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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden in examining all inventions.. This is not found persuasive because the examiner notes that since the independent claims of each invention is distinct as laid out in the restriction requirement and classified in different areas, requiring different searches, a serious burden inherently exists in examining all three inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/15/2025.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
The term “safest for surrounding traffic,” of claim 7 is unclear. The specification does not define what is safest for surrounding traffic and what one person thinks is safest for surrounding traffic is not always what another person thinks is safest or may not be the safest. This term is ambiguous.
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) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk, Sr. (8,973,670) in view of Spencer et al. (2025/0269214)
Regarding claim 1 Enk, Sr. shows a system (10,) for detecting and suppressing fires in a trailer of an autonomous vehicle (fig 8), the system comprising: a pod assembly (fig 4, 5) comprising a fire detection system (22) and a fire suppression system (20, 14, 16), wherein the fire detection system comprises one or more sensors (22), and wherein the fire suppression system comprises a suppression unit (14, 16) containing one or more fire-extinguishing substances and a dispensing assembly (20); and a processing system (58, the control panel includes a processor the processing system including a processor and a memory device (col 8, lines 23-29), the memory device storing instructions that when executed cause the processor to (this the memory device of the processor has to store instructions for the system to function): receive, from the one or more sensors, at least one sensor signal representing one or more fire-related conditions within the trailer (this is inherent to the processor and the sensor 22, sensor 22 is a heat/smoke sensor); 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 if a fire is detected); receive, from the one or more sensors, at least one sensor signal representing the one or more fire-indicative conditions (this will occur if the fire is detected by the sensor); release the one or more fire-extinguishing substances from the suppression unit to the dispensing assembly (col 10, lines 43-53) ; and discharge the one or more fire-extinguishing substances from the dispensing assembly into the trailer of the autonomous vehicle (this will occur when the fire extinguisher is activated).
But fails to disclose that the pod assembly being positioned in the trailer of the autonomous vehicle
While Enk, Sr. does teach using the system in a trailer, they do not teach a trailer of an autonomous vehicle.
Spenser et al. teaches a fire extinguishing system for an autonomous vehicle [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to put the system of Enk, Sr. in a trailer of an autonomous vehicle, in order to detect a fire automatically in a trailer of vehicle that is driven automatically.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the pod assembly is removeable from the trailer of the autonomous vehicle (brackets 100 allow for it to be removed) .
Regarding claim 3, wherein the suppression unit of the fire suppression system is removeable from the trailer of the autonomous vehicle (brackets 100 allow for it to be removed).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination fails to show wherein the pod assembly is mounted onto a top interior surface of the trailer of the autonomous vehicle.
However, fig 5 of Enk, Sr. shows the pod mounted to the top, interior surface of an enclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to put the pod on the top interior surface of the trailer, in order to better distribute the fire suppressing material over the fire.
Regarding claim 5, 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 (22 is a heat/smoke sensor).
Regarding claim 6, 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 (a heat/smoke sensor inherently bases or more fire-indicative conditions on a smoke threshold and/or a heat threshold).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the one or more fire-extinguishing substances comprises at least one of a compressible fluid, a foam (abstract Enk), and a powder.
Regarding claim 9, the pod assembly further comprises a power source (battery 56) not coupled to the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, wherein the one or more fire-extinguishing substances contained in the suppression unit of the fire suppression system are based on one or more contents stored in the trailer of the autonomous vehicle (the fire extinguishing substances are chosen based on the fact that cargo is stored in the trailer. If noting was in the trailer, no fire suppression would be needed).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk, Sr. (8,973,670) as modified by Spencer et al. (2025/0269214) above, further in view of Stein (DE 10 2022 133 739 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Enk, Sr.as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1 but fails to disclose that the system further comprising a drive system configured to move the autonomous vehicle.
Enk, Sr. as modified above does teach a processor and an inherent controller of the autonomous vehicle, but does not teach that they are the same processor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to make the processor of Enk Sr. as modified able the same as the processor for the autonomous vehicle in order to have the entire autonomous vehicle and fire suppressant system communicate between each other.
The above combination still fails to disclose wherein the processor is further caused to control the drive system to move the autonomous vehicle into a fire-suppression position based on the one or more fire-indicative conditions, and wherein the fire-suppression position comprises the autonomous vehicle being stopped in or proximate to one of a road shoulder and a road lane safest for surrounding traffic.
Stein teaches moving an autonomous vehicle to the shoulder of a road when a fore is detected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to program the autonomous vehicle of the above combination to move the autonomous vehicle into a fire-suppression position based on the one or more fire-indicative conditions, and wherein the fire-suppression position comprises the autonomous vehicle being stopped in or proximate to one of a road shoulder for safety reasons.
Conclusion
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 1/15/2026