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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18417780 filed 1/19/2024. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “the protection targets” (last line) is believed to be in error for - - the plurality of protection targets - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first fire extinguishing part that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target” and “a second fire extinguishing part that sprays water to an evacuation route” in claim 1,
“a third fire extinguishing part that sprays water to the protection target” in claim 5,
“a first detection unit for activating the first fire extinguishing part” and “a third detection unit for activating the third fire extinguishing part” in claim 7,
“a first detection unit for activating the first fire extinguishing part” in claim 8,
“a first fire extinguishing part that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target” and “a second fire extinguishing part that sprays water to an evacuation route” in claim 11,
“a first fire extinguishing part that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target,” “a second fire extinguishing part that sprays water to an evacuation route,” and “a third fire extinguishing part that sprays water to the protection target” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, the recitation “a distance from the protection target to first detection unit… is shorter than a distance from the protection target to a third detection unit” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the protection target is recited, and, additionally, it is unclear whether the distances are positively recited or whether the fire extinguishing system is intended to be set up to accommodate the recited distances relative to the protection target.
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 1-2, 4, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sprakel 20100132963.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Sprakel teaches a fire extinguishing system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first fire extinguishing part (6) that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target (6 capable of supplying a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target, such as an engine; para. [0018]); and
a second fire extinguishing part (one of fog nozzles 4) that sprays water to an evacuation route (capable of providing a spray of water, i.e. fog, to an evacuation route, such as in a passenger compartment; paras. [0002], [0017]). Note that the claim does not positively recite the fire extinguishing agent or the water and is not interpreted as positively reciting either the protection target or the evacuation route, though Sprakel does teach all of these aspects of the claim, as discussed above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Sprakel further teaches the fire extinguishing agent includes a gas, powders, or a foam fire extinguishing chemical (gas; para. [0014]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Sprakel further teaches the second fire extinguishing part includes a plurality of second fire extinguishing units (plurality of fog nozzles 4) disposed along the evacuation route (in passenger compartment 16), and wherein the fire extinguishing agent is not supplied to the evacuation route (propellant gas 8, which is the fire extinguishing agent for compartment 18, is intentionally not supplied via fog nozzles 4; para. [0017]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Sprakel further teaches a shielding member (there is no recited structure for the shielding member, and as such, the ceiling or wall of the passenger compartment 16 to which the first detection unit 14 is nearest to is interpreted as the “shielding member” as it shields the first detection unit from elements outside the compartment 18) is provided above a first detection unit (14; para. [0018]) for activating the first fire extinguishing part.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akihiko JP 2007252636 A (copy of both original document and English translation attached).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Akihiko teaches a fire extinguishing system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first fire extinguishing part (set of nozzles 12 associated with left-most valve 11 in Fig. 1) that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target (agent from 8 supplied to protection target 2); and
a second fire extinguishing part (one of nozzles 12 associated with right-most valve 11 in Fig. 1) that sprays water to an evacuation route (water in 6, see p. 3, 1st full paragraph of English translation sprayed at/around right-most rack 2, which could be an evacuation route for personnel within warehouse 1). Note that the claim does not positively recite the fire extinguishing agent or the water and is not interpreted as positively reciting either the protection target or the evacuation route, though Akihiko does teach all of these aspects of the claim, as discussed above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Akihiko further teaches the fire extinguishing agent includes a gas, powders, or a foam fire extinguishing chemical (foam chemical from tank 8; see p. 3, 1st full paragraph of English translation).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Akihiko further teaches the first fire extinguishing part has a plurality of first fire extinguishing units (interpreted as plurality of nozzles 12 with respective supply lines from valve 11), wherein there are a plurality of protection targets (two racks 2 on the left side of the warehouse 1 in Fig. 1), and wherein at least one first fire extinguishing unit is provided corresponding to each of the protection targets (left-side nozzle 12 with supply line to left-most valve 11 corresponds to left-most rack 2 while right-side nozzle 12 with supply line to left-most valve 11 corresponds to middle rack 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Akihiko further teaches a third fire extinguishing part (left-side nozzle 12 that is supplied via middle valve 11) that sprays water to the protection target, and wherein the third fire extinguishing part sprays water after starting supply of the fire extinguishing agent by the first fire extinguishing part (the third fire extinguishing part could be operated to spray water from 6 after starting supply of fire extinguishing agent to the first fire extinguishing part discussed for claim 1 above via the operation of middle valve 11).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Akihiko further teaches a distance from the protection target to a first detection unit for activating the first fire extinguishing part is shorter than a distance from the protection target to a third detection unit for activating the third fire extinguishing part (distance from left-most rack 2 to left-most detection unit 3, which is for activating the first fire extinguishing part discussed for claim 1 above, is shorter than the distance from the left-most rack 2 to middle detection unit 3, which is for activating the third fire extinguishing part). Note rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Akihiko further teaches a shielding member is provided above a first detection unit for activating the first fire extinguishing part (there is no structure recited for the shielding member, and therefore the shielding member is interpreted as the ceiling of the warehouse 1, below which the right-most detection unit 3 is located for activating the first fire extinguishing part discussed for claim 1 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Akihiko further teaches the second fire extinguishing part is manually activated (manual activation device 17; see p. 3, 2nd full paragraph of English translation).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Akihiko further teaches the second fire extinguishing part is activated by an activation signal of the first fire extinguishing part and an activation signal of a second detection unit provided at an upper region of the first fire extinguishing part (the second fire extinguishing part discussed for claim 1 above is capable of being activated by a signal intended to activate the first fire extinguishing part by operating manual activation device 17, and the second fire extinguish part discussed for claim 1 above is also capable of being activated by a signal of a left-most detector 3 at an upper region – i.e. shown substantially at a plane near the upper portion of 12 – of the first fire extinguishing part discussed for claim 1 above; see translation at p. 3, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Akihiko teaches a fire extinguishing system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first fire extinguishing part (set of nozzles 12 associated with left-most valve 11 in Fig. 1) that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target (agent from 8 supplied to protection target 2);
a second fire extinguishing part (one of nozzles 12 associated with right-most valve 11 in Fig. 1) that sprays water to an evacuation route (water in 6, see p. 3, 1st full paragraph of English translation sprayed at/around right-most rack 2, which could be an evacuation route for personnel within warehouse 1); and
a third fire extinguishing part (left-side nozzle 12 that is supplied via middle valve 11) that sprays water to the protection target,
wherein the third fire extinguishing part sprays water after starting supply of the fire extinguishing agent by the first fire extinguishing part, and wherein the third fire extinguishing part is activated when the first fire extinguishing part cannot extinguish a fire (the third fire extinguishing part could be operated via operation of middle valve 11 to spray water from 6 if the first fire extinguishing part discussed for claim 1 above cannot extinguish a fire). Note that the claim does not positively recite the fire extinguishing agent or the water and is not interpreted as positively reciting either the protection target or the evacuation route, though Akihiko does teach all of these aspects of the claim, as discussed above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprakel, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Sprakel teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Sprakel further teaches the first fire extinguishing part can be associated with an engine in an engine compartment (para. [0014]).
Sprakel fails to expressly teach, however, the first fire extinguishing part has a plurality of first fire extinguishing units (interpreted as a plurality of nozzles 4 with supply lines, which is clearly shown in Fig. 1), wherein there are a plurality of protection targets, and wherein at least one first fire extinguishing unit is provided corresponding to each of the protection targets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sprakel’s fire extinguishing system such that the first fire extinguishing part has a plurality of first fire extinguishing units (interpreted as a plurality of nozzles 4 with supply lines, which is clearly shown in Fig. 1), wherein there are a plurality of protection targets, and wherein at least one first fire extinguishing unit is provided corresponding to each of the protection targets as a mere duplication of parts to provide fire protection for more than one engine compartment. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B). In this case, the duplication of fire protection units serves only to provide known and expected results by pairing a fire extinguishing nozzle with all engine compartments for the same reason that Sprakel pairs the schematically-depicted nozzle 6 with an engine in an engine compartment.
Claims 9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprakel in view of Fenton 20110203813.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Sprakel teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Sprakel further implies, but does not expressly teach, the second fire extinguishing part is manually activated (12 causes the system to extinguish fire in compartment 16, which implies it may be manually operated given that it is located in a passenger compartment and is called a “fire alarm”; para. [0014]).
