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 Amendment filed 25 July 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection to the claims and the 112(b) rejection for the use of trademarks/trade names previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 15 May 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “water pressure spring faucet” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the nose cone" in line 2, “the top of the cone” in line 3, “the hull section” in line 5, “the aluminum shaft” in line 6, “the holes” in line 7, “the one side of the shaft” in line 8, “the other end of the shaft” in lines 8-9, and “the valve” in lines 11-12. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation to “bio-PVC fins” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because “spread guidance fins” were already positively recited in lines 4. As a result, it is unclear if line 5 requires additional fins, or if it is referring to those fins that are already recited. For the purposes of examination, latter interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the drawings.
Claim 1 is further rejected because it is unclear what is required by the limitation to a “water pressure spring faucet”. This term would not be recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art as to referring to any certain structure. Although a faucet is known, the context in which this term is used in the claim does not appear to support the well-known structure of a faucet. Neither the drawings nor the specification provides further explanation or description of the structure to which this term refers.
Claim 1 is further rejected because it is unclear what is required by the term “diamond rhomboid”. This term describes the “shape section”, but it is unclear what shape a “diamond rhomboid” is. Both “diamond” and “rhomboid” would be understood to describe the same shape.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation to “folded fins” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because “spread guidance fins” and “bio-PVC fins” were already positively recited in lines 4 and 5, respectively, of claim 1, on which claim 2 depends. As a result, it is unclear if claim 2 requires additional fins, or if it is referring to those fins that are already recited. For the purposes of examination, latter interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the drawings.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation to “a diamond rhomboid shape section” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because “a diamond rhomboid shape section” is already positively recited in line 8 of claim 1, on which claim 4 depends. As a result, it is unclear if claim 4 requires an additional rhomboid shape section, or if it is referring to the rhomboid shape section already recited. For the purposes of examination, latter interpretation will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the drawings.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setzer (US 2006/0005974) in view of Woodall et al. (US 2002/0157558), Kilburn (US 2016/0287919), Akcasu (US 2010/0065288), and Tapacio (US 9,995,420).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Setzer discloses a structure (10) to extinguish a forest fire (par. 1) comprising:
a cylindrical structure (fig. 3) formed of a nose cone (21) with a fire detection camera (55, see par. 48) at the top of the cone (figs. 6, 7), hull (29), and spread guidance fins (33);
the fins located in the hull section (fig. 3) consists of fixed-to-it panning actuator (41) which is fastened to a shaft (35, see figs. 3, 4) and inserted to the holes (figs. 3, 4- the shaft extends through holes in the hull, 29) with 90-degree position locking coupling (37) on the one side of the shaft (figs. 4, 5);
a back-end side hosting an inlet connector (16, see fig. 3);
a mini avionics system (34) and power supply battery (49) are located in a circular shape section (fig. 4).
Setzer does not disclose that the cylindrical structure and spread guidance fins are made of Bio-PVC, or that the shaft is aluminum, or a spring coupling on the other end of the shaft, or that the inlet connector is a Storz-type female aluminum connector with water pressure spring faucet which is set to 7 psi unlock pressure, or that the mini avionics system and power supply battery are located in a diamond rhomboid shape section.
Woodall teaches a structure to extinguish a forest fire comprising a cylindrical structure made of Bio-PVC and guidance fins made of Bio-PVC (par. 29).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cylindrical structure and guidance fins of Setzer to be made of Bio-PVC, as taught by Woodall, since this was known to be more environmentally friendly (Woodall, par. 29).
Kilburn teaches a structure (100) to extinguish a forest fire comprising an aluminum frame (par. 32) since this was known to be a strong, lightweight, and fire-resistant material (par. 32).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the shaft of the structure of Setzer from aluminum material since Kilburn teaches that it was known that aluminum is a strong, lightweight, and fire-resistant material suited for use in a structure to extinguish a fire.
Akcasu teaches a structure (10) to extinguish a forest fire comprising a cylindrical structure (fig. 1) having a hull (26) and guidance fins (12/14/16/18) coupled to the hull by spring couplings (par. 18).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Setzer to further include a spring coupling connecting the fins to the hull, as taught by Akcasu, since this was known to configure the fins to be placed in a folded configuration (par. 15; fig. 1).
Tapacio teaches a Storz-type female inlet connector (col. 3, ln. 51-52; fig. with water pressure spring faucet (col. 6, ln. 20) which opens the valve (105) to fill water at a pressure of at least 7 psi (fig. 1 – the connector attaches to a fire hydrant which is capable of supplying water at a pressure of at least 7 psi).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Setzer such that the inlet connector is a Storz-type female connector with water pressure spring faucet which opens the valve to fill water at a pressure of at least 7 psi, as taught by Tapacio, since this was a known connector structure for allowing for rapid connection of a fire extinguishing structure to a water supply (col. 7, ln. 55-58). Further it would have been obvious to make this connector aluminum for the same reasons described above regarding the shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the section in which the mini avionics system and power supply battery are located in a diamond rhomboid shape, since it has been held that a change in the shape of the element involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, Setzer in view of Woodall, Kilburn, Akcasu, and Tapacio disclose the structure to extinguish a forest fire described regarding claim 1, and further including the back-end side with the folded fins (see Setzer – fig. 3, which discloses having fins on the back-end side, and Akcasu – fig. 1, which teaches having folding fins on the back-end side), water inlet connector (see Woodall – fig. 1, which teaches a water inlet connector 17at the back-end side), and mini avionics section (see Setzer – fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Setzer in view of Woodall, Kilburn, Akcasu, and Tapacio disclose the structure to extinguish a forest fire described regarding claim 1, and further including Storz-type aluminum female inlet connector with built-in automatic water pressure spring faucet which is set to 7 psi unlock pressure (fig. 1 – the connector attaches to a fire hydrant which is capable of supplying water at a pressure of at least 7 psi).
Regarding claim 4, Setzer in view of Woodall, Kilburn, Akcasu, and Tapacio disclose the structure to extinguish a forest fire described regarding claim 1, and further including electronics (43, see par. 46) that are nano board and mini avionics are located in a diamond rhomboid shape section (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Setzer in view of Woodall, Kilburn, Akcasu, and Tapacio disclose the structure to extinguish a forest fire described regarding claim 1, and further including bio-PVC-made guidance fin which pans around its axis by means of fixed actuator attached to the main horizontal (tilt) movement aluminum shaft attached to the hull (par. 46, figs. 4, 5 – vanes can be panned by the motors via the transmission components connecting the motors to the fins).
Regarding claim 6, Setzer in view of Woodall, Kilburn, Akcasu, and Tapacio disclose the structure to extinguish a forest fire described regarding claim 1, and further including the tilt movement shaft opens once by means of a spring and fixes its horizontal position by means of automatic coupling. This limitation is interpreted to require the tilt movement shaft to be opened by the spring and fixed in a horizontal position by the automatic coupling, which is a recitation of operating the structure in a specific manner. In regards to this, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivations for each of the modifications are noted in the respective rejections above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner failed to consider the invention as a whole, it is noted that for each of the proposed individual modifications a motivation (or benefit) for the overall system has been explained. Further, applicant has not identified any specific limitation or element for which the examiner had erred in this manner.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Applicant’s arguments, p. 4, section “C” and p. 6, section “E”), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument explaining the advantages and benefits of the disclosed invention (Applicant’s arguments, p. 5, section “D”), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752