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 . Claims 1-20 of the amended claim set received 2/14/2024 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/20/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: “activation module” in claim 1, “manual activation mechanism” in claim 3, “at least one detection module” of claim 4, “at least one IoT-enabled communication module” of claim 7, “at least one encryption module” of claim 8.
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.
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 5, 8, and 12 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 5 recites “a computing processor and a computer-readable medium” where it is unclear how or if the claim elements are related to the computing processor and computer-readable medium of base claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said detection module". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “an extinguisher” where it is unclear how or if this this related to the extinguisher agent module or fire extinguishing chemical agent of base claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said communication module". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 requires “an outer decorative housing case” where the use of decorative makes the metes and bounds indeterminable. Decorative has the meaning of “serving to decorate or embellish” which is a matter of a person’s opinion.
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, 4-7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koelewijn (US 2008/0190627).
Regarding Claim 1, Koelewijn discloses in Fig. 2, a smart fire extinguisher device comprising:
an extinguisher agent module 3 containing a fire extinguishing chemical agent (read para. 0051);
an activation module 14 that when activated can cause the extinguisher agent module to spontaneously release said extinguishing chemical agent to extinguish a fire (read e.g. para. 0056);
a control module 7 (a programmable controller 7 as read at paras. 0059 and 0060; necessarily having a processor and computer-readable medium) having a computing processor and a computer-readable medium having instructions including at least one of algorithms, logics, and models stored thereon that when executed by said at least one computing processor cause said control module to: transmit commands to activate said activation module to spontaneously cause the extinguisher agent module to release the extinguishing chemical agent to extinguish a fire (as read at para. 0060).
Regarding Claim 2, Koelewijn discloses in Fig. 6, at least one alarm module 34 with at least one speaker 34 capable of sounding an alarm (read para. 0069).
Regarding Claim 4, Koelewijn discloses in Fig. 2, at least one detection module 6 capable of sensing and capturing a variety of ambient conditions of the device.
Regarding Claim 5, Koelewijn discloses in Fig. 2, wherein the control module 7 (a programmable controller 7 as read at paras. 0059 and 0060; necessarily having a processor and computer-readable medium) includes a computing processor and a computer-readable medium having instructions including at least one of algorithms, logics, and models stored thereon that when executed by the computing processor cause the control module to: retrieve and read all sensor values from said detection module (read para. 0057), determine whether the ambient condition of said device indicates that a potential fire hazard is present, and whether to take at least one responsive action of sounding an alarm or activate an extinguisher (read paras. 0057 and 0061); and transmits commands, whereupon the presence of fire is determined, to activate said activation module to cause the extinguisher agent module to spontaneously release the extinguishing chemical agents to extinguish a fire (as read in paras. 0057 and 0061).
Regarding Claim 6, Koelewijn discloses in Fig. 2, further comprising a power module 8 that provides electric power to said smart fire extinguisher device using one of a battery 8 (read para. 0056) and power cord connectable to a wall outlet.
Regarding Claim 7, Koelewijn discloses in Fig. 6, at least one loT-enabled communication module 31 capable of communicating with other loT devices, equipment, and networks (as read in para. 0067).
Regarding Claim 12, Koelewijn discloses in Fig. 2, an outer decorative housing case 2A+2B containing the extinguisher agent module 3, the activation module 14 and the control module 7.
Regarding Claim 13, Koelewijn discloses wherein the activation module 14 is one of electronic, mechanical, and chemical (electronic as read at para. 0056).
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.
Claims 3, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koelewijn (US 2008/0190627) in view of Enk (US 2019/0344109).
Regarding Claim 3, Koelewijn discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Koelewijn does not disclose a manual activation mechanism that can activate the at least one activation module to cause the extinguisher module to release the extinguishing chemical agent to extinguish a fire.
Enk discloses in Fig. 2, a smart fire extinguisher device 10 comprising an extinguisher agent module 14 containing a fire extinguishing chemical agent (read para. 0032), an activation module 54 (see Fig. 4, read para. 0046), and a control module 18 which can transmit commands to cause the extinguisher agent module to release the extinguishing chemical agent to extinguish a fire (read para. 0046). Enk teaches a manual activation mechanism (switch discussed in para. 0055) that can activate the at least one activation module 54 to cause the extinguisher module 14 to release the extinguishing chemical agent to extinguish a fire (read paras. 0046 and 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Koelewijn to include the manual activation mechanism taught by Enk in order to enable an operator to trigger the activation manually without having to be in the direct proximity of a fire zone (Enk para. 0055).
Regarding Claim 9, Koelewijn discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Koelewijn additionally discloses in Fig. 2, a housing 2A+2B which houses an extinguisher unit which contains the extinguishing agent module 3, the activation module 14, and houses a control unit 7 which contains the control module 7. Koelewijn does not disclose the housing divided into two compartments, wherein a first compartment houses the extinguisher unit and wherein a second compartment houses a control unit.
Enk discloses in Fig. 7, a smart fire extinguisher device 10 comprising an extinguisher agent module 14 containing a fire extinguishing chemical agent (read para. 0032), an activation module 54 (see Fig. 4, read para. 0046), and a control module 18 which can transmit commands to cause the extinguisher agent module to release the extinguishing chemical agent to extinguish a fire (read para. 0046), an extinguisher unit which contains the extinguishing agent module 14 and the activation module 54 (see also Fig. 7) and a control unit 18 which contains the control module 18. Enk teaches a housing 12 divided into two compartment 38c and 38b, wherein the first compartment 38c houses the extinguisher unit 14+54 and the second compartment houses the control unit 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Koelewijn to include the two compartments taught by Enk in order to protect the associated components from elevated temperatures, dust, debris, and damage (Enk para. 0039).
Regarding Claim 11, Koelewijn in view of Enk teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Koelewijn further discloses in Figs. 1 and 2, wherein the housing 2A+2B includes at least one side (the side being an opening 4 of the extinguisher agent module 3) made from a frangible material (the membrane as read at para. 0054) to allow the extinguishing chemical agent to be spontaneously released directionally towards a pre-designated direction. As Enk is employed in base claim 9 to teach the two compartments including the first compartment containing the extinguisher agent module, it is an obvious result of the combination that the at least one side formed by the extinguisher agent module opening/membrane is that of the first compartment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koelewijn (US 2008/0190627) in view of Zhang (US 2024/0278052).
Regarding Claim 8, Koelewijn discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Koelewijn does not disclose at least one encryption module capable of providing device-level sign-at-source encryption; wherein said at least one control unit can communicate encrypted signals through said communication module.
Zhang discloses in Fig. 1, a smart fire extinguisher device comprising an extinguisher module 7 and a control module 23 which transmits commands to caust the extinguisher agent module to release the extinguishing chemical agent (read e.g. para. 0028). Zhang teaches at least one encryption module (encryption chip discussed in para. 0037) capable of providing device-level sign-at-source encryption; wherein said at least one control unit 23 can communicate encrypted signals through said communication module (transmitters discussed in para. 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Koelewijn to include the at least one encryption module taught by Zhang in order to keep the overall communication from being cracked by a foreign party (Zhang para. 0037).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koelewijn (US 2008/0190627) in view of Enk (US 2019/0344109) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Timler (US 2022/0228915).
Regarding Claim 10, Koelewijn in view of Enk teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Koelewijn further discloses in Fig. 2, the control unit 7 is connected with said extinguisher unit 3 through a connector 15 (read para. 0056). Koelewijn does not explicitly disclose the connector is a plug-and-play connector.
Timler discloses in Fig. 2, a smart fire system including a control unit 12 and an extinguisher unit 3. Timler further discloses all of the components may be plug-and-play devices (read para. 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Koelewijn further such that the connector is a plug-and-play connector as taught by Timler in order to enable the associated components to be easily removed, replaced, and installed (Timler para. 0036).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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: the prior art does not disclose “at least one fuse with one end connecting to the activation module and a second end connecting to a surface of a housing case” in combination with all the limitations of the base claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741