Fenton teaches (see Title) a water mist fire protection system for an occupancy (para. [0044]) which may be operated manually or automatically (para. [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sprakel’s fire extinguishing system such that the second fire extinguishing part is manually activated, as taught by Fenton, in order to permit an operator to trigger the fire protection system locally or remotely (para. [0139]).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Sprakel teaches a fire extinguishing system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first fire extinguishing part (6) that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target (6 capable of supplying a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target, such as an engine; para. [0018]); and
a second fire extinguishing part (one of fog nozzles 4) that sprays water to an evacuation route (capable of providing a spray of water, i.e. fog, to an evacuation route, such as in a passenger compartment; paras. [0002], [0017]). Note that the claim does not positively recite the fire extinguishing agent or the water and is not interpreted as positively reciting either the protection target or the evacuation route, though Sprakel does teach all of these aspects of the claim, as discussed above.
Sprakel fails to teach an activation temperature of the second fire extinguishing part is lower than an activation temperature of the first fire extinguishing part.
Fenton teaches (see Title) a water mist fire protection system for an occupancy (para. [0044]) which may be operated manually or automatically (para. [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sprakel’s fire extinguishing system such that the first and second fire extinguishing parts can be manually activated, as taught by Fenton, in order to permit an operator to trigger the fire protection system locally or remotely (para. [0139]). The proposed modification of Sprakel with Fenton results in the capability of the fire alarms being activated at any desired temperature, manually, including an activation temperature of the second fire extinguishing part being lower than an activation temperature of the first fire extinguishing part.
Claims 6 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akihiko in view of Fenton.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Akihki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, and Akihiko further teaches detectors (3).
Akihiko fails to teach an activation temperature of the third fire extinguishing part is higher than an activation temperature of the first fire extinguishing part.
Fenton teaches (see Title) a water mist fire protection system for an occupancy (para. [0044]) which utilizes detectors that can be configured as a fixed temperature detector (para. [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akihki’s fire extinguishing system such that the detectors are fixed temperature detectors, as taught by Fenton, because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Akihiko’s system with detectors versus a temperature-sensitive system), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (both Akihiko’s system with detectors and a temperature-sensitive system were known for triggering fire extinguishing systems), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Akihiko’s detectors or Fenton’s temperature detectors could be used to predictably provide fire-detection capabilities in the fire extinguishing system). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B). The activation temperatures of the respective third and first fire extinguishing parts are not recited in any structural way, and thus the activation temperatures are interpreted as intended temperatures at which the respective third and first fire extinguishing parts are capable of being activated. In this case, the third fire extinguishing part can be activated at a higher temperature than the first fire extinguishing part by operating the respective associated valves 11 to supply fluid to the first and second fire extinguishing parts at different temperatures based on setting thresholds in Akihiko’s control system based on Fenton’s temperature detectors, with the thresholds being any desired thresholds associated with each respective detector/fire extinguishing part.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Akihiko teaches a fire extinguishing system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first fire extinguishing part (set of nozzles 12 associated with left-most valve 11 in Fig. 1) that supplies a fire extinguishing agent to a protection target (agent from 8 supplied to protection target 2); and
a second fire extinguishing part (one of nozzles 12 associated with right-most valve 11 in Fig. 1) that sprays water to an evacuation route (water in 6, see p. 3, 1st full paragraph of English translation sprayed at/around right-most rack 2, which could be an evacuation route for personnel within warehouse 1).
Akihiko fails to teach an activation temperature of the second fire extinguishing part is lower than an activation temperature of the first fire extinguishing part
Fenton teaches (see Title) a water mist fire protection system for an occupancy (para. [0044]) which utilizes detectors that can be configured as a fixed temperature detector (para. [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akihki’s fire extinguishing system such that the detectors are fixed temperature detectors, as taught by Fenton, because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (Akihiko’s system with detectors versus a temperature-sensitive system), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (both Akihiko’s system with detectors and a temperature-sensitive system were known for triggering fire extinguishing systems), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Akihiko’s detectors or Fenton’s temperature detectors could be used to predictably provide fire-detection capabilities in the fire extinguishing system). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B). The activation temperatures of the respective second and first fire extinguishing parts are not recited in any structural way, and thus the activation temperatures are interpreted as intended temperatures at which the respective second and first fire extinguishing parts are capable of being activated. In this case, the second fire extinguishing part can be activated at a lower temperature than the first fire extinguishing part by operating the respective associated valves 11 to supply fluid to the first and second fire extinguishing parts at different temperatures based on setting thresholds in Akihiko’s control system based on Fenton’s temperature detectors, with the thresholds being any desired thresholds associated with each respective detector/fire extinguishing part. Note that the claim does not positively recite the fire extinguishing agent or the water and is not interpreted as positively reciting either the protection target or the evacuation route, though Akihiko does teach all of these aspects of the claim, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741