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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 6-9, 14-17, and 23-25 are cancelled. Claims 1, 10, and 20-22 are amended. Claims 2-5, 11-13, and 19 are as previously presented. Therefore, claims 1-5, 10-13, and 18-22 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 11/14/2025 have been entered. The amendments overcome the following.
Certain 112(b) rejections
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites the following limitation in lines 17-26 of claim 10, “
wherein the first zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 4 to about 7 feet away from the structure and thereby the first zone defines a first zone footprint that is larger than and a same shape as the footprint of the structure; and,
wherein the second zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 15 to about 30 feet away from the structure and thereby the second zone defines a second zone footprint that is larger than and a same shape as the footprint of the structure and larger than and the same shape as the first zone footprint;
wherein the hydration plan is configured to provide a primary hydration amount”
However, it is suggested to amend to the following, “
wherein the first zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 4 to about 7 feet away from the structure and thereby the first zone defines a first zone footprint that is larger than and a same shape as the footprint of the structure;
wherein the second zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 15 to about 30 feet away from the structure and thereby the second zone defines a second zone footprint that is larger than and a same shape as the footprint of the structure and larger than and the same shape as the first zone footprint; and,
wherein the hydration plan is configured to provide a primary hydration amount.”
Similar objection to claims 10 (line 19) and claim 18 (line 15) regarding the location of the word “and.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a motive means” recited in line 7 of claim 18. The limitation includes the term “means” coupled with functional language “for flowing the hydration material through the distribution heads” and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “a means” recited in line 3 of claim 18. The claim limitation uses the term "means" coupled with functional language “for delivering a hydration material to a predetermined area adjacent to a structure”. However, the claim limitation recites sufficient structure (a plurality of distribution heads, valves, pipes, and a source off a hydration material) to entirely perform the recited function.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from 100% to about 400%. and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 100% to about 300%” in lines 26-30 of claim 1, which defines a desired result (maintaining a specific fuel moisture content), but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved (See MPEP 2163.03-V.) The disclosure describes how to calculate the fuel moisture content by measuring the weight of water and the oven dry weight of the fuel, but the disclosure fails to disclose how the system measures and provides hydration in a way that the fuel moisture content is maintained at a specific value. Therefore claim 1 was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-5 and depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
A similar rejection applies to claim 10 for the limitation, “whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content at about 200% or more, and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 70% to about 150%” in lines 23-26 of claim 10. Therefore claim 10 was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 11-13 depend from claim 10, therefore claims 11-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim 1-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In order to determine compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Federal Circuit developed a framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is "reasonable" or is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The wands factors are analyzed for the limitation “whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from 100% to about 400%. and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 100% to about 300%” in lines 26-30 of claim 1.
With regards to the breadth of the claims (A), the claim requires the entirety of the first and second zone to be maintained at specific fuel moisture contents in which can contain different fuel sources such as grass, leaves, duff, shrubs, tree branches, and other manmade objects, not a single fuel source, and thus undue experimentation would be required to determine the moisture content of each fuel source in a way that the fuel moisture content can be maintained at a specific level in real time.
With regards to the nature of the invention (B), the invention is an automated system for wildfire mitigation and calculating the fuel moisture requires the oven-dry weight of the fuel, which is a traditionally destructive laboratory test and, and thus undue experimentation would be required to determine the moisture content of each fuel source in a way that the fuel moisture content can be maintained at a specific level in real time.
With regards to the state of the prior art (C), while various sensors including the sensors recited by the applicant in Paragraph 0083, namely soil moisture sensors, moisture sensors, visual sensors (e.g., color of vegetation), humidity sensors, and temperature sensors, exist the converting the raw data into a fuel moisture content for all of the different fuel sources in real time would require undue experimentation.
With regards to the level of one of ordinary skill (D), one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand the mathematical formula of the fuel moisture content, but would not be able to use sensors to convert the raw data into a fuel moisture content for all of the different fuel sources in real time, and thus would require undue experimentation.
With regards to the level of predictability in the art (E), the variability of fuel type, water absorption rates, evaporation and environmental variabilities demonstrate high variability of possible fuel moisture content and thus the fuel moisture content is unpredictable and would require undue experimentation to determine the fuel moisture content in real time.
With regards to the amount of direction provided by the inventor (F), the inventor fails to describe how the system measures, determines, or estimates the fuel moisture content in the zones and thus would require undue experimentation to determine the fuel moisture content in real time.
With regards to the existence of working examples (G), the examiner did not find any working examples relating to how the system measures, determines, or estimates the fuel moisture content in the zones and thus would require undue experimentation to determine the fuel moisture content in real time.
Therefore, claim 1 which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention an is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-5 and depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
A similar rejection applies to claim 10 for the limitation, “whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content at about 200% or more, and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 70% to about 150%” in lines 23-26 of claim 10.
Therefore, claim 10 which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention an is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 11-13 depend from claim 10, therefore claims 11-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 1-5, 10-13, and 18-22 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 1 recites the limitation “the first zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 4 to about 7 feet away from the structure” in lines 15-16 of claim 1. It is unclear as to how an area, which is “a measure of a surface” as defined by the Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics, can extend uniformly because it is a mathematical measurement. Additionally, it is unclear in which direction and what is extending uniformly, which is defined as “with equal space between each or in equal amounts” by the Oxford Languages Dictionary. Is it a plurality of boundaries extending from a specific point on a structure at an equal amount, or a plurality of boundaries extending perpendicularly from the exterior of the structure at an equal amount, or something else. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 15 to about 30 feet away from the structure” in lines 19-20 of claim 1. It is unclear as to how an area, which is “a measure of a surface” as defined by the Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics, can extend uniformly because it is a mathematical measurement. Additionally, it is unclear in which direction and what is extending uniformly, which is defined as “with equal space between each or in equal amounts” by the Oxford Languages Dictionary. Is it a plurality of boundaries extending from a specific point on a structure at an equal amount, or a plurality of boundaries extending perpendicularly from the exterior of the structure at an equal amount, or something else. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a first zone footprint is large than and the same shape as the footprint of the structure." In lines 17-18 of claim 1. It is unclear as to what part of the first zone footprint is larger than the footprint structure. Is it the area of the first zone, or the furthest boundaries of the first zone, any part of the first zone, or something else? Additionally, if the area of the first zone footprint is larger than the area of the structure it does not necessitate a boundary of the footprint being further away. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a second zone footprint that is larger than and the same shape as the footprint of the structure and larger than and the same shape as the first zone footprint." In lines 21-23 of claim 1. It is unclear as to what part of the second zone footprint is larger than the footprint structure. Is it the area of the first zone, the furthest boundaries of the first zone, any part of the first zone, or something else? It is also unclear as to what part of the second zone footprint is larger than the first footprint structure. Is it the area of the first zone, the furthest boundaries of the first zone, any part of the first zone, or something else? Additionally, if the area of the first zone footprint is larger than the area of the structure it does not necessitate a boundary of the footprint being further away. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a structure” in line 1 and line 6 of claim 1. It is unclear if there are separate “structures” or if these are the same “structure”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same shape as the first zone footprint” in line 22-23 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same shape as the footprint of the structure” in line 17-18 and 21-22 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the hydration plan control commands are configured to receive an input” in lines 11-12 of claim 1. It is unclear as how the hydration plan control commands, which is believed to be a programming code, has the required structure to receive an input. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the sprinklers heads define a sprinkler pattern” in lines 1-2 of claim 4. It is unclear as to how the sprinkler heads respective structures define a sprinkler pattern. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, therefore claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the first zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 4 to about 7 feet away from the structure” in lines 15-16 of claim 10. It is unclear as to how an area, which is “a measure of a surface” as defined by the Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics, can extend uniformly because it is a mathematical measurement. Additionally, it is unclear in which direction and what is extending uniformly, which is defined as “with equal space between each or in equal amounts” by the Oxford Languages Dictionary. Is it a plurality of boundaries extending from a specific point on a structure at an equal amount, or a plurality of boundaries extending perpendicularly from the exterior of the structure at an equal amount, or something else. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the second zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 15 to about 30 feet away from the structure” in lines 19-20 of claim 10. It is unclear as to how an area, which is “a measure of a surface” as defined by the Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics, can extend uniformly because it is a mathematical measurement. Additionally, it is unclear in which direction and what is extending uniformly, which is defined as “with equal space between each or in equal amounts” by the Oxford Languages Dictionary. Is it a plurality of boundaries extending from a specific point on a structure at an equal amount, or a plurality of boundaries extending perpendicularly from the exterior of the structure at an equal amount, or something else. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first zone defines a footprint that is large than and the same shape as the footprint of the structure." In lines 17-18 of claim 1. It is unclear as to what part of the zone footprint is larger than the footprint structure. Is it the area of the first zone, or the furthest boundaries of the first zone, any part of the first zone, or something else? Additionally, if the area of the footprint is larger than the area of the structure it does not necessitate a boundary of the footprint being further away. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a structure” in line 1 and line 5 of claim 10. It is unclear if there are separate “structures” or if these are the same “structure”.
Claims 11-13 depend on claim 10, therefore claims 11-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the sprinklers heads define a sprinkler pattern” in lines 1-2 of claim 12. It is unclear as to how the sprinkler heads respective structures define a sprinkler pattern. This limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12, therefore claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitation “motive means” invokes 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. No structure for “motive means” was found in the applicant’s specification. The examiner will interpret this as any structure capable of performing the function “flowing the hydration material through the distribution heads,” as claimed in claim 18. 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 18 recites the limitation “a structure” in line 1 and line 5 of claim 10. It is unclear if there are separate “structures” or if these are the same “structure”.
Claims 19-22 depend on claim 18, therefore claims 19-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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) 1-4, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,247,087) in view of Smith (US 11,147,995) and Kulanda (US 11,872,422).
Regarding claim 1, McDonald discloses an external fire management system (Col. 8: Ln. 63-65 – “an automated structure and curtilage protection system 100”) for a structure (Fig. 1, 135), the system comprising:
a system comprising a plurality of sprinkler heads (Fig. 1A-1C, 176; The sprinkler heads are located at deployment points designated as 105 and 160.); wherein the sprinkler heads are in fluid communication with a source of a hydration material (Fig. 3A, 318; Col. 11: Ln. 61-63 describes the hydration material (“water”) entering the mechanical hub (101), which is shown in Fig. 1B as in fluid communication with sprinkler heads via piping (Fig. 1B, {102, 107, 108}); wherein the sprinkler heads are located on an exterior of a structure (Fig. 1A-1B shows multiple sprinklers on an exterior of the structure); wherein the structure defines a footprint of the structure (Fig. 1C shows a structure taking up an area on the surface of the ground, which is a footprint of the structure);
a control system (Fig. 3A, 301); wherein the control systems is in control communication with the system (Col. 10: Ln. 64 to Col. 11: Ln. 3);
the control system comprising hydration plan control commands (Fig. 10, Column Titled “Local System Action”; Col. 19: Ln. 36-38– “autonomously take action … preprogrammed threat levels”), wherein the hydration plan control commands define a hydration plan (The hydration plan control commands are a hydration plan.);
wherein the hydration plan control commands are configured to receive an input (Col. 20: Ln. 8-17 – “a fire has been detected within a distance, for example a one-mile radius of a structure 135”), and thereby upon receipt of the input provide the hydration material to a predetermined first zone (Fig. 1C, 142); and provide the hydration material to a second zone (Fig. 1C, 142 & 143) in accordance with the hydration plan (Col. 20: Ln. 8-17 describes the threat level information, hazard level 4a, that activates the system to saturate the curtilage (Fig. 1C, 140) which includes the first zone and the second zone as shown in Fig. 1C.);
wherein the first zone defines an area (The first zone is an area on the surface of the ground as shown in Fig. 1C.) that extends uniformly from 4 to about 7 feet away from the structure and thereby the first zone defines a first zone footprint (Fig. 1C shows the first zone as a footprint) that is larger than and a same shape as the footprint of the structure (The footprint of the structure and the first zone footprint are both in the shape of a polygons, and the boundaries of the first zone footprint are larger than the boundaries of the footprint of the structure); and,
wherein the second zone defines an area (The second zone shows an area on the surface of the ground.) that extends uniformly from 15 to about 30 feet (Col. 9: Ln. 62-65 – “30-feet”) away from the structure and thereby the second zone defines a second zone footprint (Fig. 1C shows the second zone as a footprint) that is larger than and a same shape as the footprint of the structure and larger than and the same shape as the first zone footprint (The footprint of the structure, the first zone footprint, and the second zone footprint are all in the shape of a polygon, and the boundaries of the second zone footprint are larger than the first zone footprint and the boundaries of the footprint of the structure);
wherein the hydration plan is configured to provide a primary hydration amount (Col. 20: Ln. 10-13).
McDonald does not disclose wherein the hydration plan is configured to provide a replenish hydration amount, whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from 100% to about 400%. and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 100% to about 300%.
However, Smith teaches a prior art comparable Hydro Fire Mitigation System (Fig. 1, 2) comprising a hydration plan (Col. 12: Ln. 33-41) is configured to provide a primary hydration amount (Col. 12: Ln. 33-41 – “protection mode (initial wetting cycle)”) and a replenish hydration amount (Col. 12: Ln. 33-41 – “a safe mode (cyclic wetting)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a hydration plan configured to provide a primary hydration amount and a replenish hydration amount) as taught by Smith, into the system disclosed by McDonald to create an environment that prevents stray embers from igniting flammable materials (Col. 12: Ln. 64-65) and yielding the predictable result of providing a primary hydration amount and a replenish hydration amount with a reasonable expectation of success.
McDonald in view of Smith does not teach whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from 100% to about 400% and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 100% to about 300%.
However, Kulanda teaches a prior art comparable wildfire suppression assembly (Fig. 1, 10) wherein the assembly maintains a fuel moisture content (Col. 3: Ln. 37-39 – “keeping the moisture content of the remote location above a wildfire threshold”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (maintaining a fuel moisture content) as taught by Kulanda, into the system disclosed by McDonald in view of Smith to inhibit the development of a wildfire (Col. 3: Ln. 37-39) and yielding the predictable result of keeping the fuel moisture content of the first zone and second zone above a threshold with a reasonable expectation of success.
McDonald in view of Smith and Kulanda teaches the claimed invention except for whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from 100% to about 400% and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 100% to about 300%. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from 100% to about 400% and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 100% to about 300%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, the examiner finds that the applicant did not demonstrate criticality for the fuel moisture content from 100% to about 400% and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 100% to about 300% (Applicants’ Specification, Para. 0095).
Regarding claim 2, McDonald in view of Smith and Kulanda teaches the system of claim 1.
McDonald further discloses wherein the hydration material comprises water (Col. 11: Ln. 61-63).
Regarding claim 3, McDonald in view of Smith and Kulanda teaches the system of claim 2.
McDonald further discloses wherein the input is a signal (Col 24: Ln. 51-52 states “the control center may be structured to receive threat level activation instructions from a remote source”, this is understood to encompass an input signal.) from a network (Col. 13: Ln. 22-44 describes a cellular module structured to operate independently of a structure's internet source and therefore is connected to a cellular network.).
Regarding claim 4 McDonald in view of Smith and Kulanda teaches the system of claim 3.
McDonald further discloses wherein the sprinklers heads define a sprinkler pattern (Fig. 2C, 178).
Regarding claim 10, (Currently amended) An external fire management system (Col. 8: Ln. 63-65 – ”an automated structure and curtilage protection system 100” ) for a structure (Fig. 1, 135), the system comprising:
a plurality of sprinkler heads (Fig. 1A-1C, 176; The sprinkler heads are located at deployment points designated as 105 and 160.); wherein the sprinkler heads are in fluid communication with a source of a hydration material (Fig. 3A, 318; Col. 11: Ln. 61-63 describes the hydration material (“water”) entering the mechanical hub (101), which is shown in Fig. 1B as in fluid communication with sprinkler heads via piping (Fig. 1B, {102, 107, 108}); wherein the sprinkler heads are located on an exterior of a structure (Fig. 1A-1B shows multiple sprinklers on an exterior of the structure); wherein the structure defines a footprint of the structure (Fig. 1C shows a structure taking up an area on the surface of the ground, which is a footprint of the structure);
a control system (Fig. 3A, 301); wherein the control systems is in control communication with a system (Col. 10: Ln. 64 to Col. 11: Ln. 3) for delivering the hydration material through the sprinkler heads (Col. 10: Ln. 54-63);
the control system comprising hydration plan control commands (Fig. 10, Column Titled “Local System Action”; Col. 19: Ln. 36-38– “autonomously take action … preprogrammed threat levels”) wherein the hydration plan control commands define a hydration plan (The hydration plan control commands are a hydration plan.);
wherein the hydration plan control commands are configured to provide the hydration material to a first zone at a first hydration rate; and provide the hydration material to a second zone at a second hydration rate in accordance with the hydration plan (The sprinklers whose spray radiuses are positioned to hydrate the first zone and second zone inherently hydrate at a rate, such as the volume of hydration material sprayed divided by the time because the definition of rate is a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against some other quantity or measure, as defined by the Oxford Languages Dictionary, and this is done in accordance with the hydration plan because the hydration plan provides the hydration material to their respective zones.);
wherein the first zone defines an area (The first zone is an area on the surface of the ground as shown in Fig. 1C.) that extends uniformly from 4 to about 7 feet away from the structure (Fig. 1C shows the first zone as a footprint) and thereby the first zone defines a footprint that is larger than and a same shape as the footprint of the structure (The footprint of the structure and the first zone footprint are both in the shape of a polygons, and the boundaries of the first zone footprint are larger than the boundaries of the footprint of the structure); and,
wherein the second zone defines an area (The second zone shows an area on the surface of the ground.) that extends from 15 to about 30 feet (Col. 9: Ln. 62-65 – “30-feet”) away from the structure.
wherein the hydration plan is configured to provide a primary hydration amount (Col. 20: Ln. 10-13).
McDonald does not disclose wherein the hydration plan is configured to provide a replenish hydration amount, whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content at about 200% or more, and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 70% to about 150%.
However, Smith teaches a prior art comparable Hydro Fire Mitigation System (Fig. 1, 2) comprising a hydration plan (Col. 12: Ln. 33-41) is configured to provide a primary hydration amount (Col. 12: Ln. 33-41 – “protection mode (initial wetting cycle)”) and a replenish hydration amount (Col. 12: Ln. 33-41 – “a safe mode (cyclic wetting)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a hydration plan configured to provide a primary hydration amount and a replenish hydration amount) as taught by Smith, into the system disclosed by McDonald to create an environment that prevents stray embers from igniting flammable materials (Col. 12: Ln. 64-65) and yielding the predictable result of providing a primary hydration amount and a replenish hydration amount with a reasonable expectation of success.
McDonald in view of Smith does not teach whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from 100% to about 400% and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content at about 200% or more, and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 70% to about 150%.
However, Kulanda teaches a prior art comparable wildfire suppression assembly (Fig. 1, 10) wherein the assembly maintains a fuel moisture content (Col. 3: Ln. 37-39 – “keeping the moisture content of the remote location above a wildfire threshold”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (maintaining a fuel moisture content) as taught by Kulanda, into the system disclosed by McDonald in view of Smith to inhibit the development of a wildfire (Col. 3: Ln. 37-39) and yielding the predictable result of keeping the fuel moisture content of the first zone and second zone above a threshold with a reasonable expectation of success.
McDonald in view of Smith and Kulanda teaches the claimed invention except for whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content at about 200% or more, and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 70% to about 150%. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include whereby the first zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content at about 200% or more, and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 70% to about 150%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, the examiner finds that the applicant did not demonstrate criticality for the fuel moisture content at about 200% or more, and the second zone is maintained at a fuel moisture content from about 70% to about 150% (Applicants’ Specification, Para. 0095).
Regarding claim 11, McDonald discloses the system of claim 10, and further wherein hydration material comprises water (Col. 11: Ln. 61-63).
Regarding claim 12, McDonald discloses the system of claim 11, and further discloses wherein the sprinklers heads define a sprinkler pattern (Fig. 2C, 178).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald in view of Smith, Kulanda and Smith (US 2022/0184438), hereinafter ‘4438.
Regarding claim 5, McDonald in view of Smith and Kulanda teaches the system of claim 4, but does not teach wherein the sprinkler pattern comprises a first sprinkler pattern and a second sprinkler pattern; wherein the first sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone; wherein the second sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone and at least 90% of the second zone.
However, ‘4438 teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “fire suppression assembly”), wherein a sprinkler pattern (Fig. 4, spray pattern emitted from 58, 60, and 64) comprises a first sprinkler pattern (Fig. 4, spray pattern emitted from 64) and a second sprinkler pattern (Fig. 4, spray pattern emitted from 60); (Fig. 4 of Smith also shows the first sprinkler pattern and the second sprinkler overlapping and therefore capable of covering a first zone and portion of the second zone.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a sprinkler pattern comprising a first sprinkler pattern and a second sprinkler pattern) as taught by ‘4438, into the system taught by McDonald in view of Smith and Kulanda to facilitate the maximum efficiency and capacity for protecting the structure and the area surrounding the structure from fire (Para. 0027), and yielding the predictable spraying out of the sprinkler heads with a reasonable expectation of success.
McDonald in view of Smith, Kulanda, and ‘4438 teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the first sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone; wherein the second sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone and at least 90% of the second zone. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, the examiner finds that the applicant did not demonstrate criticality for the first sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone; wherein the second sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone and at least 90% of the second zone (Applicants’ Specification, Para. 0028-0031).
Regarding claim 13, McDonald in view of Smith and Kulanda teaches the system of claim 12, but does not teach wherein the sprinkler pattern comprises a first sprinkler pattern and a second sprinkler pattern; wherein the first sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone; wherein the second sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone and at least 90% of the second zone.
However, ‘4438 teaches a prior art comparable device (Ti. – “fire suppression assembly”), wherein a sprinkler pattern (Fig. 4, spray pattern emitted from 58, 60, and 64) comprises a first sprinkler pattern (Fig. 4, spray pattern emitted from 64) and a second sprinkler pattern (Fig. 4, spray pattern emitted from 60); (Fig. 4 of Smith also shows the first sprinkler pattern and the second sprinkler overlapping and therefore capable of covering a first zone and portion of the second zone.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a sprinkler pattern comprising a first sprinkler pattern and a second sprinkler pattern) as taught by ‘4438, into the system taught by McDonald in view of Smith and Kulanda to facilitate the maximum efficiency and capacity for protecting the structure and the area surrounding the structure from fire (Para. 0027), and yielding the predictable spraying out of the sprinkler heads with a reasonable expectation of success.
McDonald in view of Smith, Kulanda, and ‘4438 teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the first sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone; wherein the second sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone and at least 90% of the second zone. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, the examiner finds that the applicant did not demonstrate criticality for the first sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone; wherein the second sprinkler pattern covers 100% of the first zone and at least 90% of the second zone (Applicants’ Specification, Para. 0028-0031).
Claim(s) 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald in view of Smith.
Regarding claim 18, McDonald discloses an external fire management system (Col. 8: Ln. 63-65 – ”an automated structure and curtilage protection system 100” ) for a structure (Fig. 1, 135), the system comprising:
a means for delivering a hydration material (Col. 11: Ln. 61-63 – “water”) to a predetermined area (Fig. 1C, 142 & 143) adjacent to a structure; wherein the means for delivery comprises in fluid communication a plurality of distribution heads (Fig. 1A-1C, 176; The distribution heads are located at deployment points designated as 105 and 160.); valves (Fig. 3A, 308-310 & 319-320); pipes (Fig. 1B, {102, 107, 108}); and a source off a hydration material (Fig. 3A, 318); the means for delivery further comprising a motive means (Fig. 3A, 304) for flowing the hydration material through the distribution heads (Fig. 3A shows the mechanical hub (101) where source of the hydration material is in fluid communication with the valves and motive means, Fig. 1B shows the mechanical hub as in fluid communication with distribution heads via the pipes, and Fig. 1C shows the hydration material being delivered to the predetermined area.);
wherein the hydration material comprises water (Col. 11:Ln. 61-63);
wherein the means for delivering is configured to deliver the hydration material to a first zone (Fig. 1C, 142) of the predetermined area adjacent to the structure (Fig. 1C shows hydration material being delivered to the first zone.);
wherein the means for delivering is configured to deliver the hydration material to a second zone (Fig. 1C, 143) of the predetermined area adjacent to the first zone of the predetermined area (Fig. 1C shows hydration material being delivered to the second zone.);
a control system (Fig. 3A, 301); wherein the control systems is in control communication with the means for delivery (Col. 11: Ln. 33-35); the control system comprising hydration plan control commands (Fig. 10, Column Titled “Local System Action”; Col. 19: Ln. 36-38– “autonomously take action … preprogrammed threat levels”).
wherein the hydration plan control commands are configured to provide a primary hydration amount (Col. 20: Ln. 10-13).
McDonald does not disclose wherein the hydration plan is configured to provide a replenish hydration amount
McDonald does not disclose wherein the hydration plan is configured to provide a replenish hydration amount.
However, Smith teaches a prior art comparable Hydro Fire Mitigation System (Fig. 1, 2) comprising a hydration plan (Col. 12: Ln. 33-41) is configured to provide a primary hydration amount (Col. 12: Ln. 33-41 – “protection mode (initial wetting cycle)”) and a replenish hydration amount (Col. 12: Ln. 33-41 – “a safe mode (cyclic wetting)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a hydration plan configured to provide a primary hydration amount and a replenish hydration amount) as taught by Smith, into the system disclosed by McDonald to create an environment that prevents stray embers from igniting flammable materials (Col. 12: Ln. 64-65) and yielding the predictable result of providing a primary hydration amount and a replenish hydration amount with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, McDonald in view of Smith teaches the system of claim 18.
McDonald further discloses wherein the hydration plan control commands define a hydration plan (Fig. 10, Column Titled “Local System Action”; Col. 19: Ln. 36-38– “autonomously take action … preprogrammed threat levels; The hydration plan control commands are a hydration plan.).
Regarding claim 20, McDonald in view of Smith teaches the system of claim 19.
McDonald further discloses wherein the hydration plan comprises a maintenance hydration plan. (The current claim language does not describe the maintenance hydration plan and therefore any instruction to spray would meet the limitation of the claim. Col. 19: Ln. 56-64 describes the “Hazard Level 2” as the maintenance hydration plan which describes water being sprayed on the roof and eaves.)
Regarding claim 21, McDonald in view of Smith teaches the system of claim 19.
McDonald further discloses the hydration plan comprises a prewetting hydration plan. (The current claim language does not describe the prewetting hydration plan and therefore any instruction to spray would meet the limitation of the claim. Col. 19: Ln: 65 to Col.20: Ln. 7 describes the “Hazard Level 3” as the prewetting hydration plan which describes water being sprayed on the roof and eaves.)
Regarding claim 22, McDonald in view of Smith teaches the system of claim 19.
McDonald further discloses the hydration plan comprises an in-event soak hydration plan. (The current claim language does not describe the in-event soak hydration plan and therefore any instruction to spray would meet the limitation of the claim. Col.20: Ln. 8-17 describes the “Hazard Level 4a” as the in-event soak hydration plan which describes water being sprayed on the roof and eaves.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the argument of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) on page 8 for claim 1 specifically the claim limitations "the first zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 4 to about 7 feet away from the structure," and "the second zone defines an area that extends uniformly from 15 to about 30 feet away from the structure," the examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant does not claim in which direction the boundaries are extending and from which point on the structure as described in the office action and thus the examiner cannot determine the meets and bounds of the invention.
With regards to the argument of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) on page 8 for claim 1 specifically the claim limitation “a first zone footprint is large than and the same shape as the footprint of the structure,” the examiner respectfully disagrees because it is possible that the first zone footprint can be a 6 sided polygon and the second zone foot print can be a 7 sided polygon with sides of different length and thus it is unclear as to what part of the first zone footprint is larger than the footprint of the structure as outlined in the office action.
With regards to the argument of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) on page 9 for claim 1 specifically the claim limitation “a structure.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because the term “a structure” is recited twice in the claim and thus the examiner finds that the rejection is valid as outlined in the office action.
With regards to the argument of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) on page 9 for claim 1 specifically the argument that “One of skill in the art would readily understand how the hydration plan control commands are configured to receive an input." The claims must be read as a whole and the hydration plan control commands are part of a control system. Control systems having control command programs are generally known by those of skill in the art to receive an input. The control system having the command program then performs an operation based upon that impute. That is what control systems having control command programs do. This common understand is consistent with the specification.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because while the control system can be configured to receive an input, that does not impute mean that the hydration plan control commands can receive an input and thus the examiner finds that the rejection is valid as outlined in the office action.
With regards to the argument of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) on page 9 for claim 4 with regards to “sprinkler heads defining a sprinkler pattern" would be readily understood by one of skill in the art. Any home owner that has placed a law sprinkler on their yard knows and understands that the sprinkler can be adjusted to provide a particular pattern of water on their yard. This common understanding is consistent with the specification.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because a sprinkler head does not define a sprinkler pattern, but instead the fluid flowing through the structure of the sprinkler defines a sprinkler pattern and thus the examiner finds that the rejection is valid as outlined in the office action.
With regards to the argument of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) on pages 9-10 for claim 18 with regards to “one of skill in the art when reading the claims in view of the specification would clearly and readily understand that the structure that provides a motive means for flowing the hydration material through the distribution heads, would include, for example, pump kit 540 and/or pressure from the water main. See, e.g., FIG. 4.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant has failed to do the following as outlined in the rejection:
(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)).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the rejection is valid as outlined in the office action.
With regards to the argument of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) on page 10 for claim 18 specifically the claim limitation “a structure.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because the term “a structure” is recited twice in the claim and thus the examiner finds that the rejection is valid as outlined in the office action.
With regards to the argument of the rejection under 35 USC 102 on pages 10-11 for claims 1, 10, and 18 the examiner respectfully disagrees because McDonald discloses a hydration plan and hydration plan control commands as outlined in the office action and can clearly be seen in Fig. 10 and thus the examiner finds that the rejection is valid as outlined in the office action.
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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752
April 8, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights