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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Existing 35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are amended. Claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are as previously presented. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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 “to provide fire suppression without discharging a foam agent through the nozzle,” in lines 16-17 of claim 1. The examiner cannot find any evidence that this negative or exclusionary limitation in the originally filed disclosure and a negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must find basis in the original disclosure, the specification must describe a reason to exclude the relevant element, and the mere absence of a positive recitation of that element is not a sufficient basis for its exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i). Therefore, this limitation is new matter that 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 2-7 and 9-11 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2-7 and 9-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the inert gas discharged solely as the fire suppression agent,” in lines 20 of claim 12. The examiner cannot find any evidence that this negative or exclusionary limitation in the originally filed disclosure and a negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must find basis in the original disclosure, the specification must describe a reason to exclude the relevant element, and the mere absence of a positive recitation of that element is not a sufficient basis for its exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i). Therefore, this limitation is new matter that 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 13-14 and 16-17 depend from claim 12, therefore claims 13-14 and 16-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “to provide fire suppression for the electrical equipment without discharging a foam agent,” in lines 20-21 of claim 18. The examiner cannot find any evidence that this negative or exclusionary limitation in the originally filed disclosure and a negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must find basis in the original disclosure, the specification must describe a reason to exclude the relevant element, and the mere absence of a positive recitation of that element is not a sufficient basis for its exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i). Therefore, this limitation is new matter that 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 19-20 depend from claim 18, therefore claims 19-20 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.
Claim 10, 14, 16, and 19 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 10 recites the limitation “pre-engineered to provide a total amount of inert gas to the electrical equipment accounting for a size, geometry, number of vents, hazard temperature, and sea level of a space in which the electrical equipment is disposed” in lines 2-4 of claim 10. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to positively define the vents as part of the vehicle.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the sensor data indicating a fire condition at the electrical equipment, and activate the fire suppression system in response to the sensor data indicating a fire condition at a battery compartment” in lines 2-4 of claim 14, however claim 12 recites the limitation “the nozzle coupled with a cabinet of the electrical equipment.” It is unclear if the cabinet of the electrical equipment and the battery compartment are the same structural feature or different structural features.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “pre-engineered to provide a total amount of inert gas to the electrical equipment accounting for a size, geometry, number of vents, hazard temperature, and sea level of a space in which the electrical equipment is disposed” in lines 2-5 of claim 16. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to positively define the vents as part of the system.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “pre-engineered to provide a total amount of inert gas to the electrical equipment accounting for a size, geometry, number of vents, hazard temperature, and sea level of a space in which the electrical equipment is disposed” in lines 2-5 of claim 19. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to positively define the vents as part of the system.
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.
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2014/0186668) in view of Smith (US 2017/0014656), Chen (CN 108578929) and Pavur (US 4,685,173).
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a vehicle (The vehicle described in Para. 0063 & claim 16 with Figs. 3-4, all structural features) comprising:
electrical equipment (Fig. 3-4, 11); and
a fire suppression system (Figs. 3-4, all structural features) for the electrical equipment of the vehicle, the fire suppression system comprising:
a sensor (Figs 3-4, 100);
an inert gas storage container (Figs 3-4, 200) storing an amount of
a nozzle (Annotated Fig. 3) coupled with a cabinet (Fig. 3-4, 10) of the electrical equipment
a
a controller (Fig. 3-4, 300) configured to receive sensor signals from the sensor and activate the fire suppression system based on the sensor signals so that the inert gas is provided to the electrical equipment (Para. 0026-0027, 0053, 0055, 0058) to provide fire suppression without discharging a foam agent through the nozzle (A foam agent is not disclosed in Jung).
Jung does not disclose wherein the gas is inert gas, the inert gas storage container coupled with the vehicle via a first rubber mount, the nozzle coupled with the cabinet of the electrical equipment via a second rubber mount, and wherein the tube is a flexible tube.
However, Smith teaches a prior art comparable fire suppression control system (Fig. 1, all structural features), wherein the gas is inert gas (Para. 0007; Fire suppression agent is nitrogen which is an inert gas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element, namely nitrogen gas, with a known function suppressing a fire, taught by Smith (Para. 0007), by performing a simple substitution with another element, namely gas, disclosed by Jung yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire when discharged into the cabinet.
