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 Election/Restrictions Claims 18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species ( applicant has elected the invention in group I, species A), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 31, 2025. Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are original. Claims 18 and 20 are withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1-17, and 19 have been considered 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 as follows “ Actuation element ” in line 9 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “ element ” coupled with functional language “ for acting upon the manual lever for moving the manual lever from its closed position to its open position ” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. “ Elastic element ” in line 11 of claim 1 . The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “ element ” coupled with functional language “ for moving the actuation element ” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. “ T rigger mechanism ” in line 12 of claim 1 . The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “ mechanism ” coupled with functional language “ for holding the actuation element in a preloaded position ” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. “ Electromagnetic t rigger mechanism ” in lines 1-2 of claim 7. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “ mechanism ” coupled with functional language “ for electromagnetically triggering ” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function 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. A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “ actuation element ” in line 9 of claim 1, because line 20 on page 9 of the applicant’s specification states “ a movable actuation element 14, in particular a piston 14 ” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “ a piston ” , or equivalent thereof. A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “ elastic element ” in line 11 of claim 1, because lines 24-25 on page 3 of the applicant’s specification states “the elastic element comprises a spring. The spring may be a compression spring” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a spring”, or equivalent thereof. A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “ t rigger mechanism ” in line 12 of claim 1, because lines 5-6 on page 4 of the applicant’s specification states “The trigger mechanism 18 may comprise a movable latch 20, which is movable between a locking position and a released position” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a latch”, or equivalent thereof. A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “ Electromagnetic t rigger mechanism ” in lines 1-2 of claim 7, because lines 24-24 on page 10 of the applicant’s specification states “ The trigger mechanism 18 may be an electromagnetic trigger mechanism including a solenoid ” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “ a solenoid ”, or equivalent thereof. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 3, 5, and 10 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 3 recites the limitation " the spring" in line 1 of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation “a force” in line 2 of claim 5, but claim 4 from which claim 5 depends recites the limitation “a force” in line 2 of claim 4. It is unclear if there are separate “forces” or if these are the same “force”. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the mechanical actuator is configured to be retrofitted to an existing fire extinguisher valve” in lines 1-10 of claim 10. It is unclear how the term “retrofitted” defines the resulting product beyond that fact that the recited components are installed , coupled , or assembled to the system. 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) 1-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeYoung ( US 11 , 406 , 855 ) in view of Kittredge ( US 3 , 355 , 139 ) . Regarding claim 1 , DeYoung discloses a f ire extinguisher valve ( Fig. 1- 3 , 40 ) for controlling a flow of a fire extinguishing agent in a fire extinguishing system, the fire extinguisher valve comprising: a valve body (Fig. 1-3, 60 ); a manual lever (Fig. 2-3, { 90 , 92, 110, 130, 140, 148} ), which is manually movable between an open position, in which a fire extinguishing agent discharge path through the valve body is established, and a closed position, in which the fire extinguishing agent discharge path through the valve body is closed (Col. 9: ln. 60 to Col. 10: Ln. 4) ; and a mechanical actuator (Fig. 2, {160 & 164 } ), which is mounted to and supported by the valve body, and which comprises: an actuation element ( Fig. 2, {160 & 164} ) for acting upon the manual lever for moving the manual lever from its closed position to its open position (Col. 14: Ln. 35-41; Col. 15: Ln. 4-12) ; DeYoung does not disclose an elastic element for moving the actuation element, and a trigger mechanism for holding the actuation element in a preloaded position, in which the elastic element is preloaded, and for releasing the actuation element, when the mechanical actuator is activated. However, Kittredge teaches a prior art comparable valve mechanism (Fig. 1, 10) comprising a mechanical actuator ( Fig. 1, {26, 28, 30, 48, 50 & 52} ), which is mounted to and supported by a valve body (Fig. 1, 12), and which comprises: an actuation element (Fig. 1, { 28 & 30} ) ; an elastic element (Fig. 1, 26) for moving the actuation element, and a trigger mechanism (Fig. 1, { 48 , 50 & 52} ) for holding the actuation element in a preloaded position, in which the elastic element is preloaded, and for releasing the actuation element, when the mechanical actuator is activated ( Col. 2: Ln. 16-22; Fig. 1 shows the actuation element in a preloaded position in which the elastic element is preloaded and Fig. 3 shows when the mechanical actuator is activated. ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mechanical actuator with a known function of actuating, taught by Kittredge , by performing a simple substitution with the mechanical actuator disclosed by DeYoung because the mechanical actuator of Kittredge provides a mechanism for a variety of fluids, such as gas or oil or other liquids ( Kittredge – Col. 1: Ln. 47-48), and the substitution would yield the predictable result of actuating the manual lever from its closed position to its open position when a fire condition is detected. Additionally, DeYoung discloses that other triggering mechanisms may be used ( DeYoung – Col. 10: Ln. 4). Regarding claim 2, DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguisher valve according to claim 1. Kittredge further teaches wherein the elastic element comprises a spring (Col. 2: Ln. 8-9). Regarding claim 3 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguisher valve according to claim 1. Kittredge wherein the spring is a compression spring (Col. 2: Ln. 8-9). Regarding claim 4 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguisher valve according to claim 1 . Kittredge further teaches, wherein the elastic element is configured for causing the actuation element to exert a force ( Fig. 1 shows the elastic element as a compression spring in a compressed state, thereby inherently causing the actuation element to exert a force.; Col. 2: Ln. 8-9; Col. 3: Ln. 14-16 ) DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the claimed invention except for the force in a range of between 50 N and 250 N. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the force in a range of between 50 N and 250 N, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the force in a range of between 50 N and 250 N ( Pg. 3: Ln. 31-34; Pg. 9: Ln. 31-34; ), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 5 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguisher valve according to claim 4. Kittredge further teaches, wherein the elastic element is configured for causing the actuation element to exert a force (Fig. 1 shows the elastic element as a compression spring in a compressed state, thereby inherently causing the actuation element to exert a force.; Col. 2: Ln. 8-9; Col. 3: Ln. 14-16). DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the force exerted onto the manual lever ( DeYoung – Col. 14: Ln. 35-41 ). DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the claimed invention except for the force in a range of between 90 N and 150 N. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the force in a range of between 90 N and 150 N, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the force in a range of between 90 N and 150 N (Pg. 3: Ln. 31-34; Pg. 9: Ln. 31-34; ), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 6 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the f ire extinguisher valve according to claim 1 . Kittredge further teaches wherein the trigger mechanism comprises a latch (Fig. 1 & 3, {50 & 52}) . Regarding claim 7 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguisher valve according to claim 1. Kittredge further teaches wherein the trigger mechanism is an electromagnetic trigger mechanism (Fig. 1 & 3, 48; Col. 2: Ln. 28-32) . Regarding claim 8 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguisher valve according to claim 7 . Kittredge further teaches wherein the electromagnetic trigger mechanism comprises a solenoid (Fig. 1 & 3, 48; Col. 2: Ln. 28-32) . Regarding claim 9 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the f ire extinguisher valve according to claim 1 . DeYoung further discloses wherein the mechanical actuator is a separate component, which is mountable and individually separable from the valve body (Fig. 2 shows threading on the mechanical actuator (160 & 164), which can be more clearly seen in Fig. 22-23 and is thus mountable and individually separable from the valve body). Regarding claim 10 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguisher valve according to claim 9. DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches wherein the mechanical actuator is configured to be retrofitted to an existing fire extinguisher valve ( The prior art device discloses all of the required structural components and is therefore can retrofit to an existing fire extinguisher valve in the same way as the claimed invention. ). Regarding claim 11, DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguisher valve according to claim 1. DeYoung further discloses a fire extinguishing system ( Fig. 13, 30; Col. 14: Ln. 26-30; Col. 15: Ln. 13-23 ), comprising: a reservoir ( Fig. 13, 32 ) for accommodating a fire extinguishing agent; and wherein the fire extinguisher valve is fluidly coupled to the reservoir for controlling a flow of the fire extinguishing agent out of the reservoir ( Col. 9: Ln. 52-66 ). Regarding claim 12 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the f ire extinguishing system according to claim 11 . DeYoung further discloses the system comprising a fire extinguishing agent (Col. 9: Ln. 41-51; “ sodium bicarbonate ”) within the reservoir, wherein the fire extinguishing agent includes at least one of a gas, a liquefied gas, a liquid, and/or a dry chemical agent (Sodium b icarbonate is a dry chemical agent . ) . Regarding claim 13 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the f ire extinguishing system according to claim 12 . DeYoung further discloses wherein the dry chemical agent includes a dry chemical agent in powder form (Sodium Bicarbonate is a dry chemical agent in powder form) . Regarding claim 14 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguishing system according to claim 11, wherein the fire extinguishing system further comprises: a fire sensor for detecting a fire ( 180; Col. 10: Ln. 12-21 ) ; and a controller (150; Col. 10: Ln. 12-21) for activating the mechanical actuator when a fire has been detected and/or when a fire alarm signal has been received. Regarding claim 15 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the f ire extinguishing system according to claim 11 . DeYoung further discloses wherein the fire extinguishing system is a portable fire extinguishing system (Col. 15: Ln. 13-15; The Fire extinguishing unit must be portable to be placed on a shelf.). Regarding claim 16 , DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the f ire extinguishing system according to claim 11 . DeYoung further discloses wherein the fire extinguishing system is a stationary fire extinguishing system (Col. 15: Ln. 13-15; Fig. 13 shows the fire extinguisher mounted and thus stationary relative to what it is mounted to.) , wherein the fire extinguishing system is configured to be installed in a building or in a vehicle (The fire extinguishing system is capable of being installed in a building or vehicle.) . Regarding claim 19, DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the Method of operating a fire extinguisher valve according to claim 1. DeYoung in view of Kittredge further teaches a method, wherein the method includes: activating the mechanical actuator (DeYoung – Col. 10: Ln. 5-21) ; as a response to activating the mechanical actuator, releasing the actuation element (Kittredge shows the actuation element released in Fig. 3) ; and with the actuation element, moving the manual lever from its closed position to its open position ( DeYoung – Col. 13: Ln. 62 to Col. 14: Ln. 19 ) . Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeYoung in view of Kittredge and Kluz ( US 9 , 302 , 133 ) . Regarding claim 17, DeYoung in view of Kittredge teaches the fire extinguishing system according to claim 11, but does not teach a vehicle comprising the fire extinguishing system according to claim 11, wherein the vehicle includes a land vehicle. However, Kluz teaches a prior art comparable fire extinguishing system (Fig. 1, 10) to be utilized in a vehicle that includes a land vehicle (Col. 3: Ln. 27-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to install the fire extinguishing system taught by DeYoung in view of Kittredge into a vehicle that includes a land vehicle to suppress and/or put out a fire caused by accident or attack as taught by Kluz ( Kluz – Col. 3: Ln. 29-30) with a reasonable expectation of success, namely suppressing a fire inside the vehicle that includes the land vehicle. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5465 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arthur Hall can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 18, 202 5 /JOSEPH A GREENLUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752