DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on December 2, 2025 is acknowledged. One page of amended drawings, one page of amended abstract, and five pages of amended claims were received on 12/2/2025. The drawings and abstract have been amended such that they are no longer objected to.
Claims 1 and 7-8 have been amended. Claims 10-20, which were previously withdrawn from consideration as noted below, have been cancelled. Claims 21-31 are newly presented. Claims 22-31 are withdrawn from consideration as noted below.
The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the non-final rejection mailed 9/3/2025. Claims 5 and 8 are now objected to as noted below. Claims 1-2, 4, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as noted below and Claims 3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the portable fire suppression device of Invention Group I and Bumper Species A in the reply filed on 8/1/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 and 21 are drawn to the elected inventions and species.
Claim 10, which is now cancelled, was withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 11-20, which are now cancelled, were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 22-31, which are newly presented and do not depend from any claims of the elected invention group, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 5 Line 3, “an inner volume of the cylinder” should be revised to “the inner volume of the cylinder” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 8 Line 4, “the opposite end of the rubber bumper” should be revised to “the opposite end” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,019,584 to Allmendinger (“Allmendinger”).
As to Claim 1, Allmendinger discloses a portable fire suppression device (See #10 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a cylinder (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 2, the cylinder is made up of #13 along with #16 and has lug #36) configured to store and discharge a quantity of fire suppressant agent in an inner volume (See Fig. 2 and Col. 4 Lines 1-20. Based on how #13 and #16 are arranged, #13 and #16 of the cylinder are both configured to store some amount of fire suppression fluid that travels through #27 downstream of #30, and fluid is discharged via #35), the cylinder comprising an outlet for expelling the fire suppressant agent from the cylinder (See #35 in Fig. 3 and See Col. 4 Lines 15-20), the cylinder including a bottom wall (See Annotated Fig. 1, the bottom wall of the cylinder is a lower surface on #13) and a sidewall extending from the bottom wall (See Annotated Fig. 1, the sidewall is made up of all exterior side surfaces on #13 and #16), the bottom wall and the sidewall at least partially defining the inner volume (See Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 2); and
a handle assembly (#37 and #39) comprising:
a handle (#37) comprising a grasping portion for grasping with a user's hand (See Annotated Fig. 2 and See Col. 3 Lines 35-50 disclosing hand control, the grasping portion is a portion of #37 that is capable of being grasped with a user’s hand) and a connection portion (See Annotated Fig. 2, the connection portion is a portion of #37 that connects to #31 and #36), the connection portion defining a gap (See Annotated Fig. 3, the gap is a space between ends of the connection portion) configured to receive and attach to a lug of the cylinder (#36, See Fig. 2 showing #36 resting on #16), the lug positioned on the sidewall (See Annotated Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 3, the lug is positioned on a part of the sidewall that is on #16) the handle including a free end located opposite the connection portion (See Annotated Fig. 2); and
a resilient bumper (#39, which is resilient to some amount of force and is an external part of #10 such that it can act as a bumper) positioned within an opening of the lug (See Annotated Fig. 2, Annotated Fig.3, and See Col. 5 Lines 9-12) the resilient bumper positioned between the handle and the lug of the cylinder (See Figs. 2-3 and Col. 5 Lines 9-12) and configured to absorb vibration and limit movement of the free end relative to the cylinder (See Annotated Fig. 2 and See Col. 5 Lines 58-63. The bumper #39 prevents full rotation of #20 and thus limits movement of the free end of #37. The bumper #39 is secured with #20 such that it can absorb vibration of #20.).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger as applied to Claim 1 above, Allmendinger further discloses the portable fire suppression device comprising a pin (#38) configured to pivotally attach the handle to the lug of the cylinder (See Figs. 1-3 and See Col. 4 Lines 24-30), the handle configured to pivot relative to the resilient bumper and the cylinder a limited angular amount (See Figs. 1-3 and See Col. 5 Lines 58-63).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger as applied to Claim 2 above, Allmendinger further discloses wherein the pin extends through a plurality of openings of the lug (#45, See Fig. 3), a bore of the resilient bumper (#46, See Fig. 3), and a plurality of openings of the connection portion of the handle (#52, See Fig. 3).
As to Claim 21, in reference to the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger as applied to Claim 1 above, Allmendinger further discloses wherein the portable fire suppression device further includes a lid (#31, which is a covering structure that is equivalent to a lid that covers #16) configured to couple with the cylinder at an end of the cylinder opposite the bottom wall (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 2), the lug configured to remain on the sidewall when the lid is removed from the cylinder (See Annotated Fig. 2, if #31 is removed from the cylinder by dissembling #10, the lug #36 can remain on #16 of the cylinder. Thus, the lug is arranged such that it is configured to remain on the sidewall when #31 is removed from #16 of the cylinder).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allmendinger in view of US PGPUB 2016/0167074 A1 to Beckerman (“Beckerman”).
Regarding Claim 3, in reference to the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger as applied to Claim 2 above, Allmendinger does not specifically disclose wherein the limited angular amount is 15 degrees (See Figs. 1-3. It appears that the limited angular amount is some acute angle, however a specific angle is not disclosed).
However, Beckerman discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Paragraph 0001), a portable device (See #1 in Fig. 1) comprising a handle (#20) that is configured to pivot relative to a cylinder (#10) a limited angular amount that is 15 degrees (See Paragraph 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger as applied to Claim 2 above such that the limited angular amount is 15 degrees, as taught by Beckerman, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the portable fire suppression device to be operated with reduced hand strength to dispense fluid (See Beckerman Paragraph 0051).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allmendinger in view of WO-2011123060-A1 to Tan (“Tan”).
Regarding Claim 5, in reference to the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger as applied to Claim 1 above, Allmendinger does not specifically disclose the portable fire suppression device further comprising:
an external cartridge coupled with the cylinder, the external cartridge configured to store a pressurized gas and fluidly couple with an inner volume of the cylinder to discharge the fire suppressant agent from the cylinder (See Figs. 1-2, no additional cartridge is coupled to the cylinder).
However, Tan discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Page 1 Lines 5-6), a portable fire suppression device (See Fig. 1B) comprising an external cartridge (#5) coupled with a cylinder (#6), the external cartridge configured to store a pressurized gas (See Page 16 Lines 1-5) and fluidly couple with an inner volume of the cylinder to discharge fire suppressant agent from the cylinder (See Page 16 Lines 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger as applied to Claim 1 above to further comprise the external cartridge of Tan coupled with the cylinder of Allmendinger such that the external cartridge of Tan is configured to store a pressurized gas and fluidly couple with an inner volume of the cylinder of Allmendinger to discharge the fire suppressant agent from the cylinder, since doing so would yield the predictable result of assisting in propelling fire suppressant agent (See Tan Page 16 Lines 1-10) such that the fire suppressant agent can travel a further distance to a target fire being extinguished.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allmendinger in view of US Patent 4,176,794 to Allenbaugh Jr. (“Allenbaugh”).
Regarding Claim 6, in reference to the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger as applied to Claim 1 above, Allmendinger does not specifically disclose wherein the resilient bumper is a rubber bumper (See Col. 5 Lines 9-20. Specific materials of #39 are not disclosed).
However, Allenbaugh discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid dispensing (See Col. 1 Lines 5-10), a portable fire suppression device comprising a resilient bumper that is a rubber bumper (See Col. 1 Lines 10-20 disclosing a nozzle having a rubber bumper).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice per In re Lenshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger as applied to Claim 1 above such that the resilient bumper is a rubber bumper, as taught by Allenbaugh, since doing so would utilize a known material suitable for use in the portable fire suppression device to yield the predictable result of protecting the portable fire suppression device from damage (See Allenbaugh Col. 1 Lines 15-20).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger in view of Allenbaugh as applied to Claim 6 above, Allmendinger further discloses wherein the rubber bumper comprises:
a main portion (See Annotated Fig. 5a, the main portion includes #48 and does not include the protrusion) defining a cylinder facing end (See Annotated Fig. 5a, the cylinder facing end is on a front half of the main portion) and an opposite end (See Annotated Fig. 5a, the opposite end is a rear half of the main portion);
a protrusion extending downwards from the main portion at the cylinder facing end (See Annotated Fig. 5a, the protrusion extends down from the main portion adjacent to the cylinder facing end); and
an opening (#46) extending through the main portion (See Fig. 3 and Col. 5 Lines 12-14), the opening configured to receive a pin (#38) configured to pivotally attach the handle to the lug of the cylinder (See Figs. 2-3), the handle configured to pivot relative to the resilient bumper and the cylinder a limited angular amount (See Figs. 1-3 and See Col. 5 Lines 58-63);
wherein the main portion and the protrusion cooperatively define a surface at the cylinder facing end (See Annotated Fig. 5a), the surface configured to abut the cylinder (See Figs. 2-3, the surface abuts #16 of the cylinder).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger in view of Allenbaugh as applied to Claim 7 above, Allmendinger further discloses wherein the rubber bumper is received within the lug and the lug is received within the gap of the connection portion of the handle (See Fig. 2, Annotated Fig. 3, and Col. 5 Lines 9-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (Claim 7), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in dependent Claim 8: “wherein a portion of the curved rear surface is configured to abut the opposite end of the rubber bumper at a particular angular position of the handle relative to the cylinder”.
Regarding Claim 8, in reference to the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger in view of Allenbaugh as applied to Claim 7 above, Allmendinger further discloses wherein the connection portion of the handle comprises a curved rear surface within the gap, the opposite end proximate the curved rear surface (See Annotated Fig. 2). However, Allmendinger does not disclose wherein a portion of the curved rear surface is configured to abut the opposite end of the rubber bumper at a particular angular position of the handle relative to the cylinder as required by Claim 8 (See Annotated Fig. 2, the curved rear surface does not touch #39, rather #39 touches #36 as shown in Fig. 3 and disclosed in Col. 5 Lines 9-15). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger in view of Allenbaugh as applied to Claim 7 above such that a portion of the curved rear surface is configured to abut the opposite end of the rubber bumper at a particular angular position of the handle relative to the cylinder as required by Claim 8, as there is no apparent benefit to making such a modification and making such a modification would change the overall configuration and operability of the portable fire suppression device of Allmendinger in view of Allenbaugh as applied to Claim 7 above. Furthermore, there is no prior teaching in Allmendinger, Allenbaugh, or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allmendinger, applicant argues that Allmendinger does not disclose “a cylinder configured to store and discharge a quantity of fire suppressant agent in an inner volume, the cylinder comprising an outlet for expelling the fire suppressant agent from the cylinder, the cylinder including a bottom wall and a sidewall extending from the bottom wall, the bottom wall and the sidewall at least partially defining the inner volume” and “a handle comprising a grasping portion for grasping with a user's hand and a connection portion, the connection portion defining a gap configured to receive and attach to a lug of the cylinder, the lug positioned on the sidewall, the handle including a free end located opposite the connection portion" as now recited in amended Claim 1. Applicant argues that Allmendinger fails to disclose a lug positioned on the sidewall of the cylinder, and that fixed handle #36 of Allmendinger that is fixed to #16 does not read on the limitations of Claim 1.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As noted above, Allmendinger discloses an assembly that is equivalent to a cylinder as shown Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 2 that is made up of component #13 along with component #16, and has a lug component #36. The component #36 can be considered equivalent to a lug since it is a projecting handle. The lug #36 of Allmendinger is positioned on a portion of the sidewall of the cylinder on #16 of the cylinder as shown in Annotated Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 2. Therefore, the disclosure of Allmendinger reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations of Claim 1, and Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
586
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
592
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
648
720
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 13, 2026