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 .
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 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.
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: a “deployment structure configured to attach said shelter in said packaging to a drone aircraft” in claims 3 and 15. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “structure”; 2) it is modified by functional language “to attach said shelter in said packaging to a drone aircraft”; and 3) it is not modified by any actual structure.
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. The specification discloses [Par 0041] “Figure 4 shows the example package 200 being carried by a flying drone 220 for dropping into a desired location. Any desired motive means could be utilized for transporting the shelter to a desired location”. And Fig 4 shows the shelter attached to the drone via hooks, i.e. mechanical fasteners. Examiner will interpret the deployment structure configured to attach said shelter to the drone aircraft as any fastening structure, or equivalent thereof.
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: a “deployment structure configured to automatically deploying said fires shelter in said fire environment” in claims 8 and 19. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “structure”; 2) it is modified by functional language “to automatically deploying said fires shelter in said fire environment”; and 3) it is not modified by any actual structure.
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. The Specification [Par 0043] discloses the deployment structure as compressed air, a small explosive device, a spring loaded device, robotic mechanisms, chemical reactions, or any combination of these features. The specification also discloses [Par 0045] weighted base components as deployment structures. Examiner will interpret it as such, or equivalent 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
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, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musser (U.S. 2009/0266567) in view of Gross et al (U.S. 2008/0050565).
Regarding claim 1, Musser teaches a portable fire shelter (tarp 10, seen in Fig 5 and 6), wherein said fire shelter is configured to deploy in a manner to form an interior space (space that houses the house 70, Fig 6) that is protected from when is deployed in a fire environment (as disclosed in Par 0025-26 , the shelter is deployed from a helicopter, i.e. it is portable, and protects a house from a fire environment).
However, Musser does not teach the shelter comprising: a layer of absorbent material; and a fire resistant substance impregnating said layer of absorbent material, wherein said fire shelter is configured to deploy in a manner to form an interior space that is protected from exceeding 200°F for at least 15 minutes when said fire shelter is deployed in a fire environment.
Gross teaches a flexible thermally insulating fire-retardant composite pad (such as 40 or 70, seen in Figs 4 and 7), comprising: a layer (10) of absorbent material (layer 10 includes fiber, such as cotton – Par 0131, 0134; wherein the layer is absorbent – Par 0143; furthermore, Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0032, that the absorbent layer is cotton); and a fire resistant substance (ammonium polyphosphate or phosphate ester fire-retardants – Par 0230-0231; note that Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0033, that the fire-resistant substance can be a phosphorous containing compound) impregnating said layer of absorbent material (Pars 0230-0231 disclose these fire retardant being sprayed/applied onto the cellulosic fibers, i.e. the cotton fibers).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser to incorporate the teachings of Gross to provide the shelter with a layer of absorbent material impregnated with a fire resistance substance in order to effectively block the fire in an affordable manner (as disclosed in Par 0016 and 0202 of Gross). In combination, Musset and Gross teach a fire shelter that is protects the interior space from exceeding 200°F for at least 15 minutes when said fire shelter is deployed in a fire environment (since Gross teaches the same materials disclosed by Applicant’s specification: cotton used as the layer of absorbent material, and a phosphorous containing compound as the fire-resistant substance, then the shelter of Gross is deemed capable of achieving the function of protecting the interior from exceeding 200°F for at least 15 minutes when exposed to fire. Examiner notes that this function is also directly dependent on the intensity of the fire; if the fire is small enough the shelter will protect the interior space as claimed, or even exceed the claimed time 15 minutes).
Regarding claim 2, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1, further comprising packaging (layer 11 of Gross) configured to prevent said fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within, said layer of absorbent material (layer 11 is disclosed as a thermoplastic material, see Par 0172 and 0173 of Gross; As disclosed by Applicant in Par 0042: the packaging is designed to burn off or melt from heat to expose the shelter to during deployment; Layer 11 of Gross is disclosed as a thermoplastic material which would act in the same manner as claimed: it would prevent the fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within said layer of absorbent material and then it would melt in the presence of the fire to expose the shelter).
Regarding claim 4, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 2, wherein said packaging is configured to be consumed, melt, or otherwise be opened by action of the heat of said fire environment (packaging, i.e. layer 11, is disclosed as a thermoplastic material, see Par 0172 and 0173 of Gross; wherein thermoplastics melt as result of heat emitted from the fire).
Regarding claim 5, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1, wherein said fire resistant substance is a liquid or gel (Gross teaches fire retardants ammonium polyphosphate or phosphate ester; wherein Par 0230-0231 disclose these as liquids sprayed onto the fibers, i.e. absorbent layer of cotton) .
Regarding claim 7, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1, said layer of absorbent material including felt or a woven material (Gross Par 0193 discloses the airfelt as the nonwoven structure, i.e. the material for layer 10; that is, Gross discloses a type of felt as the absorbent material).
Regarding claim 8, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1, further comprising deployment structure configured to automatically deploying said fires shelter in said fire environment (Musser teaches weighted base portions 18, the automatically drag the base of the shelter down in order for the aircraft to place the deployed shelter in the target area, see Par 0020 and Fig 2b).
Regarding claim 9, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1, wherein said interior space is of sufficient size to encompass a building (the size of the shelter of Musser is sufficient to cover a house 70, i.e. a building, see Fig 6).
Regarding claim 10, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1, wherein said interior space is of sufficient size to encompass a vehicle (the size of the shelter of Musser is sufficient to cover a house 70, i.e. a building, see Fig 6; therefore it is big enough to cover a vehicle such as a car).
Regarding claim 13, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1, wherein said fire environment includes a temperature greater than 1000°F in the immediate vicinity of the deployed fire shelter (Musser and Gross teach the same structural limitations as claimed; as such, the shelter of the prior art is deemed capable of being used in a fire that exceeds a temperature greater than 1000°F. Furthermore, this claim is claiming particulars of the environment the invention is used in, which carries very limited patentable weight. In other words, the claims are directed to a fire shelter, and the claim is not disclosing particular limitations of the shelter itself, it its merely claiming the temperature of a fire in the environment).
Regarding claim 14, Musser teaches a portable fire shelter (tarp 10, seen in Fig 5 and 6), wherein said fire shelter is configured to deploy in a manner to form an interior space (space that houses the house 70, Fig 6) that protects an object (house 70) or person provided in the interior space from excessive heat when said fire shelter is deployed in a fire environment (as disclosed in Par 0018 and 0025-26 , the shelter is deployed from a helicopter, i.e. it is portable, and protects a house from a fire environment).
However, Musser does not teach the shelter comprising a layer of absorbent material; a fire resistant substance in the form of a liquid or gel impregnating said layer of absorbent material; and packaging configured to prevent said fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within, said layer of absorbent material.
Gross teaches a flexible thermally insulating fire-retardant composite pad (such as 40 or 70, seen in Figs 4 and 7), comprising a layer (10) of absorbent material (layer 10 includes fiber, such as cotton – Par 0131, 0134; wherein the layer is absorbent – Par 0143; furthermore, Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0032, that the absorbent layer is cotton); a fire resistant substance (ammonium polyphosphate or phosphate ester fire-retardants – Par 0230-0231; note that Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0033, that the fire-resistant substance can be a phosphorous containing compound) in the form of a liquid or gel (Pars 0230-0231 disclose these substances as liquid) impregnating said layer of absorbent material (Pars 0230-0231 disclose these fire retardant being sprayed/applied onto the cellulosic fibers, i.e. the cotton fibers); and packaging (layer 11) configured to prevent said fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within, said layer of absorbent material (layer 11 is disclosed as a thermoplastic material, see Par 0172 and 0173; As disclosed by Applicant in Par 0042: the packaging is designed to burn off or melt from heat to expose the shelter to during deployment; Layer 11 of Gross is disclosed as a thermoplastic material which would act in the same manner as claimed: it would prevent the fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within said layer of absorbent material and then it would melt in the presence of the fire to expose the shelter).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser to incorporate the teachings of Gross to provide the shelter with a layer of absorbent material impregnated with a fire resistance substance and packaging in order to effectively block the fire in an affordable manner (as disclosed in Par 0016 and 0202 of Gross).
Regarding claim 16, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 14, wherein said packaging is configured to be consumed, melt, or otherwise be opened by action of the heat of said fire environment (packaging, i.e. layer 11, is disclosed as a thermoplastic material, see Par 0172 and 0173 of Gross; wherein thermoplastics melt as result of heat emitted from the fire).
Regarding claim 18, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 14, said layer of absorbent material including felt or a woven material (Gross Par 0193 discloses the airfelt as the nonwoven structure, i.e. the material for layer 10; that is, Gross discloses a type of felt as the absorbent material).
Regarding claim 19, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 14, further comprising deployment structure configured to automatically deploying said fires shelter in said fire environment (Musser teaches weighted base portions 18, the automatically drag the base of the shelter down in order for the aircraft to place the deployed shelter in the target area, see Par 0020 and Fig 2b).
Regarding claim 21, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 14, wherein said fire environment includes a temperature greater than 1000°F in the immediate vicinity of the deployed fire shelter (Musser and Gross teach the same structural limitations as claimed; as such, the shelter of the prior art is deemed capable of being used in a fire that exceeds a temperature greater than 1000°F. Furthermore, this claim is claiming particulars of the environment the invention is used in, which carries very limited patentable weight. In other words, the claims are directed to a fire shelter, and the claim is not disclosing particular limitations of the shelter itself, it its merely claiming the temperature of a fire in the environment).
Regarding claim 22, Musser teaches a method of providing a protected interior space (space that houses the house 70, Fig 6) in a fire environment (as disclosed in Par 0019 0025-26 a shelter 10 protects the house from a fire environment), comprising the steps of:
providing a fire shelter (tarp 10, seen in Fig 5 and 6),
transporting said fire shelter to a fire zone (Par 0025 discloses the shelter transport to a fire zone to protect the house); deploying said fire shelter in said fire zone to provide a protected space (Par 0025, the shelter is deployed via helicopter to provide a protected space, i.e. space inside the shelter that contains the house).
However, Musser does not teach the fire shelter comprising: a layer of absorbent material, a fire resistant substance in the form of a liquid or gel impregnating said layer of absorbent material, and packaging configured to prevent said fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within, said layer of absorbent material after said impregnating.
Gross teaches a flexible thermally insulating fire-retardant composite pad (such as 40 or 70, seen in Figs 4 and 7) comprising: a layer (10) of absorbent material (layer 10 includes fiber, such as cotton – Par 0131, 0134; wherein the layer is absorbent – Par 0143; furthermore, Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0032, that the absorbent layer is cotton), a fire resistant substance (ammonium polyphosphate or phosphate ester fire-retardants – Par 0230-0231; note that Applicant discloses in their own Specification, Par 0033, that the fire-resistant substance can be a phosphorous containing compound) in the form of a liquid or gel (Pars 0230-0231 disclose these substances as liquid) impregnating said layer of absorbent material (Pars 0230-0231 disclose these fire retardant being sprayed/applied onto the cellulosic fibers, i.e. the cotton fibers), and packaging (layer 11) configured to prevent said fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within, said layer of absorbent material after said impregnating (layer 11 is disclosed as a thermoplastic material, see Par 0172 and 0173; As disclosed by Applicant in Par 0042: the packaging is designed to burn off or melt from heat to expose the shelter to during deployment; Layer 11 of Gross is disclosed as a thermoplastic material which would act in the same manner as claimed: it would prevent the fire resistant substance from evaporating from, or hardening within said layer of absorbent material and then it would melt in the presence of the fire to expose the shelter).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser to incorporate the teachings of Gross to provide the shelter with a layer of absorbent material impregnated with a fire resistance substance and packaging in order to effectively block the fire in an affordable manner (as disclosed in Par 0016 and 0202 of Gross). In combination, Musser and Gross teach maintaining a temperature within said protected space of less than 200°F for at least 15 minutes in said fire zone (since Gross teaches the same materials disclosed by Applicant’s specification: cotton used as the layer of absorbent material, and a phosphorous containing compound as the fire-resistant substance, then the shelter of Gross is deemed capable of achieving the function of protecting the interior from exceeding 200°F for at least 15 minutes when exposed to fire. Examiner notes that this function is also directly dependent on the intensity of the fire; if the fire is small enough the shelter will protect the interior space as claimed, or even exceed the claimed time 15 minutes).
Claims 3, 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musser (U.S. 2009/0266567) in view of Gross et al (U.S. 2008/0050565); further in view of Bartz (U.S. 2021/0269151).
Regarding claim 3, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 2, further comprising deployment structure (defined by cables 14 of Musser) configured to attach said shelter in said packaging (as modified by Gross) to an aircraft (as disclosed in Pars 0017, 0019 and 0025 of Musser, the cables attach the shelter to a helicopter).
However, Musser and Gross do not teach the aircraft being a drone.
Bartz teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle system for fire protection that uses drone to deploy a net, i.e. a shelter, onto a fire (as disclosed in Par 0002).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser to incorporate the teachings of Bartz to deploy the shelter using a drone (UAV) because drones have the ability to remain powered in flight and being unaffected by smoke and fire, which could choke a manned aircraft (as disclosed in Par 0007 of Bartz).
Regarding claim 15, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 14, further comprising deployment structure (defined by cables 14 of Musser) configured to attach said shelter in said packaging (as modified by Gross) to an aircraft (as disclosed in Pars 0017, 0019 and 0025 of Musser, the cables attach the shelter to a helicopter).
However, Musser and Gross do not teach the aircraft being a drone.
Bartz teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle system for fire protection that uses drone to deploy a net, i.e. a shelter, onto a fire (as disclosed in Par 0002).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser to incorporate the teachings of Bartz to deploy the shelter using a drone (UAV) because drones have the ability to remain powered in flight and being unaffected by smoke and fire, which could choke a manned aircraft (as disclosed in Par 0007 of Bartz).
Regarding claim 23, Musser and Gross teach the method of claim 22. However, they teach said transporting step accomplished by a helicopter (200, See Figs of Musser) instead of being accomplished using a robot or drone.
Bartz teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle system for fire protection that uses drone to deploy a net, i.e. a shelter, onto a fire (as disclosed in Par 0002).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser to incorporate the teachings of Bartz to deploy the shelter using a drone (UAV) because drones have the ability to remain powered in flight and being unaffected by smoke and fire, which could choke a manned aircraft (as disclosed in Par 0007 of Bartz).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musser (U.S. 2009/0266567) in view of Gross et al (U.S. 2008/0050565); further in view of Bolton et al (U.S. 5,124,208).
Regarding claim 6, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1. However, they do not teach said fire resistant substance including acrylamide and/or bisacrylamide.
Bolton teaches an intumescent gel compound for a fire resistant device that includes acrylamide (col 1, lines 33-41).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Bolton to include acrylamide in the fire-resistant material in order to speed up gelling reaction (as disclosed in col 1, lines 33-41 of Bolton). Doing so, would ensure the shelter will react to the fire quicker by gelling, i.e. solidifying, the layer of absorbent material, thus creating a barrier that further protects the interior space.
Regarding claim 17, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 14. However, they do not teach said fire resistant substance including acrylamide and/or bisacrylamide.
Bolton teaches an intumescent gel compound for a fire resistant device that includes acrylamide (col 1, lines 33-41).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Bolton to include acrylamide in the fire-resistant material in order to speed up gelling reaction (as disclosed in col 1, lines 33-41 of Bolton). Doing so, would ensure the shelter will react to the fire quicker by gelling, i.e. solidifying, the layer of absorbent material, thus creating a barrier that further protects the interior space.
Claims 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musser (U.S. 2009/0266567) in view of Gross et al (U.S. 2008/0050565); further in view of Goldberg (U.S. 2008/0001128).
Regarding claim 11, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1, further comprising a structural layer (Gross teaches a “heavy” layer 12; since the structural layer is broadly claimed, a heavy layer provides structure to the shelter; Thus reading on claim language).
If it is found that Musser and Gross do not teach a structural layer, Goldberg teaches a flexible wall having fire resistant properties (see abstract); wherein the wall comprises a structural layer (5, 7 and 9, seen in Fig 4; wherein the layer is formed of various basalt fiber fabric, which provides mechanical strength by distributing loads and mechanical tensions – see Par 0051, i.e. provides structural support).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Goldberg to provide a structural layer in order to provide mechanical strength to the shelter (as disclosed in Par 0051 of Goldberg).
Regarding claim 12, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 1. However, they do not teach the shelter further comprising a heat reflecting layer.
Goldberg teaches a flexible wall having fire resistant properties (see abstract); wherein the wall comprises a heat reflecting layer (flexible metal layer 8; Par 0038 discloses layer 8 reflecting heat radiation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Goldberg to provide a heat reflecting layer in order to reflect heat radiation (as disclosed in Par 0038 of Goldberg), which would provide additional heat resistance when deployed in a fire.
Regarding claim 20, Musser and Gross teach the portable fire shelter of claim 14. However, they do not teach the shelter further comprising a heat reflecting layer.
Goldberg teaches a flexible wall having fire resistant properties (see abstract); wherein the wall comprises a heat reflecting layer (flexible metal layer 8; Par 0038 discloses layer 8 reflecting heat radiation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Musser and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Goldberg to provide a heat reflecting layer in order to reflect heat radiation (as disclosed in Par 0038 of Goldberg), which would provide additional heat resistance when deployed in a fire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752