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 on 3/13/2026 after a final rejection was mailed 12/15/2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on March 13th, 2026 is acknowledged. Six pages of amended claims were received on 3/13/2026. Claims 1, 11, 13-19, 21, and 26-27 have been amended. Claim 28 has been cancelled and Claim 29 is newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections in the final rejection mailed 12/15/2025, however the amended Claim 1 is now objected to as noted below. Claims 1, 4-17, 27 and 29 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s elections without traverse of the system of Invention Group I and System Species B in the reply filed on 9/17/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 4/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-22 and 25-26 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 2-3 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Lines 5-8, “said fuel break being a strip of land in which vegetation that could feed a potential fire has been thinned relative to surrounding vegetation, said vegetation in the fuel break including living vegetation extending above grade in the fuel break” should be revised to “said fuel break being a strip of land comprising vegetation that could feed a potential fire, wherein the vegetation has been thinned relative to surrounding vegetation, wherein the vegetation in the strip of land includes living vegetation that extends above grade in the fuel break” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Lines 21-22, “abutting fuel break” should be revised to “the fuel break” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the terms “proximate” and “proximal” used in the claims are being interpreted as best understood to mean that something is within the same area of or approaching the same area of another object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-17, 27 and 29 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 is indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “A system for reducing a likelihood of fires within a heavily vegetated wilderness area”, and the term “heavily vegetated” is a relative term. The term “heavily vegetated” is not explicitly defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Paragraph 0004 of the Specification states “For ease of expression, the term "forest fire" is used generically herein to refer to any fire in any heavily vegetated area that is a wilderness area, an otherwise unpopulated area, or a sparsely populated area, and the term "forest" is used generically herein to refer to any such heavily vegetated area, whether or not the vegetation is primarily trees”. However, it is not clear what density of vegetation and what maximum population is required in an area for a wilderness area to qualify as being a “heavily vegetated” wilderness area. For the purpose of examination, Claim 1 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “A system for reducing a likelihood of fires within a vegetated wilderness area”.
Claims 4-17, 27 and 29 depend from Claim 1, therefore Claims 4-17, 27 and 29 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite since Claim 1 from which they depend is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 11-13, 15-17, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/183715 A1 to Raymond (“Raymond”) in view of NPL Document “Encyclopedia of Wildfire and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fires” to Manzello (“Manzello”) and US PGPUB 2016/0051848 A1 to Klarlund et al. (“Klarlund”).
As to Claim 1, Raymond discloses a system for reducing a likelihood of fires within a heavily vegetated wilderness area (See Annotated Fig. 2 and See Paragraph 0065 disclosing preventing fires from starting in an area with surrounding vegetation. Also see a specific embodiment in Annotated Fig. 6B. Any area where trees are growing can be considered a wilderness area, regardless of whether some structures are built in it.), the system comprising:
a firebreak (See Annotated Fig. 2 and See Annotated Fig. 6B, the firebreak is a portion that main line #14a runs along), the firebreak having been constructed in the wilderness area (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 6B, the entire area can be considered a wilderness area) as a permanent strip of bare land by removing substantially all vegetation therefrom (See Paragraphs 0041 and 0106 disclosing that the main line can be routed along a road that has been cleared. See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 6B showing the firebreak along a road. The road is equivalent to a permanent strip of bare land with substantially all vegetation removed that is in a wilderness area that has trees.);
a fuel break adjacent to a side of the firebreak (See Annotated Fig. 2 and See Annotated Fig. 6B), vegetation in the fuel break including living vegetation extending above grade in the fuel break (See trees in the fuel break in Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 6B);
a watering system comprising a first watering tower (See Paragraph 0065 disclosing that dispensers can be towers and See Annotated Fig. 2), the first watering tower being configured to extend above grade (See Paragraph 0065 disclosing a tower that provides additional elevation, and is thus above grade), the first watering tower being installed within or proximate the fuel break (See Annotated Fig. 2, the first watering tower is installed in the fuel break), and configured to apply water to the living vegetation within the fuel break (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 6B and Paragraph 0064, the water tower is at least capable of applying water to living trees within the fuel break);
a first water distribution outlet cooperative with the first watering tower (See Paragraph 0073, the dispensers that can be water towers per Paragraph 0065 each have an outlet for dispensing water. See an equivalent outlet as nozzle #710 in Fig. 5B.)
