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 December 9th, 2025 is acknowledged. Two pages of amended claims were received on 12/9/2025. Claim 1 has been amended and Claims 2 and 6 have been cancelled. The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 6/13/2025, however Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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(s) 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(s) is/are:
The “ignition unit” in Claim 1 which uses the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language of “ignition” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) 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 “ignition unit” in Claim 1 corresponds to the disclosure in paragraph 00066 of the Specification which states, “The ignition unit 150 may include an ignition cartridge, a flash reducer, and a piston, but is not limited thereto. Also, the ignition cartridge of the ignition unit 150 may be any type of ignition cartridge, such as an M752A1 ignition cartridge.” Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets “ignition unit” in Claim 1 to be an ignition cartridge, a flash reducer, a piston, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2016/0216091 A1 to Erickson et al. (“Erickson”) in view of US PGPUB 2006/0162941 A1 to Sridharan et al. (“Sridharan”).
As to Claim 1, Erickson discloses a fire extinguishing mortar shell (See #10 in Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a main body (#14, #16, and #18, which together form the main body that has internal cavity #22) to store at least one compound therein (See Paragraph 0019 and see #30 in Fig. 2);
a fire retardant compound (#30, See Paragraph 0029) disposed within the main body to eliminate a fire in response to contact with the fire (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0028);
a multi-option fuse (#26 and #24. See Paragraph 0028 disclosing that #24 of the fuse can comprise “one or a combination of the following: a timer, an altimeter, an accelerometer, a global positioning device, a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a distance measuring device, or a mechanical device”. See Paragraph 0044 disclosing that “The triggering may set off the fuse to detonate the explosive material to break-apart the artillery shell either at a pre-determined time, at a pre-determined altitude, at a pre-determined acceleration, at a pre-determined location, at a pre-determined temperature, at a pre-determined pressure, or at a pre-determined distance”, thus the fuse made up of #26 and #24 have multiple options for how it is set off.) disposed on at least a portion of the main body (See Figs. 1-2) to send a detonation signal therefrom in response to detecting the fire and a position of the main body with respect to a target surface where the fire is located (See Paragraphs 0028 and 0044), wherein the multi-option fuse monitors at least one of a position of the main body, an altitude of the main body, and a temperature level of a surrounding environment of the main body (See Paragraphs 0028 and 0044. The trigger #24 of the multi-option fuse measures at least one or some combination of a position of the main body based on distance, an altitude of the main body by altimeter, a temperature level of a surrounding environment of the main body by temperature sensor, and geographical features of a surrounding environment by GPS);
at least one propellant charge (#28) disposed on at least a portion of the main body (See Fig. 2, the propellant is disposed on #14 of the main body) to detonate the main body to release the at least one fire retardant compound in response to receiving the detonation signal from the multi-option fuse (See Paragraphs 0027-0028); and
an ignition unit disposed on at least a portion of the main body to ignite the at least one propellant charge (See Fig. 2 and See Paragraph 0028 disclosing that #26 can include a detonator and a booster, which form a unit for igniting #28 that is equivalent to an ignition cartridge).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the fire extinguishing mortar shell of Erickson as applied to Claim 1 above, Erickson does not specifically disclose wherein the multi-option fuse monitors each of a position of the main body, an altitude of the main body, a temperature level of a surrounding environment of the main body, and a terrain of the surrounding environment (See Paragraphs 0028 and 0044. The trigger #24 of the multi-option fuse measures at least one or some combination of a position of the main body based on distance, an altitude of the main body by altimeter, a temperature level of a surrounding environment of the main body by temperature sensor, and features of a surrounding environment by GPS, but measuring each of a position of the main body, an altitude of the main body, a temperature level of a surrounding environment of the main body, and a terrain of the surrounding environment is not specifically disclosed).
However, Sridharan discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0001), a fire extinguishing mortar shell (See #18 in Fig. 7) comprising a multi-option fuse (See detonator #15 in Fig. 4) that monitors each of a position of the main body, an altitude of the main body, a temperature level of a surrounding environment of the main body, and a terrain of the surrounding environment (See Paragraphs 0077-0081 disclosing a logic enabled automated trigger system that detonates a charge based on location, most effective altitude, temperature at points of a conflagration, and contour of terrain).
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 fire extinguishing mortar shell of Erickson as applied to Claim 1 above such that the multi-option fuse monitors each of a position of the main body, an altitude of the main body, a temperature level of a surrounding environment of the main body, and a terrain of the surrounding environment, as taught by Sridharan since doing so would yield the predictable result of applying fire retardant at an optimal target relative to a fire (See Sridharan Paragraph 0077).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in view of Sridharan and US PGPUB 2016/0067533 A1 to Eriomenco (“Eriomenco”).
Regarding Claim 2, in reference to the fire extinguishing mortar shell of Erickson in view of Sridharan as applied to Claim 1 above, Erickson does not specifically disclose wherein the fire retardant compound is at least one of huntite, hydromagnesite, aluminum hydroxide, and magnesium hydroxide (See Paragraphs 0029-0031 disclosing various substances, however huntite, hydromagnesite, aluminum hydroxide, or magnesium hydroxide are not specifically disclosed).
However, Eriomenco discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0001), a fire extinguishing mortar shell (See #100 in Fig. 3) comprising a fire retardant compound (See #120 in Fig. 1) that is aluminum hydroxide (See Paragraph 0026).
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 fire extinguishing mortar shell of Erickson in view of Sridharan as applied to Claim 1 above such that the fire retardant compound is the aluminum hydroxide of Eriomenco, since doing so would yield the predictable result of utilizing a known extinguishing powder that has high flame retardant qualities (See Eriomenco Paragraph 0026).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in view of Sridharan and US PGPUB 2020/0284569 A1 to Feda (“Feda”).
Regarding Claim 4, in reference to the fire extinguishing mortar shell of Erickson in view of Sridharan as applied to Claim 1 above, Erickson does not specifically disclose the fire extinguishing mortar shell further comprising:
a fuse selector movably disposed on at least a portion of the main body to select a fuse setting for the multi-option fuse (See Paragraph 0028 disclosing different devices for operation of the trigger including a computer in wireless communication with #26, however a fuse selector movably disposed on at least a portion of the main body to select a fuse setting for the multi-option fuse is not specifically disclosed).
However, Feda discloses a mortar shell (See #10 in Fig. 3) comprising a fuse selector (See #50 in Figs. 5A-5B and See Paragraphs 0078-0080) movably disposed (See Figs. 5A-5B, #10 can be inserted into #50, thus #50 is movably disposed on #10 as the fuse selector and mortar shell are movable relative to each other) on at least a portion of a main body of the mortar shell (#22) to select a fuse setting for a multi-option fuse (#12) of the mortar shell (See Paragraph 00789 disclosing targeting data being transferred to the fuse #12 from #50).
It is noted that while Feda is not specifically in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing, Feda addresses problems that are reasonably pertinent to applicant’s claimed invention, specifically being able to quickly and precisely guide a mortar shell to a target as taught in Paragraphs 0002-0003 of Feda and as disclosed in Paragraph 0004 of applicant’s specification.
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 fire extinguishing mortar shell of Erickson in view of Sridharan as applied to Claim 1 above to use the fuse selector of Feda movably disposed on at least a portion of the main body of Erickson to select a fuse setting for the multi-option fuse of Erickson, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to program the multi-option fuse with data required to direct the fire extinguishing mortar shell towards a correct target and to properly detonate (See Feda Paragraph 0075).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the fire extinguishing mortar shell of Erickson in view of Sridharan and Feda as applied to Claim 4 above, Feda further discloses wherein the fuse selector selects at least one of a type of a mortar shell, a time period for detonation, a time delay prior to detonation, and a time delay to detonation after reaching the target surface (See Paragraph 0062 of Feda disclosing that #12 sets #10 to detonate at an appropriate time and/or location when #10 reaches the vicinity of target #16. See Paragraph 0075 disclosing that #10 is provided with data to allow #10 to be guided to target #16, including data required for proper operation of fuse #12. Furthermore, Paragraph 0044 of Erickson discloses that “The triggering may set off the fuse to detonate the explosive material to break-apart the artillery shell either at a pre-determined time”. Thus, the fuse selector of Feda at least selects a time period for detonation.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson in view of Sridharan and US PGPUB 2002/0157558 A1 to Woodall et al. (“Woodall”).
Regarding Claim 7, in reference to the fire extinguishing mortar shell of Erickson in view of Sridharan as applied to Claim 1 above, Erickson does not specifically disclose wherein the fire extinguishing mortar shell further comprises:
a plurality of fins disposed on at least a portion of the main body to stabilize movement of the main body during flight (See Figs. 1-3, the main body has driving bands #20, but a plurality of fins disposed on at least a portion of the main body to stabilize movement of the main body during flight are not disclosed).
However, Woodall discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002), a fire extinguishing mortar shell (See #10 in Fig. 1) that comprises a plurality of fins (#13) disposed on at least a portion of a main body of the fire extinguishing mortar shell (#12) to stabilize movement of the main body during flight (See Paragraphs 0029 and 0034).
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 fire extinguishing mortar shell of Erickson in view of Sridharan as applied to Claim 1 above to comprise a plurality of fins disposed on at least a portion of the main body to stabilize movement of the main body during flight, as taught by Woodall, since doing so would yield the predictable result of aligning movement of the fire extinguishing mortar shell (See Woodall Paragraphs 0029 and 0034), thus helping the fire extinguishing mortar shell maintain its intended trajectory when launched at a target.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/11/2025 with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground 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
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 December 9, 2025