DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I drawn to claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/2026.
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 2-5 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 2 recites both “the base portion is formed in a cylindrical shape, pouch shape, pad shape, or tape shape” and “base portion is formed in a plane film shape so that the plurality of capsules is arranged in a plane”. It is unclear whether plane film shape is part of the list of alternative shapes including cylindrical, pouch, pad or tape shaped, or is meant to further limit the shape and the base portion is meant to be both cylindrical, pouch, pad, or tape shaped as well as within a plane with a plane film shape, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt 3,782,475.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Schmidt teaches a fire extinguishing device (figure1) having a fire extinguishing agent (3) and a fire extinguishing capsule (1 and 3 form voids holding agent 3), the fire extinguishing device comprising: a base portion having an internal space in a form of a capsule (base portions 1 and 2 form capsules that contain 3); and a fire extinguishing agent located inside the base portion and configured to extinguish a flame (3 is shown within base defined by 1 and 2 in figure 10, wherein the base portion is formed to be in contact with a target object (blanket is thrown onto object to be extinguished, Col. 7, ll. 61-68), wherein the fire extinguishing agent vaporizes at a determined temperature or higher according to heat generation or ignition of the base portion (3 comprises baking soda, Col. 4, ll. 52-58, which will decompose and form carbon dioxide and water vapor when heated with a flame), wherein the base portion is formed by mixing polymer and silicone or comprises a polymer layer (fiberglass of 1, which comprises glass fibers and a polymer matrix, Col. 4, ll. 52-58) and a silicone layer configured to coat an outer surface of the polymer layer (silicone rubber sprayed onto fiberglass, Col. 4, ll. 58-64) and is configured to expand and rupture at the determined temperature due to vaporization of the fire extinguishing agent (polyethylene sheet 2 expands and ruptures with fire, Col. 5, ll. 28-30, where it is not claimed that the portion of the base portion coated with silicone is the portion that ruptures when exposed to a fire), wherein a contact area between the base portion and the target object increases as the base portion expands (rupturing of 2 surrounding each extinguishing agent 3 will necessarily increase the exposure of both side of 2, inside and outside, to target being extinguished), and wherein the base portion is configured to, in a case of a fire or explosion of the target object, be destroyed together (rupture of 2, abstract) and the fire extinguishing agent is dispersed in a direction of the target object (release of baking soda onto target after rupture of sheet, Col. 11, ll. 58-61).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Schmidt teaches the base portion is formed in a cylindrical shape, pouch shape, pad shape, or tape shape (tape shown of 1 and 3 shown in figure 1, where the fire blanket extends along a plane), wherein the base portion comprises: a plurality of capsules (capsules holding each extinguishing agent 3 as shown in figure 1); and a skirt extending flat from the capsules and connecting the capsules (1 acts as a skirt extending between all capsules in figure 1), and wherein the base portion is formed in a plane film shape so that the plurality of capsules is arranged in a plane (all capsules containing 3 in figure 1 extend along a single plane), and configured to, when the target object reaches the determined temperature or higher due to external ignition or heat generation, expand due to the fire extinguishing agent (release of baking soda onto target after rupture of sheet, Col. 11, ll. 58-61) and block the target object from air (smother fire, Col. 3, ll. 43-48).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Schmidt teaches the capsules protrude from the skirt that is formed flat (capsules comprising 3 protrude from 1 as shown in figure 1), so that the capsules are in contact with the target object (3 will contact object blanket is thrown upon, Col. 5, ll. 16-18), the skirt is placed to be spaced apart from the target object, and a space is formed between the target object and the skirt (a space will be formed between 1 and the target object prior to all capsules rupturing to extinguish the fire, because of the gaps shown between sheets 2 surrounding each capsule in figure 1).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kim 2020/0197734.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Schmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Schmidt does not teach a determined expansion space is formed inside the skirt and the fire extinguishing agent, an expansion agent, or an additional fire extinguishing agent that vaporizes or expands at the determined temperature is provided in the expansion space, and when the capsules or the skirt reaches the determined temperature due to ignition or heat generation of the target object, the fire extinguishing agent, the expansion agent, or the additional fire extinguishing agent vaporizes or expands and, accordingly, the capsules or the skirt expands to be in contact with the target object. Kim teaches a fire extinguishing device (400) comprising a determined expansion space (two spaces within 320 divided by 330) is formed inside the fire extinguishing agent (310), an expansion agent, or an additional fire extinguishing agent (first and second 311 and 312 fire extinguishing agents) that vaporizes or expands at the determined temperature is provided in the expansion space (paragraph [0095]), and when the capsules or the skirt reaches the determined temperature due to ignition or heat generation of the target object, the fire extinguishing agent, the expansion agent, or the additional fire extinguishing agent vaporizes or expands (paragraph [0095]) and, accordingly, the capsules expand to be in contact with the target object (paragraph [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to divide the capsule of Schmidt into two spaces with two different fire extinguishing agents, as taught by Kim, in order to use a mixture of solid and gas materials for extinguishing a fire (paragraphs [0094]-[0095]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhou CN 113134196 A.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Schmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Schmidt does not teach the base portion comprises a trigger member configured to promote vaporization of the fire extinguishing agent, and the trigger member is configured to, in a case of ignition or heat generation of the target object, expand the capsules simultaneously at the determined temperature or higher. Zhou teaches a fire extinguishing device (patch as shown in its entirety in figure 1) comprising a base portion (10) comprising a trigger member (electric initiator, paragraph [0030]) configured to promote vaporization of the fire extinguishing agent (ignites the extinguishing unit, paragraph [0030]), and the trigger member is configured to, in a case of ignition or heat generation of the target object (fire detector, paragraph [0030]), expand the capsules simultaneously at the determined temperature or higher (controller starts initiator for capsules 20 when a high temperature is detected, paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the initiation system of Zhou through the base to each extinguishing capsule of Schmidt, in order to initiate extinguishing of a fire when an abnormal
temperature signal is detected (paragraph [0031]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 2021/0060369 in view of Ito JP 2000107319 A.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Kim teaches a fire extinguishing device (10) having a fire extinguishing agent (110) and a fire extinguishing capsule (111a), the fire extinguishing device comprising: a base portion (111b) comprising a space inside (space within 111 comprising 110); and a fire extinguishing agent (110), wherein the fire extinguishing agent comprises: a fire extinguishing substance (liquid or powder, paragraph [0031]) configured to extinguish a target object in a case of ignition of the target object (abstract). However, Kim does not teach a neutralizing substance configured to neutralize acid gas generated due to the ignition of the target object. Ito teaches using neutralizer with a fire extinguishing chemical to neutralize acid gas produced in a fire (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the neutralizer of Ito in the fire extinguishing agent of Kim, in order to neutralize hydrogen halide in a fire to render it harmless (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, 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: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 7, that the neutralizing substance is provided in the partitioned space inside the base portion separately from the fire extinguishing substance. The closest prior art of Ito JP 2000107319 A describes a neutralizer mixed with a fire extinguishing substance, not in a separate partition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752