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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 10-11 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10 September 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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: “retractable jettisoning device” and “control device” in claim 1.
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. Such corresponding structure(s) is/are: for the “retractable jettisoning device”, a fluid manifold having at least one inlet and at least one outlet, as described in paragraphs 44-48 and Figures 5 and 6; and, for the control device, a gun having a trigger, a control panel and a grip handle, as described in paragraph 52 and Figure 8.
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 1-7 and 10-11 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 1 recites the limitation "the host aircraft" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is further rejected as being indefinite because line 14 recites the limitation “a speed of the host aircraft” and line 16 recites the limitation “a speed of the aircraft”. It is unclear if this is the same speed or two different speeds. Further, if it is the same speed, it is unclear how the second recitation further limits the claim since the flow rate of jettisoned fluid and the jettisoning duration already depends on this speed.
Claims 2-7 and 10-11 are rejected as being dependent from indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazes (US 7,303,168) in view of Parker (US 2013/0199804).
Regarding claim 1, Lazes discloses an aircraft (5, fig. 3) comprising:
a fuselage extending along a longitudinal direction (fig. 3) and a rear door (8) configured to open while the aircraft is in flight (fig. 1);
a fluid storing and jettisoning system (10, see fig. 4), the fluid storing and jettisoning system comprising a removable one-piece modular assembly comprising a stand (35), a tank (21), at least one valve (24), at least one tube (22), and a retractable jettisoning device (30), the retractable jettisoning device configured to take up a set-back position in which the retractable jettisoning device is retracted into the aircraft so that the rear door closes (col. 4, ln. 54-60), and a jettisoning position in which the rear door is opened and the retractable jettisoning device projects from the aircraft outside of the rear door (col. 4, ln. 43-49; fig. 5);
the at least one valve for allowing or preventing a jettisoning of fluid and controlling a flow rate of jettisoned fluid and a jettisoning duration (col. 4, ln. 25-30).
Lazes does not disclose a control device for controlling the fluid storing and jettisoning system, the control device connected to the at least one valve to control a flow rate of jettisoned fluid and a jettisoning duration depending on a speed of the host aircraft and at least one parametrized criterion, wherein the at least one parametrized criterion comprises: a jettisoning altitude of the aircraft; a speed of the aircraft; a wind speed; a height of a vegetation; a type of a vegetation; or any combination thereof.
Parker teaches a device for controlling a fluid storing and jettisoning system of a host aircraft (par. 35; fig. 1), the fluid storing and jettisoning system comprising a fluid tank (40) and at least one tube (46), the device for controlling the fluid storing and jettisoning system comprising: a control device (80) connected to at least one valve (60) for allowing or preventing a jettisoning of water (par. 36), wherein the control device is configured to control a flow rate of jettisoned fluid and a jettisoning duration depending on a speed of the host aircraft and at least one parametrized criterion (par. 7 – “the system may compensate for aircraft speed, altitude, pitch, and location”), wherein the least one parametrized criterion comprises: a jettisoning altitude of the aircraft; a speed of the aircraft (par. 91 – “Aircraft Speed”); a wind speed; a height of a vegetation; a type of a vegetation; or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aircraft of Lazes to further include a control device for controlling the fluid storing and jettisoning system, the control device connected to the at least one valve to control a flow rate of jettisoned fluid and a jettisoning duration depending on a speed of the host aircraft and at least one parametrized criterion, wherein the at least one parametrized criterion comprises: a jettisoning altitude of the aircraft; a speed of the aircraft; a wind speed; a height of a vegetation; a type of a vegetation; or any combination thereof, as taught by Parker. Such a modification would allow the fluid to be discharged in a controlled manner depending on the flight characteristics of the aircraft so that the fluid is jettisoned over an area most effectively (see Parker – par. 7, 77).
Regarding claim 2, Lazes in view of Parker discloses the aircraft described regarding claim 1, and
Parker further teaches wherein the tank has at least one first opening configured to be connected respectively to said at least one tube for entry of a fluid into the tank in a leak-tight manner (par. 77 – inherent since it has a “fill valve for tank loading”), and
Lazes further discloses at least one second opening for jettisoning the fluid (fig. 4), and wherein the at least one valve is configured to shut off the at least one second opening (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the aircraft of Lazes to include at least one first opening configured to be connected respectively to said at least one tube for entry of a fluid into the tank in a leak-tight manner, as also taught by Parker, since this would allow the tank to be refilled.
Regarding claim 3, Lazes in view of Parker discloses the aircraft described regarding claim 2, and Lazes further discloses a number of openings (33), and Parker further teaches wherein said control device is configured to control an opening and a closing of a determined number of openings in order to adjust an amount of water jettisoned depending on at least one criterion (par. 38 – “the system can control the retardant discharge rate by the number of gates that are opened as well as by how far each gate is opened”, “control system measures a plurality of variables”).
Regarding claim 6, Lazes in view of Parker discloses the aircraft described regarding claim 1, and Parker further teaches wherein the control device further comprises a processor (par. 41) configured to determine the flow rate of jettisoned fluid and the jettisoning duration based on data provided to the processor and configured to control the at least one valve in a manner corresponding to a result obtained (par. 42, 85).
Regarding claim 10, Lazes in view of Parker discloses the aircraft described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the control device is positioned in the aircraft such that the least one parametrized criterion is parametrized by a pilot, a co-pilot, a third person, an operator, or any combination thereof (par. 77 – “the pilot to configure the display system and adjust the drop coverage levels”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazes in view of Parker, and further in view of Hutter et al. (US 2006/0260826).
Regarding claim 4, Lazes in view of Parker discloses the aircraft described regarding claim 1, and Parker further teaches comprising a control panel (88). Lazes in view of Parker does not further disclose the device comprising: a gun provided with a trigger.
Hutter teaches a fluid storing and jettisoning system comprising a gun (77) provided with a trigger (78, see par. 62, 81) and a control panel (figs. 9, 10).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lazes in view of Parker to further comprise a gun provided with a trigger, as taught by Hutter, since this was a known means for providing further control over the fluid delivery operations for jettisoning (Hutter, par. 62).
Regarding claim 5, Lazes in view of Parker and Hutter discloses the aircraft described regarding claim 4, and Hutter further teaches wherein when the trigger is activated, the at least one valve opens according to a determined flow rate of water jettisoned (par. 62 – “to enable user definable, complete or partial discharge of the retardant payload by depressing the joystick trigger 78, for as long or short a time as required”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazes in view of Parker, and further in view of Bui (US 2004/0069875).
Regarding claim 7, Lazes in view of Parker discloses the aircraft described regarding claim 1, and Parker further teaches wherein the control device further comprises a processor (par. 41) configured to determine the flow rate of jettisoned fluid and the jettisoning duration based on data provided to the processor (par. 42, 85). But Lazes in view of Parker does not disclose that this data is a soil over which the aircraft is flying as indicated by a recorded map.
Bui teaches a device for controlling a fluid storing and jettisoning system (par. 2; fig. 1) of a host aircraft (par. 7 – the “vehicle” could be an aircraft), the fluid storing and jettisoning system comprising a fluid tank (104) and at least one tube (fig. 8), the device for controlling the fluid storing and jettisoning system comprising: a control device (110) connected to at least one valve (116) for allowing or preventing a jettisoning of water (par. 45), wherein the control device is configured to control a flow rate of jettisoned fluid and a jettisoning duration depending on a speed of the host aircraft and at least one parametrized criterion (par. 46 – positioning data and speed), and further comprising a processor (par. 45 – the controller 110 is a computer) is configured to determine the flow rate of jettisoned fluid and the jettisoning duration based on a soil (par. 10) over which the aircraft is flying as indicated by a recorded map (par. 46).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Lazes in view of Parker to determine the flow rate of jettisoned fluid and the jettisoning duration based on a soil over which the aircraft is flying as indicated by a recorded map, as taught by Bui. Such a modification was known to allow the precise amount of fluid to be applied to each portion of the ground.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazes in view of Parker, and further in view of Vian et al. (US 2012/0261144).
Regarding claim 11, Lazes in view of Parker discloses the aircraft described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the control device is connected to the storing and jettisoning system by a wireless system and is controlled from the ground.
Vian teaches an aircraft for fighting fires that is connected to a control device by a wireless system and is controlled from the ground (par. 41; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lazes in view of Parker to connect it to a control device by a wireless system and control it from the ground, as taught by Vian, since this would remove the operator from a potentially dangerous position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752