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 without traverse of Species II, figures 5-8 and sub species ii, figure 2 in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 3 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/sub species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
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.
The term “wall connecting means” of claim 4, line 4 is being considered to invoke 112(f). The specification defines expander as an element to increase the pressurized suppression foam coverage, so the examiner is interpreting expander to be anything that increases the pressurized suppression foam coverage such as a tapered expanding nozzle.
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 4-6 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.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by the term “check vale.” A check valve is a valve that closes to prevent backward flow of liquid. Element 80 in the drawings represents the so called check valve that is being referred to by claim 4. The specification calls element 80 a check valve, but defines it operation more like an on off valve operated by a heat sensor, not a check valve. Claim 4 also requires a sensor that releases, or opens, each check valve, operating the valve like an on/off valve rather than a check valve. It is unclear if the valve 80 is an actual check valve, or if it is just an on/off valve. The examiner is interpreting the term “check valve” to a be a valve that is closed and opened by a sensor.
Claim 4 also requires an exit valve, it is unclear if the exit valve controlled by the heat sensor or is just the check valve controlled by the heat sensor. It is unclear what controls the exit valve and how the exit valve functions.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if the delivery tubing, terminal ends and spray heads of claim 5 are in addition to the discharge outlet, exit valve nozzle and expander of claim 4, or if it is in exchange for those elements. Figures 7 and 8 shows an embodiment with the terminal ends 125, spray head, 126 and delivery tubing 120, but no discharge outlet 84, exit valve 86, or expander 88 as shown in figure 2. Figure 2 shows the discharge outlet and expander, but no spray head or delivery tubing.
The same issue can be found in claim 6 since claim 6 also recites the spray heads and delivery tubing.
Regarding claim 6, line 6, it is unclear what is meant by the term “segregated yet overlapping fire suppression modules.” It is unclear if the modules are separate modules, but are overlapping in certain features, are they overlapping the same physical space, or are their spray pattens just overlapping.
The term “perceived engineering concerns of each subjective mobile trailer” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “perceived engineering concerns of each subjective mobile trailer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.th term “ perceived engineering concerns of each subjective mobile trailer” is different for each trailer and for each engineer. There is no way to determine the meets and bounds of this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 also states that the “said specific individual zones within said mobile trailer may include” then lists a few different parts of a mobile trailer. Since the term “may” is used, it is unclear if the specific zones must include all those zones listed, or if the specific zones do not have to be those listed zones. The examiner is interpreting the claim to not require any of the listed zones, since they come after the word “may.”
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) 4-6 is/are rejected, as best as understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (2013/0206428) in view of Place (3,930,613) and Adams (4,361,189).
Regarding claim 4 Phillips et al. shows A self-activating and self-contained fire suppression system for installation within and upon a mobile trailer (Phillips is fully capable of being installed in a mobile trailer), comprising: one or more tank vessels (fig 1) forming an individual fire suppression module (fig 1), the fire extinguishing module being attached by a wall connecting means ([0038]), said fire suppression module respectively directed a specific individual zone (the zone is where the outlet is located), each said one or more tank vessels containing a respective quantity of pressurized suppression foam (104) and nitrogen gas (103); a respective discharge outlet (113) directing said suppression foam from each said check valve to a respective exit valve (element 108 is being considered the exit valve since it blocks the flow of fluid, and then once it senses heat it opens to allow the flow of fluid) and a nozzle (113); and an expander (the expanding portion of 114 in figure 3) which spreads said suppression foam and nitrogen gas to said respective specific individual zone, coating said zone with said suppression foam to extinguish any said fire within said specific individual zone
But fails to disclose a check valve which contains said pressurized suppression foam and nitrogen gas within each said one or more tank vessels; a respective local or remote heat sensor which senses the presence of a fire or combustion heat at a preset temperature assigned to each respective check valve within each said fire suppression module, resulting in a release of each said check valve for said respective fire suppression module.
Place teaches a temperature controlled check valve having a respective local or remote heat sensor (32) which senses the presence of a fire or combustion heat at a preset temperature assigned to each respective check valve resulting in opening the valve to let fluid flow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to install the temperature actuated check valve of Place between the tank vessel of Phillips et al. and the outlet, in order to control the flow of fluid based on the surrounding temperature.
The above combination still fails to disclose that there are a plurality of fire extinguishing modules attached within and upon said mobile trailer
Adams teaches a mobile trailer having a fire suppression system with nozzles (42) located in specific individual zones (figure 1). The system of Adams is connected to a permanent fluid supply so that when the trailer is moving the fire suppressant system will not operate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to install the fire suppression modules of Phillips et al. in each of the rooms of the mobile trailer of Adams, in order to be bake to extinguish fires when the trail er is in motion.
If the applicant disagrees the examiner’s interpretation that the disc 180 is both the heat sensor and the exit valve, the following 103 modification is provided.
Adams teaches that his sprinkler heads are of the heat sensitive, on-off type which will automatically open and close as heat conditions dictate. One suitable type of sprinkler head is the automatic sprinkler head manufactured and sold by Central Sprinkler Corporation of Lansdale, Pa. and which employs a special wax to control opening and closing of the valve element in the sprinkler head. Essentially when the wax is liquified at a predetermined heat or temperature level, it will open a cam (the cam is the valve) to permit the sprinkler head to discharge liquid from the system into the room or other space; however, when the wax temperature reduces and solidification occurs, the cam (the valve) is operated to close the water passage and stop water flow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the sprinkler heads of Adams in the system of Phillips et al. As modified above, in order to control open and close the valve based on the surrounding temperature. (col 5, liens 3-4).
If the applicant digress with the examiner’s interpretation of the tapered nozzle being the expander, the following 103 is provided below:
Adams teaches an expander (deflector) under his nozzles 42 (fig 2, 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add deflectors to the nozzles in order to deflect the fluid to a wider pattern.
Regarding claim 5, each said fire suppression module attaches common delivery tubing (106) to each said one or more tank vessels (fig 2), leading to one or more terminal ends defining a spray head (114) directing said suppression foam from each said fire suppression module activated by said respective local or remote heat sensor (108) to multiple areas within each said specific individual zone assigned to each said respective fire suppression module (fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, said specific individual zones within said mobile trailer may include living quarters, livestock quarters, feed storage and tack rooms, cargo storage areas, rooftop hay storage compartments or platforms, and under trailer wheels, tires and wheel wells (the claim states may include, so the examiner notes that the zone do not have to include any of these spaces, however, in the above combination a number of these spaces are included such as living quarters and storage areas), each zone having assigned one or more segregated yet overlapping fire suppression modules (each room has its own module), one or more tank vessels, one or more local or remote heat sensors, segregated deliver tubing, and one or more terminal ends and spray heads, each said fire suppression module, delivery tubing and terminal end being applied as original or after-market installation equipment (the modules can be originally installed or installed aftermarket) implementing the perceived engineering concerns of each subjective mobile trailer, its functions and uses (an engineer may determine that one module per room is sufficient).
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 2/9/2026