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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on September 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected with traverse Group I in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
The requirement was still deemed proper and was therefore made FINAL in the Office action mailed on June 2, 2026.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an autonomous vehicle, does not reasonably provide enablement for a non-autonomous vehicle. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification discloses that “the field of the disclosure relates generally to autonomous vehicles and, more specifically, to systems and methods for using sensor data to detect and suppress fires in the trailer of an autonomous vehicle.” See the Technical Field section of the Specification. The Summary of the Invention and the Detailed Description sections of the Specification repeatedly discloses detecting and suppressing fires in a trailer of an autonomous vehicle. The claims, as amended, recite a system for detecting and suppressing fires in a trailer of a vehicle. The claims encompass trailers of autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles. The specification is limited to autonomous vehicles.
Claims 1-10 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 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk, Sr. (8,973,670) in view of Porterfield et al. (2024/0198152).
Enk, Sr. discloses a system for detecting and suppressing fires in a trailer of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a fire detection system comprising one or more sensors 22 positioned within the trailer of the vehicle;
a fire suppression system comprising a suppression unit 14, 16, 24 and a connection assembly 18 oriented to connect the suppression unit to the trailer of the vehicle, wherein the suppression unit contains one or more fire-extinguishing substances (components in tanks 14, 16);
a drive system (drive train of the tractor; see figure 8) configured to move the vehicle; and
a processing system, the processing system including a processor (col. 8, l. 24) and a memory device (col. 8, l. 24) , the memory device storing instructions (inherent) that when executed cause the processor to:
receive, from the one or more sensors, at least one sensor signal (signal indicative of smoke/heat) representing one or more fire-related conditions (condition of smoke/heat) within the trailer of the vehicle;
identify one or more fire-indicative conditions (condition of smoke/heat) within the trailer of the vehicle based on the one or more fire-related conditions;
control the drive system to move the vehicle into a fire-suppression position (through the intervention of a drive to pull over the tractor trailer; monitoring device and display device allow for indicating the condition of the system; col. 13, ll. 32-38; it is a natural and inherent reaction of the drive to pull over when a fire in the trailer has been detected as evidenced by Porterfield et al., paragraph 0052) and
release the one or more fire-extinguishing substances from the suppression unit through the connection assembly into the trailer of the vehicle (when valve 128 is activated).
Enk, Sr. discloses the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the suppression unit being positioned in a cab of the vehicle. In Enk, Sr., the suppression unit is positioned in the trailer. See figure 8. Providing/moving the suppression unit 14, 16, 24 in/into the cab is a mere relocation/rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04.VI.C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have located the suppression unit in the cab in the device of Enk, Sr. to isolate the suppression unit from trailer fire to improve the reliability of the suppression unit.
Enk, Sr. further discloses:
wherein the fire suppression system further comprises a regulator 26 to selectively release the one or more fire-extinguishing substances from the suppression unit;
wherein the suppression unit comprises one or more tanks 12, 14, each of the one or more tanks storing one of the one or more fire-extinguishing substances;
wherein the one or more fire-extinguishing substances selectively released by the regulator is based on the one or more fire-indicative conditions identified within the trailer of the vehicle;
wherein the connection assembly of the fire suppression system comprises a first end (upstream end) oriented to receive the one or more fire-extinguishing substances from the suppression unit and a second end comprising a nozzle 20a,b,c oriented to discharge the one or more fire-extinguishing substances into the trailer of the vehicle;
wherein the one or more sensors of the fire detection system are coupled to the nozzle of the second end of the connection assembly (operatively coupled via valve 128);
wherein the connection assembly is oriented through a port (inherent) of the trailer of the vehicle to position the nozzle of the second end of the connection assembly within the trailer (the port is inherent in routing the pipe 18 from the cab into the trailer);
wherein the one or more fire-related conditions comprise at least one of a carbon dioxide amount, a carbon monoxide amount, a chemical amount, a smoke amount (from smoke detector 22), and a temperature (from heat detector 22);
wherein the one or more fire-indicative conditions are based on at least one of a carbon dioxide threshold amount, a carbon monoxide threshold amount, a chemical threshold amount, a smoke threshold amount (inherent in smoke detector 22 indicating a fire), and a threshold temperature (inherent in heat detector 22 indicating a fire);
wherein the fire-suppression position comprises the vehicle being stopped in a road shoulder (inherent when pulling over a vehicle) or a road median.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 7-9 of copending Application No. 18/398,655 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application disclose the currently claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejections.
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 CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
