wall via back panel), the mount component usable to secure and support the automatic control at a desired location and in an adjustable position (configured to be mounted at a certain height within or in proximity of an area of operation, par. 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add 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 as taught by Hofmann in the system of Baron for the benefit being able to conveniently locate the device within a proximity to the area of operation.
Claim(s) 17 and 18, as best understood as dependent of claim 16 (see 112b rejection above), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (WO 2020/161643) in view of Hofmann et al. (US 2021/0228927) and Cui (US 2016/0105047).
Regarding claim 17, Baron fails to disclose wherein the mount component comprises a plate connected to the back panel, and a ball extending from the plate.
However, Cui discloses wherein the mount component comprises a plate connected to the back panel (at least one plate made of magnetic material on the back surface of the body, claim 1), and a ball (Fig. 14, 141) extending from the plate (a ball 141 with a standard (¼-20) camera screw thread, which is captured to the swivel base, par. 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add wherein the mount component comprises a plate connected to the back panel, and a ball extending from the plate as taught by Cui in the automatic control unit of Baron for the benefit of being able to mount the unit in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Baron fails to disclose further comprising a second mount component comprising an adjustable socket arm, wherein the adjustable socket arm includes a ball socket configured to receive the ball and to support the automatic control unit in the adjustable position.
However, Cui discloses a second mount component comprising an adjustable socket arm (fig. 13, 135), wherein the adjustable socket arm includes a ball socket (fig. 13, 143) configured to receive the ball (fig. 14, 141) and to support the automatic control unit in the adjustable (the ball 141 can rotate freely about the axis, par. 0055) position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have the motivation to add a second mount component comprising an adjustable socket arm, wherein the adjustable socket arm includes a ball socket configured to receive the ball and to support the automatic control unit in the adjustable position as taught by Cui with the automatic control unit of Baron for the benefit of being able to adjustably mount the unit in a vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to "Kyle Beers" whose telephone number is (571) 270-0460. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 8:00-4:30 PST. 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, Yashita Sharma can be reached on (571) 270-5417 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYLE GARRETT BEERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 /TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights