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 § 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 10 and 13 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 10, it is unclear if the “an inner cavity “of the last line the claim is the same inner cavity of claim 1, or a different inner cavity.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear how the device can hurt a surface.
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, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (12,138,498) in view of Thomas (5,918,681)
Regarding claim 1, Zheng et al. shows a fire-fighting device comprising: a casing (1) that delimits an inner cavity in which at least one dispersible fire-extinguishing agent (2) is deposited, a pyrotechnic assembly (3) configured to generate an explosion causing said casing to rupture and said at least one fire- extinguishing agent to be dispersed, said pyrotechnic assembly comprising: at least one explosive charge (31) generating said explosion, and a detonating system (51, 4, 5) configured to trigger said explosion of said at least one explosive charge, said detonating system comprises: an ignition device (51) configured to trigger, when in an active state, said explosion of said at least one explosive charge, the ignition device consisting of an electric ignition device (51 is an electric match), and a pyrotechnic fuse (4, 5) that extends from the at least one explosive charge to an outer surface of the casing.
But fails to disclose an impact sensor configured to detect a mechanical impact received by said fire- fighting device and bring said ignition device to said active state upon detection of said mechanical impact, the impact sensor consisting of an electric module connected to the electric ignition device, the electric module comprising an accelerometer, an electric power source, and a controller cooperating with the accelerometer.
Thomas teaches a fire extinguishing system that activates an explosive charge to release fire extinguishing material (abstract). The system including an impact sensor (160, 200) configured to detect a mechanical impact received by said fire- fighting device and bring said ignition device to said active state upon detection of said mechanical impact, the impact sensor consisting of an electric module (200) connected to the electric ignition device (141), an electric power source (inherent), and a controller (200)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add the impact actuated activation system of Thomas, alongside the already existing heat actuated activation system, to the fire-fighting device of Zheng et al., in order to have it be activated by heat as well as impact.
The above combination still fails to disclose the electric module comprising an accelerometer and the controller cooperating with the accelerometer.
Accelerometers are verry commonly used as impact sensors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use an accelerometer as the impact sensor of the above combination, in order to accurately detect impact.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the ignition device includes a primer head (the tip of 51) that cooperates with said at least one explosive charge: directly, within said at least one explosive charge (fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the detonating system comprise state indicator (205, 206, Thomas).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the impact sensor is one of: either external to the inner cavity and integrated in the inner cavity (it has to be one or the other).
Regarding claim 11, wherein said detonating system comprise a removable primer pin (129) configured to controlled to allow the switching of said ignition device to said active state upon detection of said mechanical impact 9that is what element 60 does, it activates the device).
Regarding claim 21, wherein the casing consists of a spherical casing (fig 1), and wherein the pyrotechnic fuse comprises an annular section (fig 1, 101), which extends over the circumference of the outer surface of the casing and in a transverse plane of the casing.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (12,138,498) as modified by Thomas (5,918,681) above, further in view of Smith (4,964,469)
Regarding claim 12, Zheng et al. as modified by Thomas shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1,
But fails to disclose at least one flying machine, including at least one dropping system, configured to receive said at least one device and drop said at least one device above a fire.
Smith teaches at least one flying machine (col 2, lines 58-59), including at least one dropping system (the airplane or helicopter inherently includes a place to carry the device, that place is the dropping system), configured to receive said at least one device and drop said at least one device above a fire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use an flying machine to drop the fire extinguishing device of Zheng et al. as modified above over a fire, in order to he extinguish the fire.
Regarding claim 13, in its use, the device of Zhen et alas modified above will perform the method steps of dropping at least one device according to claim 1, to trigger the at least one explosive charge when said device hits a surface after having been dropped (Zhen et alas modified above will activate upon impact).
Claim(s) 1, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (12,138,498) as modified by Thomas (5,918,681) above, further in view of Wang et al. (7,849,745)
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Zheng et al. as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose that the accelerometer is a non-servo accelerometer that is a piezoelectric detection accelerometer.
Wang et al teaches a piezoelectric detection accelerometer (Title)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use the accelerator of Wang et al. in the device of Zhang et al as modified above, in order to have a sensor that detects impact with improved sensitivity (abstract of Wang et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) 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
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 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights