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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are original. Therefore, claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the improvement comprising of” in line 11 of claim 1. However, it is suggested to amend to - the improvement comprising -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the nozzle and head assembly which is a self-guided, self-propelled, and fire detecting” in lines 3-4 of claim 2. However, it is suggested to amend to - the nozzle and head assembly which is self-guided, self-propelled, and fire detecting -. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Electronic control unit (Claim 1)
Plurality of ports (Claim 1)
Wireless communications unit (Claim 1)
Housing (Claim 2)
Means for communicating status of the system to other fire fighting assets (Claim 2)
Means for transportation and deployment (Claim 2)
Hose system (Claims 2 & 3)
Manual fire suppression system (Claim 3)
Means for directing the path of travel (Claim 3)
Hose storage device within a vehicle (Claim 4)
Means for initiating the launch of the device into a fire (Claim 4)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
“Means for communicating status of the system to other fire fighting assets” in line 6 of claim 2. The limitation includes the term “means” coupled with functional language “for communicating status of the system to other fire fighting assets” and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Means for transportation and deployment” in line 7 of claim 2. The limitation includes the term “means” coupled with functional language “for transportation and deployment” and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Means for directing the path of travel” in lines 4-5 of claim 3. The limitation includes the term “means” coupled with functional language “for directing the path of travel” and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Means for initiating the launch of the device into a fire“ in line 5 of claim 4. The limitation includes the term “means” coupled with functional language “for initiating the launch of the device into a fire” and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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.
“Wireless communications unit” in lines 11-12 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “for wireless communications” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Hose storage device” in line 5 of claim 2. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “for wireless communications” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Hose system” in lines 4 of claim 2. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “to communicate said fluid” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Hose system” in lines 3-4 of claim 3. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “to communicate said fluid” 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
“An electronic control unit” in lines 11-12 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “for electronic control” 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 not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding a “wireless communications unit” in lines 11-12 of claim 1.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding a “means for communicating status of the system to other fire fighting assets” in line 6 of claim 2.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding a “means for transportation and deployment” in line 7 of claim 2.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding a “hose system” in lines 4 of claim 2.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding a “hose storage device” in line 5 of claim 2, because page 6 of the applicant’s specification describes that numeral 15 is the hose storage device and Fig. 3 shows item 15 as a conical shaped structure. The examiner will interpret this limitation as a conical shaped structure, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding a “means for directing the path of travel” in lines 4-5 of claim 3.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding a “hose system” in lines 3-4 of claim 3.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding a “means for initiating the launch of the device into a fire“ in line 5 of claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant recites “a wireless communications unit” in lines 11-12 of claim 1, but does describe any structure in the specification nor show any structure in the drawings. Therefore, this limitation was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant recites “a means for communicating status of the system to other fire fighting assets” in line 6 of claim 2, “a means for transportation and deployment” in line 7 of claim 2, and a “hose system” in lines 4 of claim 2, but does describe any structure in the specification nor show any structure in the drawings. Therefore, this limitation was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claim 3, the applicant recites “a means for directing the path of travel” in lines 4-5 of claim 3 and a “hose system” in lines 3-4 of claim, but does describe any structure in the specification nor show any structure in the drawings. Therefore, this limitation was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding claim 4, the applicant recites “a means for initiating the launch of the device into a fire“ in line 5 of claim 4, but does describe any structure in the specification nor show any structure in the drawings. Therefore, this limitation was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
The claim limitation “wireless communications unit” in lines 11-12 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “wireless communications unit” was found in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The claim limitation “means for communicating status of the system to other fire fighting assets” in line 6 of claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “means for communicating status of the system to other fire fighting asset” was found in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The claim limitation “means for transportation and deployment” in line 7 of claim 2. invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “means for transportation and deployment” was found in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The claim limitation “hose system” in lines 4 of claim 2. invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for a “hose system” was found in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The claim limitation “means for directing the path of travel” in lines 4-5 of claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “means for directing the path of travel” was found in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The claim limitation “hose system” in lines 3-4 of claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for a “hose system” was found in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The claim limitation “means for initiating the launch of the device into a fire“ in line 5 of claim 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for a “means for initiating the launch of the device into a fire” was found in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-4 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 improvement being transported via reactive jet propulsion, while utilizing no external moving parts, by the principle of acceleration of a fluid through a jet nozzle, and utilizing the hydraulic force of fluid pressure to propel the device” in lines 4-7 of claim 1, and the improvement comprising of: (a) guidance computer with a wireless communications unit, in communication with (b) a 3-axis gyroscope and (c) a 3-axis accelerometer, powered by (d) a self-contained electrical power source, and (e) communicating to a sensor array, which is programmed by logic to avoid obstacles, navigate to the fire, and control fluid by a (f) plurality of valve actuators which cause (g) an internal valve spool, to divert the flow of fluid internal to the (h) valve body thus allowing (i) lifting jet nozzles to move the assembly by reactive jet propulsion to allow delivery of suppression fluid through (j) fire attack ports” in lines 11-17 of claim 1. Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the improvement.” Secondly, it is unclear as to what the improvement is. Is the improvement the autonomous fire suppression nozzle and head assembly, elements of the autonomous fire suppression nozzle and head assembly, the electronic control unit or something else? Thirdly, it is unclear if “the improvement” in line 4 of claim 1 is the same as “the improvement” in line 11 of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the body cavity of the nozzle and head assembly" in lines 8-9 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “utilizing the hydraulic force of fluid pressure to propel the device” and “control the travel and delivery functions of the device for fire suppression fluids and gasses.” With regards to “the device,” it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the “autonomous fire suppression device” in line 1 of claim 1, the “hose delivery device” in line 4 of claim 1 or another device.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “A fire suppression system with an autonomous fire suppression device according to claim 1, comprising: A collection of components, the improvement comprising: (a) the nozzle and head assembly which is a self-guided, self-propelled, and fire detecting” in lines 1-4 of claim 2. It is unclear if the fire suppression system comprises the autonomous fire suppression system of claim 1, and further unclear if it comprises an additional nozzle and head assembly which is a self-guided, self-propelled, and fire detecting or if the applicant is referring to the nozzle and head assembly recited in claim 1. Additionally claim 1, from which claim 2 is believed to dependent on recites “the improvement” twice in lines 4 and 11, and therefore it is unclear if these are the same improvement or different improvements from the improvement recited in line 3 of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a manual fire suppression system with an autonomous fire suppression device according to claim 1, comprising a collection of components, the improvement comprising: (a) the nozzle and head assembly which is self-stabilized and self-propelled,” in lines 1-3 of claim 3. It is unclear if the manual system comprises the autonomous fire suppression system of claim 1, and further unclear if it comprises an additional nozzle and head assembly which is a self-guided and self-propelled or if the applicant is refereeing to the nozzle and head assembly recited in claim 1. Additionally claim 1, from which claim 3 is believed to dependent on recites “the improvement” twice in lines 4 and 11, and therefore it is unclear if these are the same improvement or different improvements from the improvement recited in line 2 of claim 3.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a means for directing the path of travel of said device by a firefighter” in lines 4-5 of claim 3. With regards to “the device,” it is unclear if the applicant is referring to “the autonomous fire suppression device according to claim 1” recited in line 1 of claim 3, “the hose storage device” recited in lines 3-4 of claim 3, or a different device.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a vehicle mounted automatic fire suppression system with an autonomous fire suppression device according to claim 1, comprising a collection of components, the improvement comprising: (a) the nozzle and head assembly which is self-stabilized, self-guided, self-propelled, and fire detecting” in lines 1-3 of claim 3. It is unclear if vehicle mounted automatic fire suppression system comprises the autonomous fire suppression system of claim 1, and further unclear if it comprises an additional nozzle and head assembly which is self-stabilized, self-guided, self-propelled, and fire detecting or if the applicant is refereeing to the nozzle and head assembly recited in claim 1. Additionally claim 1, from which claim 4 is believed to dependent on recites “the improvement” twice in lines 4 and 11, and therefore it is unclear if these are the same improvement or different improvements from the improvement recited in line 2 of claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a means for initiating the launch of the device into a fire” in line 5 of claim 4. With regards to “the device,” it is unclear if the applicant is referring to “the autonomous fire suppression device according to claim 1” recited in line 1 of claim 4, “the hose storage device” recited in line 5 of claim 4, or a different device.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the source of pressurized fire suppression fluid" in line 4 of claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the hose system" in line 4 of claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDaniel (US 2016/0243388).
Regarding claim 1, McDaniel discloses an autonomous fire suppression device, in which the mass transferred by fluid flow is utilized to generate reactive motive force (Clm. 1), comprising:
an autonomous fire suppression nozzle and head assembly which is a self-guided, self-propelled, fire- detecting, hose delivery device for the application of fire suppression fluids or gasses, the improvement being transported via reactive jet propulsion, while utilizing no external moving parts, by the principle of acceleration of a fluid through a jet nozzle, and utilizing the hydraulic force of fluid pressure to propel the device (Clm. 1);
a single internal electromagnetic-fluidic hydraulic valve core enclosed within the body cavity of the nozzle and head assembly surrounded by a plurality of ports that control the travel and delivery functions of the device for fire suppression fluids and gasses (Clm. 1);
an electronic control unit, the improvement comprising of: (a) guidance computer with a wireless communications unit, in communication with (b) a 3-axis gyroscope and (c) a 3-axis accelerometer, powered by (d) a self-contained electrical power source, and (e) communicating to a sensor array, which is programmed by logic to avoid obstacles, navigate to the fire, and control fluid by a (f) plurality of valve actuators which cause (g) an internal valve spool, to divert the flow of fluid internal to the (h) valve body thus allowing (i) lifting jet nozzles to move the assembly by reactive jet propulsion to allow delivery of suppression fluid through (j) fire attack ports (Clm. 1).
Regarding claim 2, McDaniel discloses a fire suppression system with an autonomous fire suppression device according to claim 1 (Clm. 2), comprising:
A collection of components, the improvement comprising: (a) the nozzle and head assembly which is a self-guided, self-propelled, and fire detecting, (b) a source of pressurized fluid, (c) a hose system to communicate said fluid, (d) a hose storage device (Fig. 3, 15), and (d) a housing for the components (Clm. 2);
a means for communicating status of the system to other fire fighting assets (Clm. 2);
a means for transportation and deployment (Clm. 2).
Regarding claim 3, McDaniel discloses a manual fire suppression system with an autonomous fire suppression device according to claim 1 (Clm. 3), comprising a collection of components, the improvement comprising: (a) the nozzle and head assembly which is self-stabilized and self-propelled, (b) a source of pressurized fire suppression fluid, (c) a hose system to communicate said fluid, (d) a hose storage device (Fig. 3, 15), and (e) a means for directing the path of travel of said device by a firefighter (Clm. 3).
Regarding claim 4, McDaniel discloses a vehicle mounted automatic fire suppression system with an autonomous fire suppression device according to claim 1 (Clm. 4; Fig shown on sheet 4.), comprising a collection of components, the improvement comprising: (a) the nozzle and head assembly which is self-stabilized, self-guided, self-propelled, and fire detecting, (b) the source of pressurized fire suppression fluid, (c) the hose system to communicate said fluid, (d) a hose storage device within a vehicle, and (f) a means for initiating the launch of the device into a fire (Clm. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752