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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-29 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention (applicant elects the invention in group I), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/16/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 and 20-29 have been cancelled. Claims 17-19 have been amended. Claims 30-46 are new. Therefore, claims 17-19 and 30-46 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The amendment filed on 10/16/2025 has been entered.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
A forest (Claim 1)
The working piston and working cylinder are configured to extend a sprayer head to a higher altitude (Claim 35)
The forest fire detection device further comprise a power source, and wherein the power source comprises solar panels (Claim 36)
The sprayer device further comprise a power source, and wherein the power source comprises: solar panels, and a battery energy storage system (Claim 37)
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.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figs. 1-6 and 8-13 contain a pixilated box that is difficult to read and is unnecessary.
Fig. 1 contains a box stating “Different Perspective View See Fig 3” and is unnecessary.
Figs. 4, 8, and 13 contains pixilated photographs and not black and white line drawings.
Fig. 13 has the figure identifier in the middle of the drawing.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Item 7 (Fig. 6)
Item 8 (Fig. 6)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "15i" (Para. 48) and "15u" (Para. 61 & 68) have both been used to designate a malfunction detection sensor. 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. 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.
The examiner notes that the above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner with respect to the drawings. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies (See MPEP § 608.02).
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the content of the abstract. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 35 recites the limitation "sprayer head'' in line 4 of claim 35. However, it is suggested to amend to -a spray head-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36 recites the limitation "the sprayer device further comprise'' in line 2 of claim 36. However, it is suggested to amend to - the sprayer device further comprises-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 36 recites the limitation "the sprayer device further comprise'' in line 2 of claim 37. However, it is suggested to amend to - the spray device further comprises-. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“Spray device” in line 12 of claim 17. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “configured to provide water to the forest” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Cooling system” in line 6 of claim 30. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “configured to keep the water from evaporating” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Rotating mechanism” in line 8 of claim 30. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “configured to rotate the spray device 360 degrees” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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.
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.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Cooling system” in line 6 of claim 30, because para 66 of the applicant’s specification states “The cooling system 40 may be capable of cooling the water down by either refrigerated pipes or some sort of a water-cooling system.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a pipe”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Spray device” in line 12 of claim 17, because para 52 of the applicant’s specification states “The spray device500 may be comprise of a head100, a sprayer200, a rotating mechanism300, and a reservoir/desalinated cistern400” The examiner will interpret this limitation “as a sprayer”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Rotating mechanism” in line 8 of claim 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 30, 37-38, 40-43, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 30, the applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of a “Rotating mechanism” but fails to describe any structure, and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, Paragraphs 23, 25, 55-56, 59-60, 65, 67, and 70 of the applicant’s specification recites the term “rotating mechanism” as item 300 but fails to disclose any corresponding structure. Figs. 6-7 of the applicant’s specification shows the rotating mechanism (300) as a generic box and therefore does not disclose any corresponding structure. Fig. 7 shows the rotating mechanism as comprising sensors (15), but the sensors are not capable of rotating the spray device 360 degrees. Therefore, the rotating mechanism is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites “the sprayer device further comprise a power source, and wherein the power source comprises: solar panels, and a battery energy storage system” in lines 2-4 of claim 37. Firstly, the specification does not appear to disclose wherein the sprayer device, which the examiner is interpreting as the spray device, comprises a power source (Para. 38 & 40), nor do the drawings. Secondly, the specification does not appear to disclose wherein the power source comprises a battery energy storage system (Para. 41), nor do the drawings. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 38 recites “the malfunction detection sensor is configured to detect a malfunction occurring within the spray device and the forest fire detection device” in lines 2-4 of claim 38. The term “malfunction detection sensor” appears to be ipsis verbis (i.e., "in the same words") with regards to Para. 044 of the disclosure filed on 01/16/2023. However, MPEP § 2163.03 V states,
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).”
The claim defines the invention in functional language, namely “configured to detect a malfunction occurring within the spray device and the forest fire detection device,” but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or how the result is achieved because while the term “sensor” is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as being “a device that responds to a physical stimulus (such as heat, light, sound, pressure, magnetism, or a particular motion) and transmits a resulting impulse (as for measurement or operating a control)” as defined by The Merriam Webster Dictionary one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would need more description as to what that sensor is or does. For example, a temperature sensor, a sensor that detects humidity, a position sensor, a sensor that detects movement, and a flow sensor would have all have sufficient written description because it is a clearly defined sensor or sufficiently describes what is being sensed. While a “malfunction sensor” is again merely stating that a sensor is detecting a malfunction and a “malfunction sensor” is NOT well known to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and while one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that a malfunction is “ to function imperfectly or badly” as defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary, and further “a malfunction detection sensor” without a more specific explanation of what the malfunction detection sensor is or even what the malfunctions are would cover such a vast range of potential problems and the applicants disclosure lacks any explanation to address these issues. Shown below are the recitations of “the malfunction detection device” and the term “malfunction” from applicant’s original disclosure filed on 01/16/2023, which do not describe the invention in a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Para. 021 – “Fig 10. demonstrates the malfunction process”
Para. 044 – “The system600 may also be comprised of a malfunction detection sensor15i. The malfunction detection sensor15i, may have the ability of detecting any sort of malfunction occurring within the spray device500 and the forest fire detection device35.”
Para. 057 – “Embodiments of the sprayer200 may further comprise of sensors15. The sensors may be one or more sensors working together. For example, a malfunction detection sensor15u detect a problem with one of the distribution device(s)/sprayer head(s)22.”
Para. 064 – “Another benefit of having 2 or more distribution device(s)/sprayer head(s)22, is for example, whenever a malfunction detection sensor15u detects a malfunction in the one of the distribution devices(s)/sprayer head(s)22, while there's an active forest fire detected in the area/section that the malfunctioned distribution device/sprayer head22 is responsible of. The spray device500 may 25senan alert to the operator/user about the malfunction and recommend rotating the non-faulty distribution device/sprayer head22 to take over the responsibility of that faulty distribution device/sprayer head22. Allowing the continuation of extinguishing the forest fire.”
Para. 070 – “Embodiments of the spray device500 may further comprise of a rotating mechanism300. The purpose of a rotating mechanism300 is to rotate the sprayer and/or the interior of the sprayer 360 degrees. The rotating mechanism300 may be programed or configured to rotate, or otherwise move in a circular direction, 360 degree, such that, a malfunction occurs, the rotating mechanism300 may rotate the sprayer/interior of the sprayer200 allowing one of the functional distribution device's/sprayer head's22 replace the area/section that was responsible by the malfunctioned distribution device/sprayer head22.”
Fig. 7 shows the malfunction sensor as part of the head, the sprayer, the rotating mechanism, and the reservoir.
Fig. 10 (Box 1) – “1. Malfunction Detection Sensor 15u detects a malfunction in one o the sprayer heads 22”
Fig. 10 (Box 2a) – “The Malfunction Detection Sensor 15u sends an alert to either a Control Room, Browser, Phone app about the malfunctioned sprayer head 22”
Fig. 10 (Box 2b) – “The Malfunction Detection Sensor 15u sends an alert to either a Control Room, Browser, Phone app about the malfunctioned sprayer head 22”
Therefore, this limitation was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 recites the limitation “wherein the user is a first responder” in line 1 of claim 17, and the applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose ‘’a first responder”, nor do the drawings. The disclosure does mention “firefighters” in para. 09, 12 and “fire fighters” in para. 09 and para. 20, but first responders include people other than firefighters, such as police. Additionally, the applicant’s specification does not disclose wherein the user is a firefighter or first responder (para. 12, 29-31, 35-36, 39, 47, 49-50, 53, 55, 58-59, 61, 63-65, 68, 71). Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claim 41 recites the limitation “wherein the user is an operator of a public website” in line 1 of claim 41. Firstly, the applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose ‘’a public website”, nor do the drawings. Secondly, the applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose ‘’ wherein the user is an operator”, nor do the drawings. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 42 recites the limitation “wherein the spray device is activated in response to an active forest fire” in lines 1-2 of claim 42. The applicant only discloses activating or activation of the spray device by an operator and/or user (para. 20, 31, 59, 64, 66) or through a website, mobile app and/or control room (para. 30). While Fig. 5 is described as “a circular flow diagram of the energy/power cycle” in Para. 17 and shows “15 & 35 DETECTS A FORREST FIRE” followed by “SPRAY DEVICE ACTIVATED” this diagram when read with the specification does not show wherein the spray device is activated in response to an active forest fire. The spray device is instead activated by an operator and/or user or a website, mobile app and/or control room. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 43 recites the limitation “wherein the spray device is activated in response to detection of humidity levels that indicate conditions that can lead to a forest fire” in lines 1-2 of claim 43. The applicant only discloses activating or activation of the spray device by an operator and/or user (para. 20, 31, 59, 64, 66) or through a website, mobile app and/or control room (para. 30). While para. 31 and 54 describes detecting a humidity level, it does not disclose “wherein the spray device is activated in response to detection of humidity levels that indicate conditions that can lead to a forest fire.” Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 46 recites the limitation “wherein the spray device is activated in response historical weather data stored in a database, and sensors that indicate conditions that can lead to a forest fire” in lines 1-3 of claim 46. The applicant only discloses activating or activation of the spray device by an operator and/or user (para. 20, 31, 59, 64, 66) or through a website, mobile app and/or control room (para. 30). Para. 27 & 31 describes historical weather data, but does not describe activation of the spray device. Para. 31 recites “this system 600 may have the ability to depict when the humidity level reaches a certain point where forest fires are known to start,” thus describing conditions that can lead to a forest fire, but does not describe activation of the spray device. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “Rotating mechanism” in line 8 of claim 30 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraphs 23, 25, 55-56, 59-60, 65, 67, and 70 of the applicant’s specification recites the term “rotating mechanism” as item 300 but fails to disclose any corresponding structure. Figs. 6-7 of the applicant’s specification shows the rotating mechanism (300) as a generic box and therefore does not disclose any corresponding structure. Fig. 7 shows the rotating mechanism as comprising sensors (15), but the sensors are not capable of rotating the spray device 360 degrees.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 19, 31, and 34 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 19 recites the limitation “a mobile application” in line 2 of claim 19, but claim 18 recites the limitation “a mobile application” in line 4 of claim 18. It is unclear if there are separate “mobile applications” or if these are the same “mobile application.”
Claim 31 recites the limitation “wherein the sensors are selected from the group consisting of” in line 1 of claim 31, however claim 17 recites the limitation “a sensor” in line 5 of claim 17. It is unclear if the sensor in claim 17 is the same as the sensors in claim 31.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “spray device salination and desalination level” in line 12 of claim 34. Collins dictionary defines salination as “a process in which salt is added to something” and salination as “the process of removing salt from sea water so that it can be used for drinking, or for watering crops.” It is unclear what the difference between the salination level and desalination level is. The examiner will interpret this claim as “the spray device salination level.”
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-19, 30-33, and 38-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shavit (US 12,434,084).
Regarding claim 17 Shavit discloses a method of preventing and extinguishing forest fires via the use of a forest fire detection device and a spray device,
the method comprising:
placing a forest fire detection device (Fig. 3, 310; Fig. 5, 310A & 310B) within a forest (Fig. 3 & 8, 471; Fig. 5),
wherein the forest fire detection device comprises a sensor (Fig. 3, {312, 314 & 316}) configured to detect a forest fire (Col. 6: Ln. 53-63 – “visual sensor 312 (e.g., CCD/IR sensors)”; ) and conditions that can result in a forest fire (Col. 6: Ln. 53-63 – “meteorological sensor 314 and a smoke or smell sensor 316”),
wherein the conditions that can result in a forest fire comprise:
humidity, smoke, ash, air quality, and heat (The device is capable of detecting humidity from the metrological sensor and smoke from the smoke or smell sensor.)
detecting a forest fire or condition that can result in a forest fire (Col. 6: Ln. 60-63),
alerting a user (Col. 5: Ln. 48-51) to the detection of the forest fire or the condition that can result in a forest fire (Fig. 23, 600; Col. 17: Ln. 48-51),
activating a spray device ({Fig. 1-2, [200 & 443]} & [Fig. 6, {344 & 441-442}]; Col. 4: Ln. 44-67) configured to provide water to the forest (Col. 4: Ln. 33-37),
wherein the spray device is configured to spray water onto the forest so that the forest may be hydrated (Col. 4: Ln. 33-37).
Regarding claim 18, Shavit discloses the method of claim 17, and further discloses wherein:
the spray device is configured to communicate with a user (Col. 5: Ln. 48-51), and wherein the communication with the user occurs via a mobile application (Col. 5: Ln. 51-62).
Regarding claim 19, Shavit discloses the method of claim 18, and further discloses wherein:
the spray device is configured to be activated (Col. 18: Ln. 3-6) via a mobile application (Col. 5: Ln. 51-52).
Regarding claim 30, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses wherein the spray device further comprises:
a reservoir (Fig. 6, 441),
wherein the reservoir further comprises:
water (Col. 7: Ln. 23-26),
a cooling system (Col. 7: Ln. 31 –“prime water supply pipes of the WDS”; See 112(f) above.) configured to keep the water from evaporating (Prime water supply pipes are capable of keeping the water from evaporating.), and
a rotating mechanism (Col. 3: Ln. 53-56; Shavit discloses that the NaanDanJain 280 PC high power agricultural sprinkler, manufactured by NaanDanJain Irrigation Ltd can be used as shown in the annotated Fig. below.) configured to rotate the spray device 360 degrees (Col. 3: Ln. 60-62).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
400
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses wherein the sensors are a smoke sensor (Col. 6: Ln. 53-63 – “a smoke or smell sensor 316”).
Regarding claim 32, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, wherein the method further comprises:
collecting live data (Col. 2: Ln. 24-34; Col. 2: Ln. 39-47), and
storing the live data in a database (Fig. 1, 500; Col. 5: Ln. 48-54),
wherein the database is configured to be accessed by a mobile application (Col. 5: Ln. 48-58), and
wherein the mobile application provides recommendations to the user based on the live data (Col 12: Ln. 62 to Col. 13: Ln 3; Col. 8: Ln. 28-37 – “alerts may be issued to open the manual valve”).
Regarding claim 33, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 32, and further discloses wherein
the database further comprises:
data analytics (Col 12: Ln. 62 to Col. 13 – “time to impact”),
risk areas (Col. 12: Ln. 64-67 – “danger level … at the resolution of each endpoint”),
recommend actions (Col. 8: Ln. 28-37 – “alerts may be issued to open the manual valve”), and
regional responses (Col. 8: Ln. 64-67 – “response to individual risks sets differing endpoint priorities”).
Regarding claim 38, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses wherein the spray device comprises a malfunction detection sensor (Fig. 2, 282),
wherein the malfunction detection sensor is configured to detect a malfunction
occurring within the spray device and the forest fire detection device (Col. 6: Ln. 16-22).
Regarding claim 39, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses wherein
the forest fire detection device comprises a video camera (Col. 6: Ln. 53-54; A CCD “Charge Coupled Display” is a type of video camera.),
wherein the video camera is configured to provide a live feed of the forest (Col. 4: Ln. 2-8).
Regarding claim 40, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses wherein the user is a first responder (Col. 5: Ln. 48-51 – “police officer”).
Regarding claim 41, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses wherein the user is an operator of a public website (Col. 5: Ln. 51-54).
Regarding claim 42, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses wherein the spray device is activated (Fig. 15, 560) in response to an active forest fire (Fig. 15, 530; Col 12: Ln. 62 to Col. 13: Ln. 3).
Regarding claim 43, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses, wherein the spray device is activated (Col. 10: Ln. 58-63) in response to detection of humidity levels that indicate conditions that can lead to a forest fire (Col. 9: Ln. 19-30; The COFD application utilizes humidity to calculate a priority level relative to risk levels, which are conditions that can lead to a fire, and then activates the endpoints/spray device based on the priority level.).
Regarding claim 44, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses wherein:
the spray device is configured to communicate with a user (Col. 5: Ln. 48-51), and
wherein the communication with the user occurs via a website (Col. 5: Ln. 51-62).
Regarding claim 45, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and further discloses wherein:
the spray device is configured to be activated via a website (Col. 5: Ln. 51-62).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit in view of Ezra (US 12,447,366), Calabrese (US 9,553,971), and Camilo (WO 2023/062406).
Regarding claim 34, Shavit discloses the method of claim 33, and further discloses wherein
the database further comprises:
a forest fire detection device ID (Col. 6: Ln. 60-63; The database receives data from the forest fire detection device (long range sensor towers) and therefore is a forest fire detection device ID.),
a sensor ID (Col. 6: Ln. 55-63; The database receives data from a smoke sensor and therefore is a sensor device ID.),
sensor values (Col. 12: Ln. 54-61 – “long-range sensor data”),
latitude (Col. 2: Ln. 44; Coordinates include latitude and longitude),
longitude (Col. 2: Ln. 44; Coordinates include latitude and longitude),
distance (Col. 12: Ln. 65 to Col. 13: Ln. 3 – “fire distance”),
forest fire detecting device status (Col. 6: Ln. 60-63; The database receives data from the forest fire detection device (long range sensor towers) and transmission of data is a status),
spray device status (Col. 13: Ln. 47-58 – “operational status”),
spray device power charge level (Col. 5: Ln. 29-39; Col. 18: Ln. 17-20).
Shavit does not disclose a spray device water level, and spray device salination and desalination level.
However, Ezra teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1-2, 10) comprising a spray device water level (Col. 16: Ln. 2-5; Measurement of the content volume of the fluid tank (70).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a spray device water level taught by Ezra into the database of Shavit to measure spray device water level (Ezra – Col. 16: Ln. 2-5) to prevent running out of water during a fire event, and yielding the predictable result of storing spray device water level with a reasonable expectation of success.
Shavit in view of Ezra does not teach spray device salination and desalination level.
However, Calabrese teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, 2; Col. 2: Ln. 50-54) comprising a spray device salination and desalination level (The salinity sensor transmits the portable electronic device signals representing measurement values acquired by the salinity sensor as described in claim 13.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a spray device salination and desalination level taught by Calabrese into the database of Shavit in view of Ezra to provide levels of water purity (Calabrese – Col. 2: Ln. 50-54) and to protect the soil for eventual use for agricultural purposes as taught by Camilo (Camilo – Pg. 5: Ln. 7-8), yielding the predictable result of storing the spray device salination and desalination level with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit in view of Acero (US 12,491,390) and Thomsen (US 10,065,059).
Regarding claim 35, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 32, and further discloses wherein the spraying device further comprises:
sprayer head (Col. 3: Ln. 53-56; Shavit discloses that the NaanDanJain 280 PC high power agricultural sprinkler, manufactured by NaanDanJain Irrigation Ltd can be used as shown in the annotated Fig. below.),
Shavit does not disclose a working piston, and a working cylinder, wherein the working piston and working cylinder are configured to extend the sprayer head to a higher altitude.
However, Acero teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1, 10) comprising
an actuator (Fig. 5, 46),
wherein the actuator is configured to extend a sprayer head (Fig. 5, 58) to a higher altitude (Col. 3: Ln. 51-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (an actuator configured to extend a sprayer head to a higher altitude) as taught by Acero, into the system disclosed by Shavit to facilitating the sprinkler head to spray the fluid in a strategic location. In this way the sprinkler head can inhibit a wildfire from spreading into the strategic location (Acero: Col. 2: Ln. 7-11) and yielding the predictable result of spraying from a higher altitude.
Shavit in view of does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator is a working piston, and a working cylinder.
However, Thomsen teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1-5, 1) comprising an actuator (Fig. 1-4, 10): comprising
a working piston (Annotated Fig. 2), and
a working cylinder (Annotated Fig. 2),
wherein the working piston and working cylinder are configured to extend a sprayer head (Fig. 5, 58) to a higher altitude (Col. 2: Ln. 36-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element, namely an actuator comprising a working piston and working cylinder, with a known function of extending and retracting, taught by Thomsen, by performing a simple substitution with another element, namely an actuator, with a known function of extending and retracting disclosed by Acero yielding the predictable result of a working piston and working cylinder extending the sprayer head to a higher altitude to suppress a fire.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image2.png
402
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
644
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit in view of Kulanda (US 11,872,422).
Regarding claim 36, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and but does not disclose wherein: the forest fire detection device further comprise a power source, and wherein the power source comprises solar panels.
However, Kulanda teaches a prior art comparable forest fire detection device (Fig. 1, 10), comprises a power source (Fig. 1, 78 & Fig. 3, 78), wherein the power source comprises solar panels (Fig. 3, 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a power source comprising a solar panel as taught by Kulanda into the forest fire detection device disclosed by Shavit by known the known method of mechanically and electrically coupling and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, which yields the predictable result of electrically powering the forest fire detection device.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the power source comprising the solar panels as taught by Kulanda into the forest fire detection device disclosed by Shavit to provide power to the forest fire device that is not reliant on utility power because a wildfire could disrupt the transmission of the utility power.
Regarding claim 37, Shavit discloses the method of Claim 17, and but does not disclose wherein: the sprayer device further comprise a power source, and wherein the power source comprises: solar panels, and a battery energy storage system.
However, Kulanda teaches a prior art comparable forest fire detection device (Fig. 1, 10), comprises a power source (Fig. 1, 78 & Fig. 3, 78), wherein the power source comprises solar panels (Fig. 3, 78) and a battery energy storage system (Col. 4: Ln. 57-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a power source comprising a solar panel as taught by Kulanda into the forest fire detection device disclosed by Shavit by known the known method of mechanically and electrically coupling and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, which yields the predictable result of electrically powering the forest fire detection device.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the power source comprising the solar panels as taught by Kulanda into the forest fire detection device disclosed by Shavit to provide power to the forest fire device that is not reliant on utility power because a wildfire could disrupt the transmission of the utility power.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 10, 2026
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752