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
This Office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on October 2, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 7 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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: “extraction device” in claim 1.
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.
In light of the specification, the limitation “extraction device” has been interpreted as “a gas canister” as described in paragraph [00053].
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 6,523,616 B1) in view of Machledt et al. (US 2005/0000175 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Wallace discloses a wildfire elimination system (10) removably connected to at least a portion of a building (2), the wildfire elimination system comprising: a fire deterrent dispenser device (62) to dispense at least one fire retardant therefrom to eliminate a fire (Fig. 1); a plurality of sensors (36) connected to the fire deterrent dispenser device to detect a presence of a fire within a predetermined distance at least one of the plurality of sensors and automatically control the fire deterrent dispenser device based on the presence of the fire (Fig. 4); a fire retardant storage container (74) connected to the fire deterrent dispenser device (62) to store the at least one fire retardant therein (Fig. 1); and an extraction device (76) connected to the fire retardant storage container (74) to extract the at least one fire retardant from the fire retardant storage container using at least one extraction tool (Col. 4 lines 59-67); a storage vault disposed within a ground surface to store the fire retardant storage container therein; and an extraction vault disposed within the ground surface to store the extraction device therein (Col. 4 lines 59-62 and Fig. 3), an extraction body (Fig. 3) disposed within the ground surface to store the extraction device therein (Fig. 3), and an extraction barrier (73).
However, Wallace does not disclose that the extraction barrier disposed outside the ground surface while being movably disposed on a top surface of the extraction body and configured to move from closed on the extraction body in a first position to at least partially opened away from the extraction body in a second position.
Machledt teaches a flush to grade extraction vault comprising an extraction barrier (30) disposed outside the ground surface (“the lid 30 is placed flush with the surface of the ground” see Par. [0040]) while being movably disposed on a top surface of the extraction body and configured to move from closed on the extraction body in a first position to at least partially opened away from the extraction body in a second position (Fig. 2).
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 extraction vault, by replacing it with the extraction vault as taught by Machledt, for the benefit of providing a flush to grade utilities connections vault which may be easily accessed for making utilities connections in a convenient working environment (Par. [0012]).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Wallace as modified by Machledt discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wallace further discloses that the plurality of sensors (36) detect at least one of a temperature level within the predetermined distance, smoke within the predetermined distance, and flame on the building (Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 3).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Wallace as modified by Machledt discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wallace further discloses that the plurality of sensors (36) control the fire deterrent dispenser device based on at least one of a location of the fire, a proximity of the fire, and a severity of the fire (Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 3).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Wallace as modified by Machledt discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wallace further discloses that the extraction device (76) uses at least one of a weighted block, a gas canister, and an air compressor to extract the at least one fire retardant from the fire retardant storage container (Col. 4 lines 59-67).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Wallace as modified by Machledt discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wallace further discloses that the plurality of sensors (36) comprises: at least one exterior heat sensor removably connected to at least a portion of an exterior of the building and configured to detect another temperature level based on another predetermined temperature level that indicates a fire near the building is imminent (Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 3 and Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Wallace as modified by Machledt discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Wallace further discloses that a fire resistant pipe (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of apertures (40/44), the fire resistant pipe disposed within at least a portion of the building to dispense the at least one fire retardant from the plurality of apertures in response to at least one of the plurality of sensors detecting the fire within the building (Col. 3 line 66 – Col. 4 line 3).
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752