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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (English machine translation of CN 109464765 A).
Regarding Claims 1-4 and 6: Chen et al. teaches a fire suppression composition comprising 1-bromo-1,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropene ([0008] and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 5: Chen et al. teaches the fire suppression composition may further comprise additional compounds such as 3-bromo-1,1,2,3-tetrafluoropropene (bromotetrafluoropropene) ([0033]).
Regarding Claim 7: Chen et al. teaches the composition further comprising one or more additional fire suppression agents ([0033]).
Regarding Claim 10: Chen et al. does not require the presence of any per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Regarding Claim 11: Chen et al. teaches a method comprising detecting a fire and dispensing the fire suppression composition ([0035]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 12: Chen et al. teaches a fire extinguishing module (device) comprising the composition ([0033] and [0038]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0108559).
Regarding Claims 1-3: Sharma et al. teaches a fire extinguishing composition comprising CF2BrCH=CH2, a compound of claim 1 wherein n is 3, each X is H, Br, or F, and contains no -CF3- or -CF2- ([0001] and [0015]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 9: Sharma et al. teaches the composition further comprising a further fire suppressing diluent gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide ([0012] and [0027]).
Regarding Claim 10: Sharma et al. does not require the presence of any per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Regarding Claim 11: Sharma et al. teaches a method comprising detecting a fire and dispensing the composition ([0051]).
Regarding Claim 12: Sharma et al. teaches the composition in a device (Fig. 1 and [0049]).
Claim(s)14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (English machine translation of CN 109464765 A).
Chen et al. teaches the fire suppression compound 1-bromo-1,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, a compound of the claimed formula wherein n=3, each X is H, Br, or F, and contains no -CF3- or -CF2- ([0008] and [0033]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0108559).
Sharma et al. teaches the fire extinguishing CF2BrCH=CH2, a compound of claim 14 wherein n is 3, each X is H, Br, or F, and contains no -CF3- or -CF2- ([0001] and [0015]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (English machine translation of CN 109464765 A).
Chen et al. teaches the composition of claim 7 as set forth above.
Chen et al. does not teach the specific amounts of the fire extinguishing agents. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0108559).
Sharma et al. teaches the composition of claim 7 as set forth above. Sharma et al. teaches the diluent gas present in about 8-32% (v/v) ([0027]).
Sharma et al. does not teach the specific claimed amount of diluent gas. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights