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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of species IV, fig 8 and 9 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that since there is no generic claims the election between species is improper. This is not found persuasive because the examiner is entitled to restrict between species based on disclose, not on just claims present. Int his case, the election of species is bases on the applicants disclosure even though all claims read on the elected species.. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. No claims are withdrawn due to the election of species IV. 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. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: pyrotechnic means in claim 1, holding means of claim 2 , detonating means of claims 1 and 14 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 4 -6, 9, 10, 14 -18 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the initial position" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the final position" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the initial position" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the final position" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the mobile portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the surface of the casing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation " the electric ignition device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is interpreting the term “the electric ignition device to be the ignition device of claim 1 since claim 6 depends from claim 1. Regarding claim 14, it is unclear if the detonating means, ignition device and impact sensor of claim 14 are the same as that of claim 1, or if they are a different, additional, detonating means, ignition device and impact sensor. Regarding claims 4 and 15, it is unclear what is meant by the term “also called an igniter.” Is the claim claiming an ignition device, or an igniter, or both? The reminder of the claims are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim. 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 , 2, 6 -14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (4,964,469). Regarding claim 1, Smith shows A fire-fighting device, said device comprising: a casing ( 12 ) that delimits an inner cavity ( 20 ) in which at least one dispersible fire- extinguishing agent is deposited (fig 1) , and pyrotechnic means ( 14 ) suitable for generating an explosion causing said casing to rupture and said fire-extinguishing agent to be dispersed, said pyrotechnic means comprising: at least one explosive charge ( 14 ), generating said explosion, and detonating means ( 16 ) for triggering said explosion of said at least one explosive charge, wherein said detonating means comprise: - an ignition device ( 56 ) designed to trigger, when in an active state, said explosion of said at least one explosive charge, and an impact sensor ( 63,64 , 66 ) designed to detect a mechanical impact received by said device and to bring said ignition device to said active state upon detection of said mechanical impact. Regarding claim 2 , wherein said impact sensor comprises a mobile portion ( 68 ) that is able to move between two positions: an initial position, in which the ignition device is in an inactive state (fig 2) , and a final position, in which the ignition device is in an active state (when 66 breaks) , said mobile portion cooperating with: means for elastic return to said final position (58) , and holding means ( 64 ), designed to hold said mobile portion in said initial position and to release said mobile portion upon said mechanical impact. Regarding claim 6, wherein the ignition device includes a primer head (56) that cooperates with said at least one explosive charge (14): - indirectly, through a pyrotechnic fuse (18) that connects said primer head and said at least one explosive charge, or - directly, within said at least one explosive charge (14). Regarding claim 7, wherein the detonating means comprise state indicator means (element 74 lets the users know the device is not triggered when it is installed). Regarding claim 8, wherein the ignition device consists of a mechanical ignition device (fig 2). Regarding claim 9, w herein the mechanical ignition module comprises: a firing pin ( 56 ), forming said mobile portion ( 68 ), - a primer ( 60 ), intended to be struck by said firing pin when said firing pin switches from said initial position to said final position, and at least one fuse ( 18 ), intended to be ignited by said primer, and that extends to said at least one explosive charge ( fig 2 ). Regarding claim 10 , wherein the impact sensor is: integrated in the inner cavity ( fig 1 ). Regarding claim 11 , wherein said detonating means comprise primer means ( 60 ) intended to be controlled in such a way as 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 12 , Smith shows a fire-fighting system, said system comprising: - at least one device (1 0 ) according to claim 1 , and - at least one flying machine ( col 2, lines 58-59 ), including at least one dropping module ( the airplane or helicopter inherently includes a place to carry the device, that place is the dropping module ), adapted to receive said at least one device and to drop said at least one device above a fire . Regarding claim 13 , Smith teaches A fire-fighting method, said method comprising a step of dropping at least one device ( 10 ) according to claim 1, in such a way that said at least one explosive charge is triggered when said device hurts a surface after having been dropped (this is how the device of Smith is activated) . Regarding claim 14 , Smith teaches the d etonating means for a device according claim 1, comprising: an ignition device ( 56 ) designed to trigger, when in an active state, said explosion of said at least one explosive charge ( 14 ), and an impact sensor ( 68, 64, 66 ) designed to detect a mechanical impact received by said device and to bring said ignition device to said active state upon detection of said mechanical impact (when 64 breaks) . Regarding claim 18, wherein the detonating means comprise state indicator means (element 74 lets the users know the device is not triggered when it is installed). Regarding claim 19, wherein the ignition device consists of a mechanical ignition device (fig 2). 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) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (4,964,469). Regarding claim 3 , Smith shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, including wherein the holding means comprise a part (64 ), pinched between said mobile portion and a support portion ( fig 2 ) , But fails to disclose the part is metal. However, metal is a common material to make sheer pins out of due to its preferable sheer characteristics . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the part out of metal due to the preferable sheer characteristics of metal. Regarding claim 20, wherein the ignition device consists of a mechanical ignition device (fig 2) . Claim (s) 1, 2 and 4 -19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (4,964,469) in view of Thomas (5,918,681) Regarding claim s 1, 4 and 15 , smith shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the ignition device consists of an electric ignition device, also called igniter, and wherein the impact sensor consists of an electric module connected to said electric ignition device . However, Thomas teaches a fire extinguisher device that is operated by an electric ignition device (141), and an impact sensor (160, 200), the impact sensor consists of an electric module (200) connected to said electric ignition device. 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 electronic ignition system , including the electric ignition device, and an impact sensor, as taught by Thomas instead of the mechanical ignition system of Smith, in order to improve the reliability of the device. The examiner notes that claim 1 and its depending claims are alternatively rejected by Smith in view of Thomas since the electric ignition device, and an impact sensor are used instead of the mechanical impact system of Smith. Regarding claim 5, in the above combination, the electric module ( 200 ) comprises: - an electric power source ( inherent ), - a switch ( 202 ) that integrates said mobile portion ( the switch lever ), wherein said mobile portion is able to move between the two positions: - the initial position, in which the switch is in an open state, and - the final position, in which the switch is in a closed state (that is how a switch works) . Regarding claim 16 , wherein the electric ignition device includes a primer head (141) that cooperates with said at least one explosive charge: indirectly, through a pyrotechnic fuse (18 of Smith) that connects said primer head and said at least one explosive charge, or directly, within said at least one explosive charge (as shown in Thomas) . Regarding claim 17 , wherein the detonating means comprise state indicator means (element 74 lets the users know the device is not triggered when it is installed). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2708 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arthur Hall can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 12/2/2025