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
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 1 October 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cocco (US 3,566,971).
Regarding claim 1, Cocco teaches a fire extinguishing nozzle (fig. 1) for a fire extinguishing system of a wheeled land vehicle (col. 9, ln. 4-7), the fire extinguishing nozzle comprising:
a mounting portion (102) for mounting the fire extinguishing nozzle to an outside portion of the wheeled land vehicle (col. 8, ln. 71—col. 9, ln. 7);
an extinguishing agent connection (52) for coupling the fire extinguishing nozzle to an extinguishing agent reservoir (61) of the fire extinguishing system (fig. 2);
a fixed nozzle section (39), fixedly mounted to the mounting portion (col. 5, ln. 46-51; fig. 1);
and a plurality of movable nozzle sections (37/38/47), movably arranged with respect to the fixed nozzle section (col. 5, ln. 26-31, 68-72);
wherein the fixed nozzle section and the plurality of movable nozzle sections form a telescopic nozzle arrangement (fig. 2), wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections are configured to extend from the fixed nozzle section in a telescoping manner upon receiving a pressurized extinguishing agent at the extinguishing agent connection (col. 5, ln. 26-31, 68-72);
wherein a flowpath of the pressurized extinguishing agent is partially defined by fixed nozzle section and partially defined by each movable nozzle section of the plurality of movable nozzle sections such that the pressurized extinguishing agent passes through and contacts each of the fixed nozzle section and the plurality of movable nozzle sections prior to being emitted from the fire extinguishing nozzle with the plurality of movable nozzle sections in the respective extended positions (agent enters space 51, see col. 3, ln. 48-50; space 51 is defined by the lower ends of each of the movable sections 37, 38, 39, see col. 6, ln. 17-19 and figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 2, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections includes between 2 and 5 movable nozzle sections (col. 5, ln. 26-28).
Regarding claim 3, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections is located inside the fixed nozzle section, when each moveable nozzle section of the plurality of nozzles sections is in a retracted position (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the fixed nozzle section and the plurality of movable nozzle sections have a generally cylindrical shape (col. 5, ln. 27).
Regarding claim 7, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections have a distal nozzle section (7), which is spaced farthest from the fixed nozzle section when the plurality of movable nozzle sections are in their extended positions (fig. 2); wherein the distal nozzle section has a distal end face (1) and a peripheral side face (fig. 6a, 6b – outer surface of 7); and wherein at least one first extinguishing agent release opening is provided on the distal end face (fig. 6b, 6c – interpreted to be nozzle 6 at the tip of 1) and a plurality of second extinguishing agent release openings (6) are provided around the peripheral side face (figs. 6a, 6b).
Regarding claim 8, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 7, and further wherein the total cross-section of the plurality of second extinguishing agent release openings is at least two times the total cross-section of the at least one first extinguishing agent release opening (fig. 6a – at least six second openings are shown, each having a larger diameter, than that of the one first opening).
Regarding claim 9, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 7, and further wherein the total cross-section of the plurality of second extinguishing agent release openings is at least three times the total cross-section of the at least one first extinguishing agent release opening (fig. 6a – at least six second openings are shown, each having a larger diameter, than that of the one first opening).
Regarding claim 11, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 7, and further wherein the at least one first extinguishing agent release opening comprises between 1 and 20 first extinguishing agent release openings (fig. 6b, 6c).
Regarding claim 12, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 7, and further wherein the plurality of second extinguishing agent release openings comprises between 2 and 30 second extinguishing agent release openings (fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 13, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections are configured to extend from the fixed nozzle section in a telescoping manner upon receiving a pressurized dry chemical extinguishing agent.
It is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 14, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections are configured to extend from the fixed nozzle section in a telescoping manner upon receiving a pressurized extinguishing agent with an extinguishing agent pressure of at least 15 bar.
It is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 15, Cocco teaches the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections are configured to extend from the fixed nozzle section in a telescoping manner upon receiving an extinguishing agent pressure of between 15 bar and 30 bar.
It is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 19, Cocco teaches a wheeled land vehicle (col. 9, ln. 4-7), comprising:
an extinguishing agent reservoir (61); and
at least one fire extinguishing nozzle (fig. 1) coupled to the extinguishing agent reservoir (fig. 2) and arranged on one or more outside portions (102) of the wheeled land vehicle (col. 8, ln. 71—col. 9, ln. 7), the fire extinguishing nozzle comprising:
a mounting portion (85) for mounting the fire extinguishing nozzle to the outside portion of the wheeled land vehicle (col. 8, ln. 71—col. 9, ln. 7; fig. 1);
an extinguishing agent connection (52) for coupling the fire extinguishing nozzle to an extinguishing agent reservoir (61) of the fire extinguishing system (fig. 2);
a fixed nozzle section (39), fixedly mounted to the mounting portion (col. 5, ln. 46-51; fig. 1);
and a plurality of movable nozzle sections (37/38/47), movably arranged with respect to the fixed nozzle section (col. 5, ln. 26-31, 68-72) between stowed positions and extended positions, the plurality of movable nozzle sections including an intermediate nozzle section (38) and a distal nozzle section (37), the intermediate nozzle section disposed between the distal nozzle section and the fixed nozzle section with the plurality of movable nozzle sections in the extended positions (col. 5, ln. 50-55; fig. 2); and
a first seal (42) mounted on an exterior side of the intermediate nozzle section (fig. 2) and a second seal (40) mounted on an exterior side of the distal nozzle section (fig. 2), wherein the first seal and the second seal frictionally maintain the intermediate nozzle section and the distal nozzle section in respective stowed states prior to the plurality of movable nozzle sections receiving a pressurized extinguishing agent (col. 6, ln. 62-67 – pressurized liquid is required to cause movement of the movable nozzle sections; therefore, the seals of Cocco are considered capable of performing in the recited manner);
wherein the fixed nozzle section and the plurality of movable nozzle sections form a telescopic nozzle arrangement (fig. 2), wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections are configured to extend from the fixed nozzle section in a telescoping manner upon receiving a pressurized extinguishing agent at the extinguishing agent connection (col. 5, ln. 26-31, 68-72).
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.
Claims 4-5, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocco.
Regarding claim 4, Cocco discloses the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 3, but not explicitly wherein the fire extinguishing nozzle has a total height of between 3 cm and 10 cm, when each moveable nozzle section of the plurality of movable nozzle sections is in the retracted position.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize between 3 cm and 10 cm for the total height the fire extinguishing nozzle when each moveable nozzle section of the plurality of movable nozzle sections is in the retracted position since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Such a total height would ensure the nozzle has a low profile when it is not being used, which would make it easier to transport of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Cocco discloses the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 3, but not explicitly wherein the fire extinguishing nozzle has a total height of between 10 cm and 60 cm, when each moveable nozzle section of the plurality of movable nozzle sections is in the extended position.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize between 10 cm and 60 cm for the total height the fire extinguishing nozzle when each moveable nozzle section of the plurality of movable nozzle sections is in the extended position since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Such a height would allow it to penetrate more deeply into the mass of material that is on fire.
Regarding claim 10, Cocco discloses the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 7, but not explicitly wherein the total cross-section of the plurality of second extinguishing agent release openings is between three times and five times the total cross-section of the at least one first extinguishing agent release opening.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the total cross-section of the plurality of second extinguishing agent release openings is between three times and five times the total cross-section of the at least one first extinguishing agent release opening since one having ordinary skill would recognize that the cross-sectional areas of each of the openings will determine to amount of flow therethrough. Providing the total cross-section of the plurality of second extinguishing agent release openings to be between three times and five times the total cross-section of the at least one first extinguishing agent release opening would provide the desired balance of flow of fire extinguishant through each of the openings and along the length of the rod 7.
Regarding claim 16, Cocco discloses the fire extinguishing nozzle described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the mounting portion comprises a mounting plate (col. 8, ln. 72 – “platform”), and wherein the extinguishing agent connection is arranged on an opposite side of the platform from the complex 103, to which it is connected (fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a through hole through the mounting plate in order to arrange the extinguishing agent connection in the apparatus.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocco in view of Thompson (US 2006/0225896).
Regarding claim 17, Cocco discloses a fire extinguishing system for a wheeled land vehicle (col. 9, ln. 4-7), comprising:
an extinguishing agent reservoir (61); and
at least one fire extinguishing nozzle (fig. 1) coupled to the extinguishing agent reservoir (fig. 2), the fire extinguishing nozzle comprising:
a mounting portion (102) for mounting the fire extinguishing nozzle to an outside portion of the wheeled land vehicle (col. 8, ln. 71—col. 9, ln. 7);
an extinguishing agent connection (52) for coupling the fire extinguishing nozzle to an extinguishing agent reservoir (61) of the fire extinguishing system (fig. 2);
a fixed nozzle section (39), fixedly mounted to the mounting portion (col. 5, ln. 46-51; fig. 1);
and a plurality of movable nozzle sections (37/38/47), movably arranged with respect to the fixed nozzle section (col. 5, ln. 26-31, 68-72);
wherein the fixed nozzle section and the plurality of movable nozzle sections form a telescopic nozzle arrangement (fig. 2), wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections are configured to extend from the fixed nozzle section in a telescoping manner upon receiving a pressurized extinguishing agent at the extinguishing agent connection (col. 5, ln. 26-31, 68-72);
wherein the plurality of movable nozzle sections includes an intermediate nozzle section (38) and a distal nozzle section (47), the intermediate nozzle section disposed between the distal nozzle section and the fixed nozzle section with the plurality of movable nozzle sections in the extended positions (col. 5, ln. 57-68; fig. 2);
wherein the distal nozzle section is spaced farthest from the fixed nozzle section when the plurality of movable nozzle sections are in the extended positions (col. 5, ln. 57-68; fig. 2), the distal nozzle section including at least one first extinguishing agent release opening (6) through a peripheral side face of the distal nozzle section (figs. 2, 6b).
Cocco does not disclose wherein the at least one first extinguishing agent release opening is recessed within and covered by the intermediate nozzle section with the plurality of movable nozzle sections in the stowed positions.
Thompson discloses a firefighting system for a wheeled land vehicle (10, see par. 3), comprising: an extinguishing agent reservoir (18); and at least one fire extinguishing nozzle (36) coupled to the extinguishing agent reservoir (fig. 2), the fire extinguishing nozzle comprising,
a mounting portion for mounting the fire extinguishing nozzle to the outside portion of the wheeled land vehicle (par. 74; fig. 2, 12);
an extinguishing agent connection (212/216) for coupling the fire extinguishing nozzle to an extinguishing agent reservoir of the fire extinguishing system (fig. 12);
a fixed nozzle section (28), fixedly mounted to the mounting portion (fig. 8);
and a movable nozzle section (40), movably arranged with respect to the fixed nozzle section (par. 56);
wherein the fixed nozzle section and the movable nozzle section form a telescopic nozzle arrangement (par. 56), wherein the movable nozzle section is configured to extend from the fixed nozzle section in a telescoping manner upon receiving a pressurized extinguishing agent at the extinguishing agent connection (par. 56);
wherein the movable nozzle section includes a distal nozzle section having at least one fire extinguishing agent release opening (42) through a peripheral side face of the distal nozzle section (fig. 2), and the at least one fire extinguishing agent release opening is recessed within and covered with the movable nozzle section in the stowed position (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire extinguishing system of Cocco such that the at least one first extinguishing agent release opening is recessed within and covered by the intermediate nozzle section with the plurality of movable nozzle sections in the stowed positions, as taught by Thompson, since this was known to protect the fire extinguishing agent release opening from damage until the system is activated (Thompson, par. 56).
Regarding claim 18, Cocco in view of Thompson discloses the fire extinguishing system described regarding claim 17, and further comprising a trigger mechanism (col. 11, ln. 64 – “pushbuttons”) configured to establish a respective agent receiving path between the extinguishing agent reservoir and each of the at least one fire extinguishing nozzle (col. 11, ln. 62-67).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Cocco.
Regarding claim 19, Thompson discloses a wheeled land vehicle (10), comprising:
an extinguishing agent reservoir (18); and
at least one fire extinguishing nozzle (36) coupled to the extinguishing agent reservoir (fig. 2) and arranged on one or more outside portions of the wheeled land vehicle (par. 24), the fire extinguishing nozzle comprising:
a mounting portion for mounting the fire extinguishing nozzle to the outside portion of the wheeled land vehicle (par. 74; fig. 2, 12);
an extinguishing agent connection (212/216) for coupling the fire extinguishing nozzle to an extinguishing agent reservoir of the fire extinguishing system (fig. 12);
a fixed nozzle section (28), fixedly mounted to the mounting portion (fig. 8);
and a movable nozzle section (40), movably arranged with respect to the fixed nozzle section (par. 56);
wherein the fixed nozzle section and the movable nozzle section form a telescopic nozzle arrangement (par. 56), wherein the movable nozzle section is configured to extend from the fixed nozzle section in a telescoping manner upon receiving a pressurized extinguishing agent at the extinguishing agent connection (par. 56).
Thompson does not disclose a plurality of movable nozzle sections, movably arranged with respect to the fixed nozzle section between stowed positions and extended positions, the plurality of movable nozzle sections including an intermediate nozzle section and a distal nozzle section, the intermediate nozzle section disposed between the distal nozzle section and the fixed nozzle section with the plurality of movable nozzle sections in the extended positions; and a first seal mounted on an exterior side of the intermediate nozzle section and a second seal mounted on an exterior side of the distal nozzle section, wherein the first seal and the second seal frictionally maintain the intermediate nozzle section and the distal nozzle section in respective stowed states prior to the plurality of movable nozzle sections receiving a pressurized extinguishing agent.
Cocco teaches the wheeled land vehicle described regarding claim 19 above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheeled land vehicle of Thompson to further comprise a plurality of movable nozzle sections configured as claimed, as taught by Cocco, since this was known to provide a greater overall nozzle length while still maintaining a low profile when the nozzle is not being used.
Regarding claim 20, Thompson in view of Cocco discloses the wheeled land vehicle described regarding claim 19, and further wherein the at least one fire extinguishing nozzle is arranged on an underbody of the wheeled land vehicle (par. 74), with a direction of extension of the telescopic nozzle arrangement of the at least one fire extinguishing nozzle being substantially downward from the underbody of the wheeled land vehicle (fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of the prior art being used in the current rejection. Therefore, the prior art is interpreted to teach disclose or render obvious each and every limitation of the amended claims, as explained in the rejections above.
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