a first water conduit (See #28b in Fig. 2 and see Paragraph 0048 disclosing branch lines) configured to provide liquid communication between a first water source (See Lake in Fig. 2) and the first water distribution outlet (See Paragraph 0059 and Fig. 2); and
a first water pump (#14) configured to draw water from the first water source and to cause the water to be expelled through the first water distribution outlet onto the fuel break (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0059);
wherein:
substantially all of the fuel break abuts the firebreak (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 6B); and
the wilderness area extends on both sides of the firebreak and abutting fuel break (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 6B, the wilderness area can be considered the entire general area where trees are present even if some structures are in the wilderness area. The wilderness area extends on both sides of the firebreak and on both sides of the fuel break).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the system of Raymond as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond does not specifically disclose wherein the fuel break is a strip of land in which vegetation that could feed a potential fire has been thinned relative to surrounding vegetation (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 6b. While Paragraphs 0043 and 0113 disclose removing obstacles and Paragraph 0072 discloses removing some vegetation to carry line, vegetation that could feed a fire being thinned relative to surrounding vegetation in the fuel break area shown is not specifically disclosed).
However, Manzello discloses a system or reducing a likelihood of fires within a vegetated wilderness area comprising a fuel break that is a strip of land in which vegetation that could feed a potential fire has been thinned relative to surrounding vegetation, said vegetation in the fuel break including living vegetation extending above grade in the fuel break (See the shaded fuelbreak in Fig. 1 on Page 446 and See Page 444 which states “Firebreak and fuelbreak are fuel-managed areas meant to stop or hamper fire propagation, respectively. Firebreaks are parcels of land, linear in shape, where fuels are totally removed down to mineral soil through a combination of physical treatments (thinning, mechanical clearing, prescribed burning, slashing, mastication, mowing, plowing). Fuelbreaks are parcels of land, linear or in blocks, covered by vegetation where fuels are reduced in both volume and flammability by physical treatments and land management practices such as grazing, game management, or silvicultural treatments favoring less-flammable vegetation, so that fires burning into them can be controlled more effectively and safely. In the event of fire, both firebreaks and fuelbreaks may serve as a control line from which to carry out suppression operations.).
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 system of Raymond as applied to Claim 1 above such that the fuel break of Raymond is a strip of land in which vegetation that could feed a potential fire has been thinned relative to surrounding vegetation, since doing so would utilize a known technique taught by Manzello to yield the predictable result of helping limit flammable vegetation in the fuel break to effectively and safely control a fire while also limiting soil erosion (See Manzello Pages 444-445).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond does not specifically disclose wherein the first watering tower is permanently installed (See Paragraph 0065 disclosing that the towers are portable and rapidly deployed.).
However, Klarlund discloses a system for reducing a likelihood of fires within a vegetated area (See Fig. 14 and See Paragraph 0060), the system comprising a watering system comprising a first watering tower (#12), being configured to extend above grade (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 14), the first watering tower being permanently installed within a fuel break (See Fig. 14 and See Paragraph 0037 disclosing that base #16 of the towers can be permanently mounted to a ground surface. A ground surface shown in Fig. 14 is an area that is equivalent to a fuel break since there are spaces between trees where towers are placed).
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 system of Raymond in view of Manzello as applied to Claim 1 above by using the first watering tower of Klarlund in place of the first watering tower of Raymond such that the first watering tower is permanently installed in the fuel break, since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of having the first watering tower present in the fuel break at all times in case of a fire instead of requiring deployment of the first watering tower in response to a fire breaking out, thus saving time during an emergency.
As to Claim 13, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond further discloses the system comprising a moisture sensor (See Paragraph 0102 disclosing a drone carrying a sensor for measurement of dew point) that is configured to measure a moisture content of at least one of:
the living vegetation growing in the fuel break;
soil present in the fuel break; and
air proximate the fuel break (See Paragraph 0102, the drone measures humidity in air that is above and within the same geographical area as the fuel break).
Regarding Claim 13, Raymond does not specifically disclose the moisture sensor being permanently installed in the fuel break (See Paragraph 0102, the moisture sensor is in a drone).
However, Manzello further discloses a system comprising a moisture sensor that is permanently installed in a fire area and configured to measure a moisture content of living vegetation growing in the fire area (See Manzello Page 545 disclosing 10-h fuel moisture sticks that measures moisture of tree material on an regular basis).
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 system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above such that the system comprises the moisture sensor of Manzello permanently installed in the fuel break and configured to measure a moisture content of the living vegetation growing in the fuel break, since doing so would yield the predictable result of obtaining regular data that can provide more detailed information on fuel moisture changes (See Manzello Page 545 disclosing hourly data).
Regarding Claim 11, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 13 above, Raymond does not specifically disclose the system further comprising a local controller in data communication with the moisture sensor and configured to activate and deactivate the first water pump so as to maintain the living vegetation within the fuel break.
However, Klarlund discloses a system for reducing a likelihood of fires within a vegetated area (See Fig. 1) comprising a local controller (#28) in data communication with a moisture sensor (See Paragraph 0050 disclosing sensor #24 being a humidity sensor, which is in communication with #28 to activate #12 per Paragraph 0052) and configured to activate and deactivate a first water pump (See Paragraph 0054 disclosing hose #30 being connected to a pump, and See Paragraph 0048 disclosing #28 controlling regulator #26 to dispense fluid at a desired pressure to #22, thus the local controller #28 is configured to activate and deactivate pumping of water from a pumping system made up of #26, #30, and a connected pump that is not shown in Fig. 1) so as to maintain living vegetation (See Fig. 1 and See Paragraph 0040, water is applied on trees such that water helps the trees be maintained to some extent by hydrating the trees to help trees grow and preventing the trees from burning).
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 system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 13 above such that the system further comprises a local controller in data communication with the moisture sensor and configured to activate and deactivate the first water pump so as to maintain the living vegetation within the fuel break, as taught by Klarlund since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing automated control of fluid distribution based on real-time monitoring of conditions (See Klarlund Paragraph 0052).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 11 above, Klarlund further discloses wherein the local controller is configured to communicate with a central controller that is remote from the local controller (#8 “remotely located control center”), said communication between the local controller and the central controller being at least one of wired and wireless communication (See Fig. 1, Paragraph 0052 disclosing #8 being remotely located and being sent data from a transmitter, and See Paragraph 0060 disclosing local area network, cellular, and satellite communication).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond further discloses wherein the living vegetation in the fuel break comprises bunches of trees growing within the fuel break include, and wherein the first watering tower is configured to apply water to one of the bunches of trees (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Raymond showing various bunches of trees, with the first watering tower being located next to a bunch. The trees are wetted by the watering tower per Paragraph 0064 of Raymond).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond further discloses wherein the first watering tower is configured to apply water both to living trees within the fuel break that are proximate the first watering tower and to living ground vegetation within the fuel break that is proximate the first watering tower (See Raymond Annotated Fig. 2 and See Fig. 6B and Paragraph 0065. Each tower can apply water to trees and can also apply water to vegetation on ground surfaces below trees, including grass).
As to Claim 17, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond discloses the system further comprising a second watering tower installed within or proximate the fuel break (See #29a in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Raymond does not specifically disclose the second watering tower being permanently installed within or proximate the fuel break, the first watering tower being relatively taller than the second watering tower, the first watering tower being configured to apply water to trees that are in the fuel break, and the second watering tower being configured to apply water to ground vegetation that is within the fuel break.
However, Klarlund discloses a system for reducing a likelihood of fires within a vegetated area (See Fig. 14 and See Paragraph 0060), the system comprising a first watering tower (See one tower #12 in Fig. 14) and a second watering tower (See another tower #12 in Fig. 14) being permanently installed within or proximate a fuel break (See Fig. 14 and See Paragraph 0037), the first watering tower being relatively taller than the second watering tower, the first watering tower being configured to apply water to trees that are in the fuel break, and the second watering tower being configured to apply water to ground vegetation that is within the fuel break (See Paragraph 0061 disclosing that one tower can dispense fluid at one height and another tower can dispense fluid at another height, thus one watering tower can be taller than another watering tower such that one tower can apply water to trees as disclosed in Paragraph 0040 and another can apply water to ground vegetation that is below the trees).
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 system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above such that the second watering tower is permanently installed within or proximate the fuel break, the first watering tower being relatively taller than the second watering tower, the first watering tower being configured to apply water to trees that are in the fuel break, and the second watering tower being configured to apply water to ground vegetation that is within the fuel break, as taught by Klarlund, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to provide customized fire protection functions to a certain vegetated area (See Klarlund Paragraphs 0061-0062).
As to Claim 27, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond further discloses the system comprising:
a second watering tower (See #29a in Fig. 2, which per Paragraph 0065 can be a tower);
a second water distribution outlet cooperative with the second watering tower (See Paragraph 0073, the dispensers that can be water towers per Paragraph 0065 each have an outlet for dispensing water. See an equivalent outlet as nozzle #710 in Fig. 5B.); and
a second water conduit (#28a) configured to provide liquid communication between the first water source and/or a second water source and the second water distribution outlet (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0067. #28a is in liquid communication with #29a and both the first water source and the second water source).
As to Claim 29, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond further discloses wherein the living vegetation growing in the fuel break comprises fire-resistant vegetation that has been planted in the fuel break (See Fig. 2 and See Paragraph 0064 disclosing “wet trees”. Trees that are wet are fire-resistant to some extent, and have been planted in the fuel break at some point whether naturally or by a human.).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, and US PGPUB 2009/0121045 A1 to Su et al. (“Su”).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond further discloses wherein the first water source is a water reservoir that is provided below grade and located proximate the first watering tower (See Raymond Fig. 2, the water source is a lake, which is equivalent to a reservoir that is below ground surface. Paragraph 0059 discloses that houses being protected are “near a lake” thus the lake can be considered “proximal” to the first watering tower since they are in the same geographical area).
Regarding Claim 4, Raymond does not specifically disclose wherein the first water source is artificially constructed (See Fig. 2, the first water source is a lake, but the lake being artificially constructed is not specifically disclosed).
However, Su discloses a system for reducing likelihood of fires of fires within a vegetated area (See Fig. 3, the area where fire is being fought includes vegetation that is grass #301) comprising a first water source (#103) that comprises an artificially constructed water reservoir provided below grade (See Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 along with Paragraph 0032) and located proximate a first watering tower (See the building in Fig. 3 located in the same area as #103, which has sprinklers #101D, #101E, and #101F attached and is thus equivalent to a watering tower).
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 system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above by using the first water source of Su in place of the first water source of Raymond such that the first water source is an artificially constructed water reservoir that is provided below grade and located proximate the first watering tower, since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of creating minimal impacts on appearance of surrounding landscape (See Su Paragraph 0030).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, and Su as applied to Claim 4 above, Su further discloses wherein the water reservoir is configured to receive water from a water-bearing vehicle (See Fig. 3, the water reservoir #103 is constructed such that it is capable of receiving water from a water-bearing vehicle when a water bearing vehicle provides water through #309 or #302. Raymond discloses water tanker trucks in Paragraph 0098, which the water reservoir #103 of Sue is capable of receiving water from).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, and Su as applied to Claim 4 above, Su further discloses wherein the water reservoir is configured to receive water from at least one artificially constructed drain inlet (#302 shown in Fig. 3, along with #501 shown in Fig. 5) located proximal to grade (See Fig. 3) that is positioned to receive run-off water (See Paragraph 0030).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, and Su as applied to Claim 6 above, Su further discloses wherein the drain inlet includes a filter (See #501 in Fig. 5) configured to remove debris from the run-off water (See Paragraph 0032).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, Su, and US PGPUB 2019/0001170 A1 to Smith et al. (“Smith”).
Regarding Claim 8, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, and Su as applied to Claim 4 above, Raymond nor Su specifically at least one sensor configured to determine a quantity of water contained within the water reservoir.
However, Smith discloses a system for reducing a likelihood of fires in a vegetated area (See Fig. 2, which is an area that can have some amount of vegetation including grass), comprising at least one sensor (#69) configured to determine a quantity of water (See Paragraphs 0042 and 0082) contained within a water reservoir (#26).
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 system of Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, and Su as applied to Claim 4 above such that the system comprises at least one sensor configured to determine a quantity of water contained within the water reservoir, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to determine when the water reservoir is filled or empty (see Smith Paragraphs 0042 and 0082).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, and US Patent 7,717,187 B1 to Miller et al. (“Miller”).
Regarding Claim 9, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond does not disclose the system further comprising a water-absorbent material applied to the fuel break, said water-absorbent material being able to absorb at least 25 times its weight in water.
However, Miller discloses, a system for reducing a likelihood of fires within a vegetated area (See #10 in Fig. 6 and See Col. 4 Lines 4-15 disclosing barrier #10 being used to protect trees, shrubs, and plants as a firebreak) comprising a water-absorbent material (See Col. 10 Lines 55-65 disclosing a superabsorbent polymer) applied to a fuel break (See Col. 4 Lines 10-16), said water-absorbent material being able to absorb at least 25 times its weight in water (See Col. 10 Lines 55-65 disclosing materials absorbing 40 to 4000 times their weight in water).
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 system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above to include the water-absorbent material of Miller applied to the fuel break, since doing so would yield the predictable result of absorbing dispensed water in the system to act as a fire-retardant until the fire moves away or burns out (See Miller Col. 11 Lines 15-25).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, and WO 2020/176309 A1 to Statter (“Statter”). Regarding Claim 10, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond does not disclose the system further including a solar panel and a rechargeable battery, the rechargeable battery being configured to provide electrical power to the first water pump and the solar panel being configured to recharge the rechargeable battery (See Paragraph 0059 disclosing a diesel powered pump).
However, Statter discloses a system for reducing a likelihood of fires within a vegetated area (See Fig. 3 and See Paragraph 0042 disclosing wildfires occurring with fire retardant applied on vegetation) comprising a solar panel (#1150, which per Paragraph 00135 can be a solar panel) and a rechargeable battery (#1148, which per Paragraph 00134 can be a battery), the rechargeable battery being configured to provide electrical power to a first water pump (See Paragraph 0042 disclosing an electrically powered pump and See Paragraph 0088 disclosing an autonomous power source powering the entire system, thus the rechargeable battery is understood to supply electrical power to the pump) and the solar panel being configured to recharge the rechargeable battery (See Paragraph 00135).
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 system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above to further include the solar panel and the rechargeable battery of Statter, the rechargeable battery being configured to provide electrical power to the first water pump and the solar panel being configured to recharge the rechargeable battery, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the system to operate with electrical power on a property where there is not electrical transmission (See Statter Paragraph 0088).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Manzello, Klarlund, and US PGPUB 2012/0097759 A1 to Vigne (“Vigne”).
Regarding Claim 14, in reference to the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Raymond does not specifically disclose wherein the first watering tower is configured to resemble an outward appearance of vegetation that is growing within the fuel break (See Paragraph 0065 disclosing portable towers and See Fig. 2 showing trees, however towers approximating an outward appearance of vegetation are not disclosed.).
However, Vigne discloses a system for reducing a likelihood of fires in an area (See #10 in Fig. 1, which is a misting device that sprays water and humidifies an area per Paragraph 0027, thus #10 helps reduce likelihood of fire in an area) comprising a first watering tower (#20) that is configured to resemble an outward appearance of vegetation (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0020).
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 system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above such that the first watering tower is configured to resemble an outward appearance of vegetation that is growing within the fuel break by utilizing a watering tower that resembles nearby plants as taught by Vigne, since doing so would yield the predictable result of helping camouflage the first watering tower (See Vigne Paragraph 0021).
PNG
media_image1.png
870
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
864
1304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that Raymond does not meet the requirement that substantially all of the fuel break abuts the firebreak along with other claim limitations, and that modifying Raymond in view of Klarlund renders Raymond unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). As shown in Annotated Fig. 2B and Annotated Fig. 6 above, substantially all of the fuel break of Raymond abuts the firebreak of Raymond. The examiner notes that the system of Raymond in view of Manzello and Klarlund reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of other claim limitations in Claim 1 as shown above in Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 6B where the entire area shown can be considered one wilderness area, and that the term “heavily vegetated” in Claim 1 is a relative term that renders Claim 1 indefinite, therefore the term “heavily vegetated” in Claim 1 is being interpreted as “vegetated”.
Furthermore, 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). The motivation for modifying a primary reference need not come from the primary reference itself, but may come from a secondary reference. In re Laskowski, 10 USPQ2d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1989). 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). In response to Applicant's piecemeal analysis of the references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. Furthermore, even though making such a modification would alter how Raymond's invention is used, it still would have still been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond by using the first watering tower of Klarlund in place of the first watering tower of Raymond such that the first watering tower is permanently installed in the fuel break, since doing so would result in having the first watering tower present in the fuel break at all times in case of a fire instead of requiring deployment of the first watering tower in response to a fire breaking out, thus providing the benefit of saving time during an emergency even if the system is not portable, regardless of potential drawbacks of such a modification. Therefore, the rejection of independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper.
Regarding Claim 29, applicant argues that none of the cited prior art teaches intentional planting of fire-resistant vegetation in a fuel break.
This argument is not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). The claims are drawn to a system and not a method. As shown in Fig. 2, Raymond further discloses wherein living vegetation growing in the fuel break comprise fire-resistant vegetation that has been planted in the fuel break, since trees that are wet are fire-resistant to some extent, and have been planted in the fuel break at some point whether naturally or by a human. Therefore the disclosure of Raymond reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 29, and Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s additional arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 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/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights