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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to communication filed 03/02/2026. Claims 7-9 and 65 are amended. Claims 1-10, 33-37 and 61-65 are pending.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10, 33-37 and 61-65 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.
Independent claims 1, 33 and 61, recite the limitations “the interlock is configured to perform an operation on one or more peripheral system …” 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, and there is no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. 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.
Dependent claims inherit the rejections above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 33-34, 36-37 and 61-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a (1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 2021/0308507).
Claim 1, Johnson teaches a system for mitigating fire risks (abstract), the system comprising:
a. an external fire management system (EFMS) (Fig. 2, distributed fire suppression network 202);
b. a control system (Fig. 2, processor 201) in control communication with the EFMS and a GUI device (Fig. 2, user interface 205);
c. the control system comprising an operation control command plan for performing an operation plan (par. 51: The processor 201 may employ the asset map 203 and the sensor network 206 data to determine which assets to protect, how to provision fire-fighting resources, and which spray heads 108.1-108.N in the fire-suppression network 202 to activate); and,
d. an interlock, wherein the interlock is configured to perform an operation on one or more peripheral system associated with a structure protected by the EMFS (par. 27: Water sprayers, as disclosed herein, can include sprinklers, mist generators, and/or fog generators. Disclosed aspects can be configured to provide efficient provisioning of water resources for fighting wildfires by exploiting wind for distributing water mist to protect assets and/or suppress fires).
Claim 2, Johnson teaches wherein the control system is cloud-based (par. 49: processor 201 can be a functional aspect of the central processor 100, and may be performed by one or more CPUs, such as in a distributed-computing or Cloud-computing configuration).
Claim 4, Johnson teaches comprising a hydration plan (par. 27: Water sprayers, as disclosed herein, can include sprinklers, mist generators).
Claim 5, Johnson teaches comprising two or more of a hydration plan, a lockout plan, a low line pressure plan, and an adjacent structure based plan (par. 47: the spray heads 108.1-108.N are electronically controlled by the central processor 100 via the communication network 112, such as to activate specific ones or groups of the spray heads 108.1-108.N in response to one or more fire-fighting strategies that may be generated from sensor measurements, user inputs, asset locations, asset types, and/or external data sources. The spray heads 108.1-108.N may be electronically controlled by the central processor 100 to select physical parameters of the spray, such as droplet size, spray pattern, flow rate, spray direction, and/or spray elevation).
Claim 8, Johnson teaches wherein the interlock is configured to automatically perform the operation on the peripheral system upon activation of the EFMS (par. 22: The mist generators could be activated remotely, or triggered automatically when an approaching fire reaches detectors located around a protected area).
Claim 33, Johnson teaches an external fire management system (EFMS) for mitigating a fire risk for a structure associated with the EFMS (par. 47: the spray heads 108.1-108.N are electronically controlled by the central processor 100 via the communication network 112), the EFMS comprising:
a. a local controller (par. 60: this method can be performed locally by a processor at or near each sprayer);
b. the local controller configured for control communications with an emergency management control network and system (par. 32: the central processor may collect data from external sources, such as weather stations, other wide-area wildfire suppression systems, satellite images, weather forecasting services, etc. The data from external sources may include user input data. The central processor can generate control messages based on the fire-suppression strategy to operate the water distribution network and/or the spray head control systems);
c. the local controller configured for control communications with a control system (par. 42: communication network 112 can communicatively couple the central processor 100 to the spray heads 108.1-108.N … par. 51: which spray heads 108.1-108.N in the fire-suppression network 202 to activate. Communication from the central processor 100/201 to spray heads required local controller to receive the command and process the received command);
d. the control system comprising an operation control command plan for performing an operation plan (par. 32: The central processor can generate control messages based on the fire-suppression strategy to operate the water distribution network and/or the spray head control systems. Disclosed aspects can comprise methods for developing the fire-suppression strategy from the wind sensor data, and for controlling a network of sprayers in response to the fire-suppression strategy); and,
e. an interlock, wherein the interlock is configured to perform an operation on one or more peripheral system associated with a structure protected by the EMFS (par. 62: Then the selected sprayer(s) is (are) activated 423. This method may be performed by a processor located at a sensor or a sprayer, for example).
Claim 34, Johnson teaches wherein the control system is cloud-based (par. 49: processor 201 can be a functional aspect of the central processor 100, and may be performed by one or more CPUs, such as in a distributed-computing or Cloud-computing configuration).
Claim 36, Johnson teaches comprising a hydration plan (par. 27: Water sprayers, as disclosed herein, can include sprinklers, mist generators).
Claim 37, Johnson teaches comprising two or more of a hydration plan, a lockout plan, a low line pressure plan, and an adjacent structure based plan (par. 47: the spray heads 108.1-108.N are electronically controlled by the central processor 100 via the communication network 112, such as to activate specific ones or groups of the spray heads 108.1-108.N in response to one or more fire-fighting strategies that may be generated from sensor measurements, user inputs, asset locations, asset types, and/or external data sources. The spray heads 108.1-108.N may be electronically controlled by the central processor 100 to select physical parameters of the spray, such as droplet size, spray pattern, flow rate, spray direction, and/or spray elevation).
Claim 61, Johnson teaches a method of operating an external fire management system (EFMS) located at a structure (abstract, par. 43: the spray heads 108.1-108.N are located along a perimeter of an area that comprises assets 501.1-501.K to be protected);
wherein the EFMS is in control communication with a control system, the control system configured to receive information, send information, and evaluate information (par. 42: The central processor 100 is configured to activate specific ones of the spray heads 108.1-108.N in response to at least the wind direction measurements, which can be accomplished by controlling section valves (e.g., valves 106.1-106.M) in the water distribution system and/or controlling the spray heads 108.1-108.N … par. 61: FIG. 4B depicts a flow diagram in which wind-direction data is collected 411 from multiple wind-direction sensors distributed throughout a wide geographical area, and GIS data including a geographical asset map is input 412. The wind-direction and GIS data are processed to select 413 sprayers in a distributed fire-suppression network that are upwind of one or more assets to be protected, or upwind of a fire to be suppressed);
the method comprising:
a. the control system receiving an event information (par. 50: The processor 201 receives sensor data from a sensor network 206 that includes at least wind direction sensors 221, and may further include any of a set of sensors that includes wind speed sensors 222, temperature sensors 223, smoke sensors 224, flame sensors 225);
b. the control system activating an interlock (par. 51: The processor 201 can employ a geographical asset map 203, with reference to the geographical locations of the spray heads 108.1-108.N widely distributed in a fire-suppression network (e.g., distributed mist/fog/sprinkler network) 202, to develop a fire suppression strategy in response to at least wind direction sensor 221 data);
c. wherein the interlock performs an operation on a peripheral system associated with a structure protected by the EMFS (par. 51: The processor 201 may employ the asset map 203 and the sensor network 206 data to determine which assets to protect, how to provision fire-fighting resources, and which spray heads 108.1-108.N in the fire-suppression network 202 to activate.); and,
d. activating the EFMS (par. 51: spray is activated based on determined strategy fire suppression).
Claim 62, Johnson teaches wherein steps a) and c) occur simultaneously (par. 53: Since wind can shift the apparent source of a fire from its actual source, the distributed sensor network 206 can provide data for the processor 201 to enable real-time situational awareness of fire conditions, predict how the fire will spread, and respond with a fire-protection/fire-suppressant strategy that protects assets that are most at risk. The system simultaneously receive wind data and provide response in real-time, hence simultaneously performing the claimed steps).
Claim 63, Johnson teaches wherein step a) occurs before step and c) (Fig. 4A, step 401 before step 403).
Claim 64, Johnson teaches wherein step a) occurs after step c) (Fig. 4D, steps 432 occurs after step 431).
Claim 65, Johnson teaches further comprising determining a time period for steps a) and step c) and performing steps a) and c) based upon the determined time period (every executing instruction performed by a processor such as one that does processing in Johnson system has a finite, measurable execution time, known as an instruction cycle).
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) 3 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson.
Claim 3, Johnson does not explicitly teach wherein the control system is at least in part contained in local controller for the EFMS.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to the control system with the local controller, since it has been held that integrating parts/components without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim 35, Johnson does not teach wherein the control system is at least in part contained in the local controller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to the control system with the local controller, since it has been held that integrating parts/components without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Smith et al. (US 2016/0105644).
Claim 6, Johnson does not teach wherein the operation control command plan comprises a lockout.
In the field of endeavor, Smith teaches a system in which a user can provide disarming command which is interpreted as lockout command (par. 267).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Johnson’s system to include disarming command in which the sensors are not in an active sensing state as taught by Smith for the purpose of easy maintenance and operation on the system as needed.
Claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the lockout comprises a software component (Smith par. 267: the disarming of system includes software component).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks regarding support for means-plus-function for the limitation of “the control system comprising an operation control command plan for performing an operating plan” has been re-considered and the rejection regarding support for this limitation has been withdrawn in this response.
However, Applicant’s remarks regarding support for means-plus-function for the limitation “an interlock, wherein the interlock is configured to perform an operation on one or more peripheral system associated with a structure protected by the EMFS” remained unpersuasive. Upon further reconsideration of paragraphs 52, 54, 187, 192, and 224-233 also failed to support structure for performing the recited function of the interlock. There need to be a known structure shown that perform the function associated with the interlock.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., peripheral systems are separate and apart from the EFMS, and they include HVAC) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For at least the above reasons, Examiner summits the claims are not patentable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 An T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 5712723059. 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.
/AN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights