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 .
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk, Sr. (8,973,670) in view of Stein (DE 10 2022 133 739 A1) and Wartes (3,856,087)
Regarding claim 1, Enk, Sr,. shows a system for detecting and suppressing fires in a trailer of an autonomous vehicle, the system comprising: a fire detection system comprising a sensor (22) positioned within the trailer of a vehicle; a fire suppression system comprising a suppression unit (10”, 16, 14, 58), a regulator (42, 50) communicatively coupled to the suppression unit, a dispensing assembly (50, 20c) positioned in the trailer of the autonomous vehicle, and a connection assembly (pipes) oriented to connect the regulator to the dispensing assembly, wherein the suppression unit includes a plurality of tanks (14, 16), each of the plurality of tanks containing a fire-extinguishing substance for selective release from the suppression unit by the regulator; a drive system (inherent to the truck) configured to move the vehicle; and a processing system (58), the processing system including a processor and a memory device (col 8, line 24), the memory device storing instructions that when executed cause the processor to: receive, from the plurality of sensors, at least one sensor signal representing one or more fire-related conditions within the trailer of the autonomous vehicle )this is how a sensor works); identify one or more fire-indicative conditions within the trailer of the autonomous vehicle based on the one or more fire-related conditions (this will occur when a fire is present); release one or more fire-extinguishing substances from one or more of the plurality of tanks of the suppression unit to be conveyed through the connection assembly to the dispensing assembly (the controller will do this to extinguish the fire), wherein the one or more fire-extinguishing substances are selectively released based on the one or more fire-related conditions; and convey the one or more fire-extinguishing substances from the dispensing assembly into the trailer of the vehicle (this is how Enk works),
But fails to disclose that the vehicle is autonomous and that the processor controls the drive system to move the autonomous vehicle into a fire-suppression position when a fire is detected.
However Stein shows an autonomous vehicle towing a trailer (fig 1, the control system and drive system of the autonomous vehicle in positioned in a cab of the autonomous vehicle (inherent to the autonomous vehicle) and the processor controls the drive system to move the autonomous vehicle into a fire-suppression position when a fire is detected (paragraph 15 of the translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use the autonomous vehicle of Stein instead of the vehicle of Enk, Sr. in order to drive the vehicle without the need of a human and to move the vehicle to the side of the road automatically in the event of a fire as taught by Stein.
The above combination fails to disclose that the fire suppression unit and the regulator are positioned in a cab of the vehicle and the connection assembly is configured to convey the fire-extinguishing substance from the cab to the trailer
Wartes teaches a vehicle fire suppression system where the suppression unit (14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4) is remote from the dispensing assembly (16). The suppression unit located being in one vehicle and the dispensing assembly located in another (fig), a connection assembly (the connection between the two vehicles) oriented to connect the suppression unit to the dispensing assembly
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to locate the suppression unit, including the regulator (since the regulator is part of the suppression unit in Enk), in the cab of the autonomous vehicle, and the dispensing assembly located in the trailer, with a connection assembly added to pipe 18 that connects the suppression unit to the dispensing assembly as taught by Wartes. This modification would free up more cargo space in the trailer.
Lastly, the above combination fails to disclose more than one sensors.
Enk, Sr. Jr teaches multiple sensors in its embodiment of 10’ (col 12, lines 4-53)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use more than one heat/smoke sensor to increase the sensitivity of the sensing system.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the dispensing assembly comprises a plurality of nozzles spaced along a top surface of the trailer of the autonomous vehicle to convey the one or more fire-extinguishing substances throughout the trailer (fig 8 Enk).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the connection assembly (Wartes) of the fire suppression system comprises a first end oriented to receive the one or more fire-extinguishing substances from the regulator and a second end oriented to convey the one or more fire-extinguishing substances into the dispensing assembly (Wartes).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the second end of the connection assembly is oriented through a port (Wartes, fig) of the trailer of the autonomous vehicle to convey the one or more fire-extinguishing substances into the dispensing assembly.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the plurality of sensors of the fire detection system are coupled to the dispensing assembly within the trailer of the autonomous vehicle (they are coupled by the roof of the trailer, Fig 8, Enk).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the plurality of sensors are spaced along the dispensing assembly proximate a top surface of the trailer of the autonomous vehicle to detect one or more fire-related conditions throughout the trailer (fig 8, Enk).
Regarding claim 7, 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, and a temperature (the sensor 22 of Enk is a heat/smoke sensor).
Regarding claim 8, 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, and a threshold temperature (the sensor 22 of Enk is a heat/smoke sensor).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the fire-suppression position comprises the autonomous vehicle being stopped in or proximate to a road shoulder (this is taught by Stein).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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.
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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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 (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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 6/3/2026
Prosecution Insights