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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-26 are pending and claims 7-8 and 18 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-8 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/04/2025. Applicant indicated claims 7-8 were withdrawn, 18 is also included as the elected embodiment does not include a piston. There is mention of a piston in paragraph 0024, but such piston is not disclosed in the elected embodiment.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, figures 1 to 3 in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
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: fastening means in claim 1. The limitation fastening means has corresponding structure found in figure 2 and the specification discloses having a holding rail and fastening tab for installation on a wall or ceiling.
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 3, 5, 10-11, 14, 19, 19, 21, 23, and 26 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 3 recites the limitation “each spray nozzle” in line 1, it is unclear if this limitation includes the at lest one spray nozzle in claim 1, or if there are other spray nozzles. For instance, claiming “wherein the at least one spray nozzle is multiple spray nozzles, each spray nozzle…”
Regarding claims 5, 10-11, 13, 17, and 23 the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if the limitation further limits the claims, or not.
Claim 10 includes the limitation “a plurality of sensors” it is unclear if this plurality of sensors includes the at least one sensor or not.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the spray nozzles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only includes at least one spray nozzle.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the one hand" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the other hand" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 reciting the limitation “the one hand” and “the other hand” are both unclear to what exactly is being claimed, it is being understood that the term is not exactly a relative term, but rather undefined in what is the “hand” with regards to the claimed limitations. It is unclear as to what the relationship between the sensors and the spray nozzles are with regards to one other given the current claimed “one hand” and “other hand.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the inner diameter” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the sensor or sensors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 includes “at least one sensor” and is unclear if that is the same as the sensor, or included in the claimed sensors.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the one hand" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the other hand" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 reciting the limitation “the one hand” and “the other hand” are both unclear to what exactly is being claimed, it is being understood that the term is not exactly a relative term, but rather undefined in what is the “hand” with regards to the claimed limitations. It is being understood that the control device has on the hand the sensor or sensors and on the other hand the valves and/or actuator, which is being understood that the hand is the inputs and the other hand is an output from the control device. The examiner suggests changing the language to something that directs the claimed input/output elements with that of the control device rather than relying on the language of “the one hand” and “the other hand.”
Claim 26 recites the limitation “it” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what “it” is referencing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 15, 17, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enk (U.S. 2019/0344109).
With respect to claim 1, Enk discloses a fire extinguishing device for automatically fighting fires, having a housing (case 12), which includes at least one fastening means (figure 9, where 10 is attached to W) for fastening the device on a wall or ceiling (figure 9, the ceiling), of a building (paragraph 0031), having an extinguishing agent container (14), arranged in the housing (see figure 2), having a fluid extinguishing agent (within 14), having at least one spray nozzle (spray nozzle 34) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent container (figure 2, paragraph 0033), having at least one sensor designed to detect a fire and its position in the surroundings of the device (sensors 20), and having at least one control device (release device 54) designed to discharge the extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent container through the at least one spray nozzle in the direction of the detected fire (paragraph 0046).
With respect to claim 2, Enk discloses a plurality of spray nozzles (figure 4, multiple 34’s) which are oriented in different directions are arranged on the housing (see figures 2-4).
With respect to claim 4, Enk discloses the housing is trough-shaped (as shown in figures 1-5) and has a base (bottom wall of the device) and a side wall (having a sidewall between the top and bottom) which protrudes from the base (from the top side) and leads around the circumference of the base (about the circumference of the base), wherein the sensors and the spray nozzles are arranged in the base (as the nozzles and sensors are arranged in the base, being within the housing walls bottom).
With respect to claim 6, Enk discloses at least one further spray nozzle is arranged centrally and oriented perpendicular to the base (figure 5, the centrally shown nozzle 14 coming from a middle of the device, being perpendicular to the base about its side).
With respect to claim 15, Enk discloses a height of the extinguishing agent container corresponds at least substantially to the height of the side wall (taking 14 to be substantially the height of the wall adjacent it).
With respect to claim 17, Enk discloses the extinguishing agent container is assigned a pre-loaded propellant (paragraph 0062, as the system has a propellant) in particular for expelling the extinguishing agent (being the function of the preplant in the fire suppression material).
With respect to claim 19, Enk discloses the extinguishing agent container is assigned at least one actuatable actuator (being 54) for expelling the extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent container (figure 4).
With respect to claim 20, Enk discloses the actuator is an electromotive (being a squib or servo control), electromagnetic, or pyrotechnic actuator.
With respect to claim 21, Enk discloses a control device (control assembly 18) is arranged in the housing (figure 4) and is connected to the sensor or sensors on the one hand and to the valves and/or the actuator on the other hand (paragraph 0032-0033).
With respect to claim 22, Enk discloses an electrical energy storage device is arranged in the housing (being battery 16, see figure 2).
With respect to claim 23, Enk discloses an electrical connection device, in particular connecting cable, contact plug, or screw base, for electrically contacting the fire extinguishing device and/or for data transmission, in particular of the control device, is arranged on the housing (paragraphs 0032, 0042, and 0055, discloses the use of wires (cables) for electrical connection within the house, essentially the devices all wired with each other).
Claim(s) 1-5, 16, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enk (U.S. 2016/0263410).
With respect to claim 1, Enk discloses a fire extinguishing device for automatically fighting fires, having a housing (casing 60), which includes at least one fastening means for fastening the device on a wall or ceiling (bracket 100, paragraph 0057), of a building (paragraphs 0019 and 0057), having an extinguishing agent container (14), arranged in the housing (figure 3), having a fluid extinguishing agent (within 14), having at least one spray nozzle (nozzles 20) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent container (paragraph 0038), having at least one sensor designed to detect a fire (sensor 22) and its position in the surroundings of the device (paragraph 0050), and having at least one control device (valves 50) designed to discharge the extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent container through the at least one spray nozzle in the direction of the detected fire (paragraph 0045, figures 3-4).
With respect to claim 2, Enk discloses a plurality of spray nozzles which are oriented in different directions are arranged on the housing (paragraph 0047, the nozzles being set to different directions).
With respect to claim 3, Enk discloses each spray nozzle is assigned an activatable valve (valves 50 being shown with each nozzle, figure 4) of the control device (the valves being controlled valves), by which the respective spray nozzle is connectable to the extinguishing agent container and disconnect able therefrom (via opening/closing the valves).
With respect to claim 4, Enk discloses the housing is trough-shaped (shown having rounded edges at the bottom of 72, such that (minus the lid) it is understood being trough-shaped) and has a base (72) and a side wall (side walls of 60) which protrudes from the base and leads around the circumference of the base (about the circumference of 72), wherein the sensors and the spray nozzles are arranged in the base (see figure 1, where the sensor 22, is partially within the sidewalls of 60).
With respect to claim 5, Enk discloses the spray nozzles are arranged in a ring shape (figure 3, here the 4 outer 20s are arranged such that they all line on a circle), in particular in a circular ring shape (being on a circle), and in particular are each radially oriented inclined to the base (being at a perpendicular angle with the base, noted being able to be angled in different directions, paragraph 0047).
With respect to claim 16, Enk discloses the extinguishing agent container is connected to all of the valves by a distribution pipe (piping shown in figure 2) or to each of the valves by a pipe in each case (as shown in figure 2).
With respect to claim 25, Enk discloses wherein at least one electric light source is arranged on the housing (paragraph 0048, there being LED lights on the control panel, which is within the device and thus within the housing)).
With respect to claim 26, Enk discloses a holding rail and/or at least one fastening tab for installation on a wall or ceiling (the bracket 100 being understood as a rail).
Claim(s) 1 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (U.S. 4,299,289).
With respect to claim 1, Kato discloses a fire extinguishing device for automatically fighting fires (figure 1), having a housing (housing of 23 with upper elements of 3 and 5), which includes at least one fastening means for fastening the device on a wall or ceiling (being that of 3), of a building (having ceiling 4), having an extinguishing agent container (18), arranged in the housing, having a fluid extinguishing agent (fluid 27), having at least one spray nozzle (nozzle 30) for discharging the extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent container, having at least one sensor (sensor 42, as it sensors the fire) designed to detect a fire and its position in the surroundings of the device (via the heat applied to 42), and having at least one control device (being the striker 9) designed to discharge the extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent container through the at least one spray nozzle in the direction of the detected fire (9 strikes the element bringing the gas into 18 and opening the element 33 to release fluid from 30, column 3 rows 45-65).
With respect to claim 13, Kato discloses wherein the extinguishing agent container is in a ring shape (as shown in figure 1), in particular in a circular ring shape (as shown in figures 1-3) , and is arranged coaxially to the side wall in the housing (as shown in figure 1).
With respect to claim 14, Kato discloses an outer diameter of the extinguishing agent container (18) corresponds at least substantially to the inner diameter of the side wall (inner diameter of 23, as shown in figure 1, 18 and 23 are touching/almost touching).
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.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk (U.S. U.S. 2016/0263410) in view of Lee (U.S. 10/850,146).
With respect to claim 9, Enk discloses the use of a sensor, but fails to disclose the sensor is designed as a thermopile sensor, infrared sensor, and/or camera sensor.
Lee, column 6 rows 60-60, discloses the use of a thermopile sensor for detecting fires as a temperature sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the thermopile sensor of Lee into the system for Enk, as such sensors are known for sensing temperature in a fire extinguishing system.
With respect to claim 10, Enk discloses the use of a sensor, but fails to disclose a plurality of sensors, in particular thermopile sensors, are arranged on the housing, which are oriented in different directions in order to detect a fire.
Lee, figures 2-3, disclose multiple sensors 1 being thermopiles, around about the housing and oriented in different directions to detect a fire, doing so allows the device to applying the fire suppressant material at the direction that fire is detected (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the sensors of Lee and their directions about the housing to detect fire into the system of Enk, as Enk discloses pointing their nozzles in different directions and controllable valves, utilize the material through a nozzle directed where the fire is actually at instead of all the valves would allow the suppressant to only be used where the fire itself is located and thus more effectively using the fire extinguishing supply.
With respect to claim 11, Enk discloses the use of a sensor, but fails to disclose the sensors are arranged in a ring shape, in particular in a circular ring shape, and in particular are each oriented pointing radially outward.
Lee, figures 2-3, disclose multiple sensors 1 being thermopiles, around about the housing in a circular ringed shape oriented pointing radially outward, doing so allows the device to applying the fire suppressant material at the direction that fire is detected (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the sensors of Lee and their directions about the housing to detect fire into the system of Enk, as Enk discloses pointing their nozzles in different directions and controllable valves, utilize the material through a nozzle directed where the fire is actually at instead of all the valves would allow the suppressant to only be used where the fire itself is located and thus more effectively using the fire extinguishing supply.
With respect to claim 12, Enk discloses the spray nozzles about a rink with a circumference (as the noted spray nozzles exist in a plane such that they would all fall along a circular line), but fails to disclose the sensors on the one hand and the spray nozzles on the other hand are arranged on different circumferences or circular lines.
Lee, figures 2-3, disclose multiple sensors 1 being thermopiles, around about the housing in a circular ringed shape oriented pointing radially outward, doing so allows the device to applying the fire suppressant material at the direction that fire is detected (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the sensors of Lee and their directions about the housing to detect fire into the system of Enk, as Enk discloses pointing their nozzles in different directions and controllable valves, utilize the material through a nozzle directed where the fire is actually at instead of all the valves would allow the suppressant to only be used where the fire itself is located and thus more effectively using the fire extinguishing supply. Noting that the combination of the circumference of the sensors would be on the outside of the housing, where the nozzles would be within that circumference. The specific shape of the housing being a matter of obvious design choice, utilizing a circular housing such as Lee versus a rectangular housing such as Enk.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enk (U.S. U.S. 2016/0263410) in view of Al-Hebshi (U.S. 2016/0121148).
With respect to claim 24, Enk discloses at least one operable switch is arranged on the housing (paragraph 0055), but fails to disclose wherein the control device is deactivatable for a predetermined period of time by operating the switch, or wherein one or more selected spray nozzles of the spray nozzles are permanently deactivatable by operating the switch.
Al-Hebshi discloses, paragraph 0030, the detection assembly 24 further comprises an on/off activation switch 35 that is configured to provide electrical communication between the power source 34 and the detection assembly 24. Preferably, the on/off activation switch 35 is a standard rocker switch, however, other suitable switches, such as depressible buttons and toggle switches, are likewise contemplated. The on/off activation switch 35 is configured to deactivate the detection assembly 24 to facilitate any adjustments needed, such as moving the fire extinguishing system 20 to another location or the changing of the power source 34.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the switch for deactivating the device as disclosed by Al-Hebshi into the system of Enk, to allow the device to be moved or adjusted with unwanted activation. Understood that by deactivating the detection assembly the control device is also deactivated as are the nozzles, as no activation of the device is possible without the signal for activating the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752