Jung in view of Smith does not teach the inert gas storage container coupled with the vehicle via a first rubber mount, the nozzle coupled with the cabinet of the electrical equipment via a second rubber mount, and wherein the tube is a flexible tube
However, Chen teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, All structural elements; Para. 0002 – “vehicle mounted fire extinguisher with shock absorption function”) comprising an inert gas storage container (Fig. 1, 3) coupled with the mobile equipment via a first rubber mount (Fig. 1, [1 & 3] and Fig. 3, [1, 22, 24]; Para. 0028 – “When in use, place the fire extinguisher body 3 inside the vehicle and fix it with the support frame 24. The shock-absorbing belt 22, rubber pad 1, and shock-absorbing spring 2 can absorb shocks and prevent the fire extinguisher body 3 from falling off the vehicle due to bumps.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a first rubber mount with the known function of mounting as taught by Chen into the vehicle taught by Jung in view of Smith with a known function of suppressing a fire and the elements could have been combined via the known method of attaching and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and in combination yields the predictable result of suppressing a fire while the first inert gas storage container is coupled with the vehicle via the first rubber mount.
Additionally, it would have also 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 (the inert gas storage container coupled with the vehicle via a first rubber mount) as taught by Chen, into the vehicle taught by Jung in view of Smith to prevent the fire extinguisher body from falling off the vehicle due to bumps and yielding the predictable result of coupling the inert gas storage container to the vehicle via the first rubber mount with a reasonable expectation of success.
Jung in view of Smith and Chen does not teach the nozzle coupled with the cabinet of the electrical equipment via a second rubber mount, and wherein the tube is a flexible tube.
However, Pavur teaches a prior art comparable second elastomeric mount (Figs. 1-6, 10; Clm. 1 – “for passing one or more flexible elongated conduits”) and wherein a tube is a flexible tube (Fig. 1 & 4, 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a second elastomeric mount with the known function of mounting as taught by Pavur into the vehicle taught by Jung in view of Smith and Chen with the known function of suppressing a fire and the elements could have been combined via the known method of attaching and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and in combination yields the predictable result of suppressing a fire while the nozzle is coupled with the cabinet of electrical equipment via the second rubber mount and flexible tube.
Additionally, it would have also 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 nozzle coupled with a cabinet of the electrical equipment via a second rubber mount and wherein a tube is a flexible tube) as taught by Pavur, into the system Jung in view of Smith and Chen to seal the electrical cabinet against water entry, noise, and dust (Pavur – Col. 1: Ln. 56) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, 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 (the use of flexible tube) as taught by Pavur, into the vehicle disclosed by Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur to make the fire suppression system easier to install in a confined environment, which would have been recognized one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and yielding the predictable result of fluidically coupling the inert gas storage container and nozzle, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (a flexible tube) with a known function (distributing fluid), taught by Pavur, by performing a simple substitution with another element (a tube) disclosed by Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur yielding the predictable result of distributing fluid.
Additionally, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a flexible tube, because at the relevant time, there had been a recognized need in the art, namely distributing fluid; from finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, namely a flexible pipe or a rigid pipe; which could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, namely distributing fluid from the inert gas storage container to the nozzle.
Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur does not teach wherein the elastomeric mount is made of rubber. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the elastomeric mount out of rubber since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application (Para. 0040; Elastomeric mounts can also be structurally configured to withstand shocks, impulses, vibrations, etc., that mobile equipment may experience during operation.) applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
540
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Jung further teaches a valve (Fig. 3-4, 260) positioned between a first end of the flexible tube and a second end of the flexible tube, wherein the valve is configured to transition between a closed position and an open position to selectably fluidly couple the inert gas storage container with the nozzle (Para. 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 3, Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur teaches the vehicle of claim 2,
Jung further discloses wherein the valve is configured to be electronically actuated between the closed position and the open position by the controller (Para. 0054-0056; A solenoid valve is electronically actuated.).
Regarding claim 4, Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur teaches the vehicle of Claim 1.
Jung further discloses wherein the controller is configured to obtain sensor data from the sensor, the sensor data indicating a fire condition at the electrical equipment (Para. 0027, 0037, 0058).
Regarding claim 5 Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur teaches the vehicle of Claim 4.
Jung further discloses wherein the controller is configured to activate the fire suppression system in response to the sensor data indicating a fire condition at the electrical equipment (Para. 0027, 0037, 0058).
Regarding claim 6, Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur teaches the vehicle of Claim 1.
Jung further discloses wherein the sensor is at least one of a temperature sensor or an optical sensor (Temperature sensor; Para. 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 7, Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur teaches the vehicle of Claim 1.
Smith further teaches wherein the inert gas includes a nitrogen gas (Para. 0007).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Smith, Chen, Pavur, Enk (US 2019/0344109), hereinafter Enk 2.
Regarding claim 9, Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur teaches the vehicle of Claim 1.
Jung further discloses the inert gas storage container is directly fluidly coupled with only the nozzle (Fig. 3-4), wherein the inert gas storage container and the nozzle are a first inert gas storage container and a first nozzle, wherein the fire suppression system further comprises:
wherein the first inert gas storage container is configured to provide a pre-engineered amount of the inert gas to the electrical equipment (Para. 0033).
Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur does not teach a second inert gas storage container; and a second nozzle fluidly coupled with the second inert gas storage container through another flexible tube; wherein the second inert gas storage container and the second nozzle are configured to operate independently of the first inert gas storage container and the first nozzle in response to the controller, wherein the second inert gas storage container and the first inert gas storage container are each configured to provide a pre-engineered amount of the inert gas to the electrical equipment.
However, Enk 2 teaches a prior art comparable device (“Ti. –Fire Suppression System”), that duplicates the fire suppression system (Fig. 11 shows two fire suppression systems in the same fire zone leading to a first and second fire suppression system).
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 (duplicating the fire system in the same fire zone via a controller) as taught by Enk 2, into the system taught by , Jung in view of Smith, Chen, and Pavur to enable greater coverage of fire suppression system (Enk 2: Para. 0058) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire in a fire zone when activated.
Therefore , Jung in view of Smith, Chen, Pavur, and Enk 2 teaches the vehicle wherein a second inert gas storage container (Duplicated instance of the first inert gas storage container.); and
a second nozzle (Duplicated instance of the first nozzle.) fluidly coupled with the second inert gas storage container through another flexible tube (Duplicated instance of the flexible tube);
wherein the second inert gas storage container and the second nozzle are configured to operate independently of the first inert gas storage container and the first nozzle in response to the controller (Enk 2 – Para. 0058), wherein the second inert gas storage container and the first inert gas storage container are each configured to provide a pre-engineered amount of the inert gas to the electrical equipment (This is taught in combination where Jung already teaches the pre-engineered amount of the inert gas in Para. 0033).
Regarding claim 10, Jung in view of Smith, Chen, Pavur, and Enk 2 teaches the vehicle of Claim 9, and in combination teach wherein a size of the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container are pre-engineered to provide a total amount of inert gas to the electrical equipment accounting for a size, geometry, number of vents, hazard temperature, and sea level of a space in which the electrical equipment is disposed (The first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container are pre-engineered by way of having a predetermined inner space as described in Para. 0033 of Jung and thus meets the structural limitations of this apparatus claim.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Smith, Chen, Pavur, Enk 2, and Wagner (WO 2017001222).
Regarding claim 11, Jung in view of Smith, Chen, Pavur, and Enk 2 teaches the vehicle of Claim 10, but does not explicitly teach wherein the total amount of inert gas is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the space to below 15% by volume when the total amount of inert gas is provided into the space.
However, Wagner teaches a prior art comparable inerting method (Para. 0006), wherein the total amount of inert gas is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the space to below 15% by volume when the total amount of inert gas is provided into the space (Para. 0006 ,0071).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the prior art contained the vehicle taught by Jung in view of Smith, Chen, Pavur, and Enk 2 upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" method, namely the inerting method taught by Wagner that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (the total amount of inert gas is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the space to below 15% by volume when the total amount of inert gas is provided into the space), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely suppressing a fire with the benefit of avoiding oversizing the system (Wagner – Para. 0011).
Claim(s) 12-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Stilwell (US 2004/0194977), Chen, and Pavur.
Regarding claim 12, Jung discloses a fire suppression system (Figs. 3-4, all structural elements) for electrical equipment of mobile equipment (Para. 0063), the fire suppression system comprising:
a sensor (Figs 3-4, 100);
a first inert gas storage container (Figs 3-4, 200) storing a first amount of as a fire suppression agent, the first inert gas storage container configured to discharge the first amount of
a nozzle (Annotated Fig. 3 of claim 1) fluidly coupled with
a controller (Fig. 3-4, 300) configured to receive sensor signals from the sensor and activate the fire suppression system based on the sensor signals so that the inert gas is provided from the first inert gas storage container
Jung does not disclose a second inert gas storage container storing a second amount of inert gas as the fire suppression agent, the second inert gas storage container configured to discharge the second amount of inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated, wherein the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container are coupled with the mobile equipment via first rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment; the nozzle fluidly coupled with both the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container in parallel through flexible tubing, the nozzle coupled with a cabinet of the electrical equipment (Fig. 3-4, 10) through second rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment.
However, Stilwell teaches a prior art comparable hazard suppression system (Fig. 1, 20) comprising a sensor (Fig. 1, 34);
a first inert gas storage container (Fig. 1, 24 closest to 40) storing a first amount of inert gas as a fire suppression agent (Para. 0032, Nitrogen), the first inert gas storage container configured to discharge the first amount of inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated (Para. 0031);
a second inert gas storage container (Fig. 1, instance of 24 to the left of the first inert gas storage container) storing a second amount of inert gas as the fire suppression agent (Para. 0032 – “Nitrogen”), the second inert gas storage container configured to discharge the second amount of inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated (Para. 0031);
a nozzle (Fig. 1, 32) fluidly coupled with both the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container in parallel through tubing (Fig. 1, 28 & 30), the nozzle coupled with a cabinet (Fig. 1, 22; Para. 0031) of the electrical equipment; and
a controller (Fig. 1, 38) configured to receive sensor signals from the sensor and activate the fire suppression system (Para. 0031) based on the sensor signals so that the inert gas is provided from the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container to the electrical equipment through the nozzle (Para. 0047), the inert gas discharged solely as the fire suppression agent (Para. 0031).
Firstly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the incorporate one known element, namely nitrogen gas, with a known function suppressing a fire, taught by Stilwell (Para. 0032), by performing a simple substitution with another element, namely gas, disclosed by Jung yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire when discharged into the cabinet.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Stilwell, namely a first inert gas storage container storing a first amount of inert gas as a fire suppression agent, the first inert gas storage container configured to discharge the first amount of inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated; a second inert gas storage container storing a second amount of inert gas as the fire suppression agent, the second inert gas storage container configured to discharge the second amount of inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated, to allow for more inert gas to be provided by utilizing a plurality of inert gas storage containers.
Jung in view of Stilwell does not teach wherein the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container are coupled with the mobile equipment via first rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment, the tubing is flexible tubing, and the nozzle coupled with a cabinet of the electrical equipment through second rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment.
However, Chen teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, All structural elements; Para. 0002 – “vehicle mounted fire extinguisher with shock absorption function”) comprising an inert gas storage container (Fig. 1, 3) coupled with the mobile equipment via a first rubber mount (Fig. 1, [1 & 3] and Fig. 3, [1, 22, 24]; Para. 0028 – “When in use, place the fire extinguisher body 3 inside the vehicle and fix it with the support frame 24. The shock-absorbing belt 22, rubber pad 1, and shock-absorbing spring 2 can absorb shocks and prevent the fire extinguisher body 3 from falling off the vehicle due to bumps.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a first rubber mount with the known function of mounting as taught by Chen into the system taught by Jung in view of Stilwell with a known function of suppressing a fire and the elements could have been combined via the known method of attaching and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and in combination yields the predictable result of suppressing a fire while the first inert gas storage container is coupled with the system via a first instance of the first rubber mount, and the second inert gas storage container is coupled with the system via a second instance of the first rubber mount.
Additionally, it would have also 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 (the inert gas storage container coupled with the vehicle via a first rubber mount) as taught by Chen, into the system taught by Jung in view of Stilwell to prevent the fire extinguisher body from falling off the system due to bumps and yielding the predictable result of coupling the inert gas storage container to the system via the first rubber mount with a reasonable expectation of success.
Jung in view of Stilwell and Chen does not teach the tubing is flexible tubing, and the nozzle coupled with a cabinet of the electrical equipment through second rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment.
However, Pavur teaches a prior art comparable second elastomeric mount (Figs. 1-6, 10; Clm. 1 – “for passing one or more flexible elongated conduits”) and wherein a tube is a flexible tube (Fig. 1 & 4, 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a second elastomeric mount with the known function of mounting as taught by Pavur into the system taught by Jung in view of Stilwell and Chen with the known function of suppressing a fire and the elements could have been combined via the known method of attaching and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and in combination yields the predictable result of suppressing a fire while the nozzle is coupled with the cabinet of electrical equipment via the second rubber mount and flexible tube.
Additionally, it would have also 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 nozzle coupled with a cabinet of the electrical equipment via a second rubber mount and wherein the tube is a flexible tube) as taught by Pavur, into the system taught by Jung in view of Stilwell and Chen to seal the electrical cabinet against water entry, noise, and dust (Pavur – Col. 1: Ln. 56) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, 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 (the use of flexible tube) as taught by Pavur, into the system disclosed by Jung in view of Stilwell, Chen, and Pavur to make the fire suppression system easier to install in a confined environment, which would have been recognized one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and yielding the predictable result of fluidically coupling the inert gas storage container and nozzle, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (a flexible tube) with a known function (distributing fluid), taught by Pavur, by performing a simple substitution with another element (a tube) disclosed by Jung in view of Stilwell, Chen, and Pavur yielding the predictable result of distributing fluid.
Additionally, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a flexible tube, because at the relevant time, there had been a recognized need in the art, namely distributing fluid; from finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, namely a flexible pipe or a rigid pipe; which could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, namely distributing fluid from the inert gas storage container to the nozzle.
Jung in view of Stilwell, Chen, and Pavur does not teach wherein the elastomeric mount is made of rubber. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the elastomeric mount out of rubber since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application (Para. 0040; Elastomeric mounts can also be structurally configured to withstand shocks, impulses, vibrations, etc., that mobile equipment may experience during operation.) applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Jung in view of Stilwell, Chen, and Pavur teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 12.
Stilwell further teaches the fire suppression system further comprising a valve (Fig. 1, 26 attached to the first inert gas storage container; Para. 0031, 0049) and a flow restriction device (Fig. 1, 26 attached to the first inert gas storage container; Para. 0031, 0049), wherein the valve is positioned between the first inert gas storage container and the nozzle, and the flow restriction device is positioned between the second inert gas storage container and the nozzle (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Jung in view of Stilwell, Chen, and Pavur teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 12.
wherein the controller is configured to obtain sensor data from the sensor, the sensor data indicating a fire condition at the electrical equipment , and activate the fire suppression system in response to the sensor data indicating a fire condition at a battery compartment (Fig. 3-4, 10 & 11; Para. 0027, 0037, 0058).
Regarding claim 16, Jung in view of Stilwell, Chen, and Pavur teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 12.
Jung further discloses wherein a size of the first inert gas storage container
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container are pre-engineered to provide a total amount of inert gas because Jung has already disclosed a pre-engineered amount of inert gas for the first inert gas storage container, and to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that utilizing the predetermined space of the first inert gas container with the second inert gas container would provide a specific amount of gas with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Stilwell, Chen, Pavur, and Wagner.
Regarding claim 17, Jung in view of Stilwell, Chen, and Pavur teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein the total amount of inert gas is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the space to below 15% by volume when the total amount of inert gas is provided into the space.
However, Wagner teaches a prior art comparable inerting method (Para. 0006), wherein the total amount of inert gas is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the space to below 15% by volume when the total amount of inert gas is provided into the space (Para. 0006 ,0071).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the system taught by Jung in view of Stilwell, Chen, and Pavur upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" method, namely the inerting method taught by Wagner that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (the total amount of inert gas is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the space to below 15% by volume when the total amount of inert gas is provided into the space), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely suppressing a fire with the benefit of avoiding oversizing the system (Wagner – Para. 0011).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Oki (JP 2018/055768), Chen, and Pavur.
Regarding claim 18, Jung discloses a fire suppression system (Figs. 3-4, all structural elements) for electrical equipment of mobile equipment (Para. 0063), the fire suppression system comprising:
a sensor (Figs 3-4, 100);
a first inert gas storage container (Figs 3-4, 200) configured to store a first amount of inert gas as a fire suppression agent (Para. 0036) and discharge the inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated, and
a nozzle (Annotated Fig. 3 of claim 1) fluidly coupled with one of the first inert gas storage container or the second inert gas storage container (fluidly coupled with the first inert gas storage container) via second
a controller (Fig. 3-4, 300) configured to receive sensor signals from the sensor and activate the fire suppression system based on the sensor signals so that the inert gas is provided from the first inert gas storage container the nozzle to provide fire suppression for the electrical equipment (Para. 0026-0027, 0053, 0055, 0058) without discharging a foam agent (Para. 0036-0037).
Jung does not disclose a second inert gas storage container configured to store a second amount of inert gas as the fire suppression agent and discharge the second amount of inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated, wherein the second inert gas storage container is fluidly coupled with the first inert gas storage container in series via first flexible tubing, the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container coupled with the mobile equipment via first rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment, the second tubing is flexible tubing, the nozzle coupled with the cabinet of the electrical equipment through second rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment, and the inert gas is provided from the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container to the electrical equipment.
However, Oki teaches a first inert gas storage container (Fig. 2, 53A; Para. 0072) configured to store a first amount of inert gas as a fire suppression agent (Para. 0036, 0080, 0103) and discharge the inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated (Para. 0075), and a second inert gas storage container (Fig. 2, 53B) configured to store a second amount of inert gas as the fire suppression agent and discharge the second amount of inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated (Para. 0072), wherein the second inert gas storage container is fluidly coupled with the first inert gas storage container in series (Fig. 2) via first tubing (Fig. 2, 7 connecting 53A and 53B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Oki (a first inert gas storage container configured to store a first amount of inert gas as a fire suppression agent and discharge the inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated, and a second inert gas storage container configured to store a second amount of inert gas as the fire suppression agent and discharge the second amount of inert gas based on the fire suppression system being activated (Para. 0072), wherein the second inert gas storage container is fluidly coupled with the first inert gas storage container in series via first tubing) into the System disclosed by Jung to allow for more inert gas to be provided by utilizing a plurality of inert gas storage containers and to easily adjust the amount of inert gas depending on the object (electrical equipment) to be suppressed (Oki – Para. 0072).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the incorporate one known element, namely inert gas (IG541), with a known function suppressing a fire, taught by Oki (Para. 0080), by performing a simple substitution with another element, namely gas, disclosed by Jung yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire when discharged into the cabinet (The examiner believes that the inert gas is not positively recited as discussed the response to arguments section below, but has included this rationale for compact prosecution.).
Jung in view of Oki does not teach the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container coupled with the mobile equipment via first rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment, the nozzle coupled with the cabinet of the electrical equipment through second rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment, and wherein the first tubing and second tubing are flexible tubing.
However, Chen teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, All structural elements; Para. 0002 – “vehicle mounted fire extinguisher with shock absorption function”) comprising an inert gas storage container (Fig. 1, 3) coupled with the mobile equipment via a first rubber mount (Fig. 1, [1 & 3] and Fig. 3, [1, 22, 24]; Para. 0028 – “When in use, place the fire extinguisher body 3 inside the vehicle and fix it with the support frame 24. The shock-absorbing belt 22, rubber pad 1, and shock-absorbing spring 2 can absorb shocks and prevent the fire extinguisher body 3 from falling off the vehicle due to bumps.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a first rubber mount with the known function of mounting as taught by Chen into the system taught by Jung in view of Oki with a known function of suppressing a fire and the elements could have been combined via the known method of attaching and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and in combination yields the predictable result of suppressing a fire while the first inert gas storage container is coupled with the system via a first instance of the first rubber mount, and the second inert gas storage container is coupled with the system via a second instance of the first rubber mount.
Additionally, it would have also 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 (the inert gas storage container coupled with the vehicle via a first rubber mount) as taught by Chen, into the system taught by Jung in view of Oki to prevent the fire extinguisher body from falling off the system due to bumps and yielding the predictable result of coupling the inert gas storage container to the system via the first rubber mount with a reasonable expectation of success.
Jung in view of Oki and Chen does not teach the nozzle coupled with the cabinet of the electrical equipment through second rubber mounts configured to absorb impacts from operation of the mobile equipment, and wherein the first tubing and second tubing are flexible tubing
However, Pavur teaches a prior art comparable second elastomeric mount (Fig. 3, 10; Clm. 1 – “for passing one or more flexible elongated conduits”) and wherein a tube is a flexible tube (Fig. 1 & 4, 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a second elastomeric mount with the known function of mounting as taught by Pavur into the system taught by Jung in view of Oki and Chen with the known function of suppressing a fire and the elements could have been combined via the known method of attaching and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and in combination yields the predictable result of suppressing a fire while the nozzle is coupled with the cabinet of electrical equipment via the second rubber mount and flexible tube.
Additionally, it would have also 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 nozzle coupled with a cabinet of the electrical equipment via a second rubber mount) as taught by Pavur, into the system taught by Jung in view of Oki and Chen to seal the electrical cabinet against water entry, noise, and dust (Pavur – Col. 1: Ln. 56) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, 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 (the use of flexible tube) as taught by Pavur, into the system disclosed by Jung in view of Oki, Chen, and Pavur to make the fire suppression system easier to install in a confined environment, which would have been recognized one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and yielding the predictable result of fluidically coupling the inert gas storage container and nozzle, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (a flexible tube) with a known function (distributing fluid), taught by Pavur, by performing a simple substitution with another element (a first tubing and a second tubing) disclosed by Jung in view of Oki, Chen, and Pavur yielding the predictable result of distributing fluid.
Additionally, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a flexible tube, because at the relevant time, there had been a recognized need in the art, namely distributing fluid; from finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, namely a flexible pipe or a rigid pipe; which could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, namely distributing fluid from the inert gas storage container to the nozzle.
Jung in view of Oki, Chen, and Pavur does not teach wherein the elastomeric mount is made of rubber. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the elastomeric mount out of rubber since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application (Para. 0040; Elastomeric mounts can also be structurally configured to withstand shocks, impulses, vibrations, etc., that mobile equipment may experience during operation.) applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Jung in view of Oki, Chen, and Pavur teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 18.
Jung further discloses wherein a size of the first inert gas storage container
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first inert gas storage container and the second inert gas storage container are pre-engineered to provide a total amount of inert gas because Jung has already disclosed a pre-engineered amount of inert gas for the first inert gas storage container, and to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that utilizing the predetermined space of the first inert gas container with the second inert gas container would provide a specific amount of gas with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Oki, Chen, Pavur and Wagner.
Regarding claim 20, Jung in view of Oki, Chen, and Pavur teaches the fire suppression system of Claim 19, but does not explicitly teach wherein the total amount of inert gas is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the space to below 15% by volume when the total amount of inert gas is provided into the space.
However, Wagner teaches a prior art comparable inerting method (Para. 0006), wherein the total amount of inert gas is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the space to below 15% by volume when the total amount of inert gas is provided into the space (Para. 0006 ,0071).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the system taught by Jung in view of Oki, Chen, and Pavur upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" method, namely the inerting method taught by Wagner that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (the total amount of inert gas is configured to reduce an oxygen level of the space to below 15% by volume when the total amount of inert gas is provided into the space), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely suppressing a fire with the benefit of avoiding oversizing the system (Wagner – Para. 0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the argument that applicant has amended Claims 1, 12, and 18 to positively recite the inert gas, the examiner finds that claim 18 does not positively recite the term “inert gas” but instead “a first inert gas storage container configured to store a first amount of inert gas as a fire suppression agent … a second inert gas storage container configured to store a second amount of inert gas as the fire suppression agent,” as recited in lines 4-7 of claim 18.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 July 23, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights