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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on September 15, 2025 is acknowledged. Six pages of amended claims were received on 9/15/2025. Claims 1, 8, and 10-11 have been amended and Claims 6 and 18 have been cancelled. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 6/23/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-13 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 9/15/2025 was submitted after the mailing date of the non-final rejection mailed 6/23/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention Group I in the reply filed on 6/12/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 4/18/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election was treated as an election without traverse. Claims 21, 23-25, 27, 29, and 32 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142, as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 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:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
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” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” 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” 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” 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is/are:
The “fastening unit” in Claims 1, 7-8, and 11; and
The “fastening element” in Claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “fastening unit” in Claims 1, 7-8, and 11 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 15 of the Specification which states, “The fastening unit comprises a tubular region 5.1 and a flange region 5.2”. Furthermore, Claim 12 states “the fastening unit comprises a tubular region” and Claim 13 states “the fastening unit comprises a flange region”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “fastening unit” in Claims 1, 7-8, and 11 to be a component having a tubular region, a component having a flange region, a component having a tubular region and a flange region, or equivalents thereof.
The “fastening element” in Claim 13 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 7 of the Specification which states, “A cable, a wire or a cable tie, for example, can be used as the fastening element”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “fastening element” in Claim 13 to be a cable, a wire, a cable tie, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: amend the claim limitation to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph ; or present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner notes that the terms “latching element” and “connecting piece” in Claim 1 are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Though the term “latching element” uses a generic placeholder “element” that is coupled with functional language of “latching”, the term “latching element” is equivalent to reciting sufficient structure of a “latch”. The term “latching element” in Claim 1 is being interpreted as a “latch” and equivalents thereof. Furthermore, though the term “connecting piece” uses a generic placeholder “piece” that is coupled with functional language of “connecting”, the term “connecting piece” is equivalent to reciting sufficient structure of a “connector”. The term “connecting piece” in Claim 1 is being interpreted as a “connector” and equivalents thereof.
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. 10 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR-2620033-A1 to Collard (“Collard”) in view of US PGPUB 2008/0000649 A1 to Guirguis et al. (“Guirguis”).
As to Claim 1, Collard discloses a spray module (See Fig. 1) for a device for fighting a vegetation fire (See Translation of the Abstract disclosing “creating lines of continuous wetness over the forestry terrain in the event of a fire”), wherein the spray module comprises:
an inlet for a fluid (See Annotated Fig. 1), the inlet has an inlet connection (#2), the inlet connection has an inlet latching element or an inlet latching contour in which a connecting piece of a first conduit can latch, or the inlet connection has a thread (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 4. The “male attachment” #2 on the inlet is formed as a latching element that is equivalent to a latching contour that the connecting piece of the first conduit can latch onto);
an outlet for a fluid (See Annotated Fig. 1), the outlet has an outlet connection (#2), the outlet connection has an outlet latching element or an outlet latching contour in which a connecting piece of a second conduit can latch, or the outlet connection has a thread (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 4. The “male attachment” #2 on the outlet is formed as a latching element that is equivalent to a latching contour that the connecting piece of the second conduit can latch onto);
a fastening unit (#4, which is a component having a flange and tubular region formed at a through hole) for fastening the spray module in a raised position with respect to an underlying surface (See Annotated Fig. 4, a rod-shaped element that is a stake is placed through the through hole of #4 to fasten the spray module in a position that is above the underlying ground surface), and
a first spray mist nozzle (#3) having a first opening area (#5), which is configured to dispense a first spray mist (See Translation of Abstract disclosing a “special water spray”),
wherein the first opening area is arranged parallel to an inlet opening area of the inlet and an outlet opening area of the outlet (See Annotated Fig. 3. Axis A1 that travels through #1 and through the inlet opening area and outlet opening is parallel to a direction that #5 extends.).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the spray module of Collard as applied to Claim 1 above, Collard does not specifically disclose wherein the spray module comprises a second spray mist nozzle having a second opening area, which is configured to dispense a second spray mist, wherein the first opening area and the second opening are arranged parallel to one another on the spray module in such a way that the first spray mist and the second spray mist can be disposed in two opposite directions, wherein the second opening area is also arranged parallel to the inlet opening area of the inlet and the outlet opening area of the outlet (See Figs. 1-3, only a single opening area #5 for spraying fluid is shown).
However, Guirguis discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002), a spray module (See #600 in Figs. 6a-6b) for a device for fighting a vegetation fire (See Fig. 2 showing an entire device and See Paragraph 0072. The device can be used for fighting various fire types, including fires caused by vegetation.), wherein the spray module comprises:
a first spray mist nozzle having a first opening area (#614), which is configured to dispense a first spray mist (See Paragraph 0074), and
a second spray mist nozzle having a second opening area (#616), which is configured to dispense a second spray mist (See Paragraph 0074), wherein the first opening area and the second opening area are arranged parallel to one another on the spray module in such a way that the first spray mist and the second spray mist can be dispensed in two opposite directions (See Fig. 6b. Nozzles #614 and #616 have centerlines that are arranged at a 0 degree angle, thus the first opening area and the second opening area are arranged parallel to each other. #614 sprays mist in a left direction and #616 sprays mist in a right direction. Paragraph 0074 further discloses that multiple misting nozzles are disposed circumferentially around #600 in even intervals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray module of Collard as applied to Claim 1 above by replacing #3, #7, and #8 of Collard with #600 of Guirguis since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of spraying water in multiple directions with multiple spray types to help extinguish a fire (See Guirguis Paragraphs 0072-0077. Using #600 of Guirguis in place of #3, #7, and #8 of Collard will result in spraying fluid with different spray types out of #614, #610, #612, and #616 in various directions spaced around #600. Furthermore such a modification would require attachment of only one component #600 of Guirguis to the spray module rather than multiple components #3, #7, and #8 of Collard being assembled to the spray module, thus simplifying assembly of the spray module). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could make such a modification to result in the first opening area and the second opening area being arranged parallel to the inlet opening area of the inlet and to the outlet opening area of the outlet (See Collard Fig. 1 and See Guirguis Annotated Fig. 6a. Replacing #3, #7, and #8 with #600 of Guirguis, which has misting nozzles evenly distributed around it per Paragraph 0074, will result in misting nozzles being arranged parallel to the inlet opening area and the outlet opening area of Collard, similar to how the single opening area #5 is arranged on #3 of Collard.).
Regarding Claim 2, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 1 above, Guirguis does not specifically disclose wherein the first spray mist nozzle is a flat jet nozzle and/or the second spray mist nozzle is a flat jet nozzle (See Paragraph 0074 of Guirguis disclosing nozzles spraying mist, but a flat jet is not specifically disclosed).
However, Collard further discloses a spray module for a device for fighting a vegetation fire (See Fig. 1) comprising a first spray mist nozzle (#5) that is a flat jet nozzle (See Machine Translation of Abstract disclosing a vertical fan-shaped jet, which is equivalent to a flat jet.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 1 above such that the first spray mist nozzle is a flat jet nozzle and/or the second spray mist nozzle is a flat jet nozzle, as taught by Collard since doing so would yield the predictable result of creating a non-inflammable barrier for when a fire arrives (See Collard Machine Translation of Abstract.).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 1 above, Guirguis further discloses wherein the first spray mist nozzle is arranged on a first side of the spray module and the second spray mist nozzle is arranged on a second side of the spray module, which is opposite the first side (See Fig. 6b. The first spray mist nozzle #614 is arranged on a left side of the spray module and the second spray mist nozzle #616 is arranged on a right side of the spray nozzle that is opposite of the left side).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 1 above, Guirguis further discloses wherein the spray module comprises a self-protection nozzle having a third opening area (See Guirguis Paragraph 0074 disclosing that additional misting nozzles are disposed around the outer circumferential surface of #600 at evenly spaced intervals. An additional misting nozzle is the self-protection nozzle), which is configured to dispense a third spray mist (See Paragraphs 0073-0074).
Regarding Claim 4, Guirguis does not specifically disclose wherein the third opening area is arranged perpendicularly to the first opening area and the second opening area (See Fig. 6b and Paragraph 0074 disclosing that additional misting nozzles are disposed around the outer circumferential surface of #600 at evenly spaced intervals, thus one additional nozzle is at an angle to #614 and #616, however a 90 degree angle is not specifically disclosed).
However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 1 above such that the third opening area is arranged perpendicularly to the first opening area and the second opening area by having four misting nozzles disposed evenly around the outer circumferential surface of #600, since doing so would duplicate parts to yield the predictable result of spraying fluid evenly in all directions around the spray module to extinguish a fire at multiple locations (See Annotated Fig. 6a of Guirguis, See Paragraph 0074 of Guirguis, and See Annotated Fig. 1 of Collard. If four misting nozzles are evenly spaced on #600 of Guirguis, #600 of Guirguis can be placed on #1 of Collard with the third opening area of a misting nozzle being perpendicular to the first opening area and second opening area of other evenly disposed misting nozzles.).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 4 above, Collard as modified by Guirguis further discloses wherein the inlet and the outlet are arranged coaxially with respect to a virtual fluid axis (See axis A1 in Annotated Fig. 3 of Collard), and the third opening area of the self-protection nozzle is arranged parallel to the virtual fluid axis (See Annotated Fig. 6a of Guirguis, when four misting nozzles are utilized in #600, the self-protection nozzle that is a third misting nozzle will be arranged such that it has a directional component that extends in a direction is parallel to the virtual fluid axis A1 shown in Annotated Fig. 3 of Collard, similar to the arrangement of applicant’s disclosed self-protection nozzle #4 as shown in Fig. 2.).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 4 above, Collard as modified by Guirguis further discloses wherein the fastening unit is arranged on a side of the spray module which is opposite the self-protection nozzle (See Annotated Fig. 3 of Collard and Annotated Fig. 6a of Guirguis. When four misting nozzles are utilized evenly around #600 of Guirguis, the fastening unit #4 will be arranged on a side of the spray module that is opposite of one misting nozzle that is the self-protection nozzle).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 1 above, Collard further discloses wherein the inlet and the outlet are provided in an outer wall of a pressure chamber, and wherein the fastening unit is arranged on an outer side of the pressure chamber (See Collard Annotated Fig. 1).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 8 above, Collard as modified by Guirguis further discloses wherein the pressure chamber is arranged in a housing of the spray module (See Collard Annotated Fig. 1, the housing is made up of the first housing part and the second housing part), wherein the housing has the inlet (See Collard Annotated Fig. 1), the outlet (See Collard Annotated Fig. 1), the first spray mist nozzle (See Figs. 6a-6b of Guirguis), and the second spray mist nozzle (See Figs. 6a-6b of Guirguis).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 10 above, Collard as modified by Guirguis further discloses wherein the housing is configured as a split housing having two housing parts (See Annotated Fig. 1 of Collard), wherein a first housing part has the inlet and the outlet (See Annotated Fig. 1 of Collard. The first housing part that is #1 has the inlet and the outlet), and a second housing part has the first spray mist nozzle and the second spray mist nozzle (See #600 in Figs. 6a-6b of Guirguis, which replaces the second housing part shown in Annotated Fig. 1 of Collard that is made up of #3, #7, and #8), wherein the fastening unit is provided on an outer side of the first housing part (See Collard Annotated Fig. 1).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 1 above, Collard further discloses wherein the fastening unit comprises a tubular region for connection to a rod-shaped element (See Collard Annotated Fig. 4. The through hole is a space that is tubular in shape such that the through hole is equivalent to a tubular region.).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 1 above, Collard further discloses wherein the fastening unit comprises a flange region (See Collard Annotated Fig. 3), the flange region having a through hole, through which a fastening element can be passed (See Collard Annotated Fig. 4. The through hole of Collard is sized such that a rod-shaped element that is a stake shown in Fig. 5, in addition to various other components, including a fastening element such as a cable, can be passed through the through hole).
Regarding Claim 13, Collard does not specifically disclose the flange region having a plurality of through holes (See Collard Annotated Fig. 4, only a single through hole is shown).
However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spray module of Collard in view of Guirguis as applied to Claim 13 above to have the flange region comprise multiple through holes, since doing so would duplicate parts to yield the predictable result of allowing for multiple stakes to be applied to the flange region, thus allowing for further securing the spray module with more than one stake.
PNG
media_image1.png
735
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
619
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
503
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
743
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, which is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collard in view of Guirguis, applicant argues that the examiner has not presented sufficient evidence that Guirguis teaches an outlet connection, the outlet connection has an outlet latching element or an outlet latching contour in which a connecting piece of a second conduit can latch, or the outlet connection has a thread, and wherein the first opening area and the second opening area are arranged parallel to an inlet opening area of the inlet and to an outlet opening area of the outlet as now required by amended Claim 1. Applicant also argues that the examiner has not presented evidence that Collard remedies the deficiencies of Guirguis with respect to amended Claim 1. Applicant argues that the spray module of Collard includes only one spray nozzle #5 configured to deliver a spray mist and that Collard does not disclose a second spray nozzle. Applicant argues that Collard merely discloses a special water diffuser #5, which projects a vertical fan jet, which distributes water into a given height so that moisture can be distributed by wind to surroundings, and that a second spray nozzle is not hinted upon by Collard, nor would it be obvious to provide two spray nozzles which are arranged in parallel to the inlet and outlet, as in Collard the desired goal would not be achieved as water would not be projected vertically and therefore, would not be able to be carried by the wind. Applicant additionally argues that it is explicitly stated within amended Claim 1 that "the first opening area and the second opening area are arranged parallel to one another on the spray module in such a way that the first spray mist and the second spray mist can be dispensed in two opposite directions", and that because Collard desires a vertical fan jet, the second spray nozzle would have to be directed into the ground in order to be directed in an opposing direction, thus a person having skill in the art would not be motivated to make such a nozzle. Applicant also argues that Guirguis and the present application are used in different fields, with Guirguis being used to protect properties or buildings against fire and the present application being used to combat vegetation fires, and that the spray module disclosed in Guirguis is neither suitable for building up a continuous fire-fighting line, nor would it be obvious for the skilled person to modify the disclosed spray module of Guirguis so that a continuous fire-fighting line could be created.
This argument is not found persuasive. The examiner notes that Claim 1 is now rejected as being unpatentable over Collard in view of Guirguis, and that Guirguis is not modified in view of Collard. As noted above in the rejection of amended Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the spray module of Collard is being modified to use #600 of Guirguis to meet the limitations of Claim 1. Collard discloses the limitations of an inlet for a fluid (See Collard Annotated Fig. 1), the inlet has an inlet connection (#2), the inlet connection has an inlet latching element or an inlet latching contour in which a connecting piece of a first conduit can latch, or the inlet connection has a thread (See Collard Annotated Fig. 1 and Collard Annotated Fig. 4. The “male attachment” #2 on the inlet is formed as a latching element that is equivalent to a latching contour that the connecting piece of the first conduit can latch onto);and an outlet for a fluid (See Collard Annotated Fig. 1), the outlet has an outlet connection (#2), the outlet connection has an outlet latching element or an outlet latching contour in which a connecting piece of a second conduit can latch, or the outlet connection has a thread (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 4. The “male attachment” #2 on the outlet is formed as a latching element that is equivalent to a latching contour that the connecting piece of the second conduit can latch onto).
Regarding the limitations that are not taught by Collard in Claim 1, it is noted that the claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). As to the desirability of the modification, the proper inquiry is “whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination,’ not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The spray module of Guirguis, the spray module of Collard, and the applicant’s spray module are all used in the field of endeavor of fire extinguishing, and are all capable of assisting in fighting vegetation fires. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the spray module of Collard by replacing #3, #7, and #8 of Collard with #600 of Guirguis as doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of spraying water in multiple directions with multiple spray types to help extinguish a fire. Such a modification would result in fluid being sprayed in various directions from #600 out of nozzles #614, #610, #612, and #616, with fluid being sprayed vertically out of #610 and #612 and horizontally out of #614 and #616, when #600 of Guirguis is placed on #1 Collard. Such a modification would result in fluid being sprayed into winds to assist in extinguishing a fire by providing extinguishing fluid to multiple areas around the spray module. Furthermore such a modification would require attachment of one component #600 of Guirguis to the spray module rather than multiple components #3, #7, and #8 of Collard being assembled to the spray module, thus simplifying assembly of the spray module. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the spray module of Collard using #600 of Guirguis to arrive at the claimed invention, and Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 4,524,835 to Mingrone discloses a spray module for a device for fighting a vegetation fire made up of #32, #30, and #36 as shown in Fig. 1.
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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 O 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752 November 24, 2025
Prosecution Insights