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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Invention Group I and Tank Species A (Claim 4) in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 11/20/2025.
The traversal is on the grounds that “Group I, Species A, Group II, and Group I Species B are closely related and have a common utility of wildfire suppression. The Applicant further contends that the Group I, Species A and B, and Group II claims do not pose a serious burden for the Examiner by requiring separate searches.”
This is not found persuasive because, as provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). The inventions and species lack unity of invention as noted in the requirement for restriction mailed 11/20/2025 and further proven based on the below rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. The examiner further notes that the species and inventions have divergent subject matter that require a different field of search including searching different classes and electronic resources, and employing different search strategies or search queries using different keywords, and that prior art applicable to one species and invention may not be applicable to another species and invention group, therefore a search burden exists if restriction is withdrawn .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/5/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: #118 (See Fig. 1B), #230 (See Fig. 2E), and #624 (See Fig. 6).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification lacks antecedent basis for the claim terms “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” in Claims 9-10 and “redundant computing system” in Claim 10.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 14, “such than when” should be revised to “that when” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Line 15, “and nozzle cannon assembly” should be revised to “and the nozzle cannon assembly” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Line 16, “and said controller” should be revised to “and wherein said controller” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 1 Line 18, “at a desire flow rate” should be revised to “at a desired flow rate” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 2 Lines 2-4, “the air temperature, the ground temperature, the wind velocity and direction, the barometric pressure, the temperature of the fire area” should be revised to “an air temperature, a ground temperature, a wind velocity and direction, a barometric pressure, a temperature of a fire area” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 2 Line 9, “the optimal spray pattern” should be revised to “an optimal spray pattern” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 2 Line 11, “the affected area” should be revised to “an affected area” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 7 Line 2, “one of water and a fire retardant foam” should be revised to “one of water or a fire retardant foam” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 8 Line 7, “the one or more field sensors” should be revised to “the field sensors” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
The “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” in Claims 9-10, which uses the generic placeholder “apparatus” coupled with functional language of “redundant wildfire suppression” without reciting sufficient structure.
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.
The “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” in Claims 9-10 fails the written description requirement because the “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” does not correspond to any specific structure that is disclosed in the specification. The term “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” is not used in the specification and the term “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” is not explicitly known in the art of firefighting. The term “redundant” is not used anywhere in the Specification. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of the “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions. For the purpose of examination, the term “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” in the claims will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 9-10 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.
Claims 9-10 fail the written description requirement because the “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” in Claims 9-10 fails the written description requirement because the “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” does not correspond to any specific structure that is disclosed in the specification. The term “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” is not used in the specification and the term “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” is not explicitly known in the art of firefighting. The term “redundant” is not used anywhere in the Specification. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of the “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 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 2 is indefinite because Line 5 states “oxygen/nitrogen consumption (molar flow rates of incoming gases vs exhaust gases) rates” and it is not clear if the limitation “molar flow rates of incoming gases vs exhaust gases” that is in parentheses is required by the claim or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 2 Line 5 will be interpreted to state “oxygen and nitrogen consumption rates and/or molar flow rates of incoming gases vs exhaust gases”.
Claim 2 is also indefinite because Line 10 states “the computing system is programmed to deactivate the wild life suppression system” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the wild life suppression system” in the claim. It is not clear if “the wild life suppression system” is the same as the “apparatus for wildfire suppression” or if it is something else. For the purpose of examination, Claim 2 Line 10 will be interpreted to state “the computing system is programmed to deactivate the apparatus for wildfire suppression”.
Claims 3-5 and 7-10 depend from Claim 2, therefore Claims 3-5 and 7-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claim 3 is also indefinite because Lines 2-3 state “an independent stand-alone power generation system for powering the wildfire suppression system” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the wildfire suppression system” in the claim. It is not clear if “the wildfire suppression system” is the same as the “apparatus for wildfire suppression” or if it is something else. For the purpose of examination, Claim 3 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “an independent stand-alone power generation system for powering the apparatus for wildfire suppression”.
Claim 4 is also indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “where the tank is a tall above ground tank” and the term “tall” is a relative term. The term “tall” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is not explicitly clear what height or arrangement of a tank is required for a tank to qualify as being “tall”. For the purpose of examination, Claim 4 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “where the tank is an above ground tank”.
Claim 8 is also indefinite because Lines 5-7 state “oxygen/nitrogen consumption (molar flow rates of incoming gases vs exhaust gases) rates, relative humidity, air temperature (91 °F)” and it is not clear if the limitations “molar flow rates of incoming gases vs exhaust gases” and “91 °F” that are in parentheses are required by the claim or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 8 Lines 5-7 will be interpreted to state “oxygen and nitrogen consumption rates and/or molar flow rates of incoming gases vs exhaust gases, relative humidity, air temperature”.
Claim 9 is also indefinite because the claim limitation “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” 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. The specification does not use the term “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” at all. The term “redundant” is never used in the specification. Furthermore, it is not clear if “redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” is an additional component of the claimed “apparatus for wildfire suppression” or if it is the same as the “apparatus for wildfire suppression”. 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.
For the purpose of examination, Claim 9 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “The apparatus for wildfire suppression as recited in Claim 2, wherein the apparatus for wildfire suppression is redundant”, and the term “redundant” will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner to mean failsafe and equivalents thereof.
Claim 10 depends from Claim 9, therefore Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claim 10 is also indefinite because Lines 2-3 state “where the computing system of the wildfire suppression apparatus is communicably coupled with a redundant computing system of the redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” and it is not clear if “the wildfire suppression apparatus” and “the redundant wildfire suppression apparatus” are the same and if “the computing system” and the “redundant computing system” are the same or if they are different parts of the claimed apparatus for wildfire suppression. The term “redundant” is not used anywhere in the Specification. For the purpose of examination, Claim 10 Lines 2-3 will be interpreted to state “where the computing system is communicably coupled with a redundant computing system”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2023/0124927 A1 to Ezra et al. (“Ezra”) in view of US PGPUB 2016/0051848 A1 to Klarlund et al. (“Klarlund”).
As to Claim 1, Ezra discloses an apparatus for wildfire suppression (See Fig. 2C) comprising:
a tank (#70) storing a fire retardant substance (See Paragraph 0036);
an elevated tower (#105);
a nozzle cannon assembly (See Fig. 3) disposed proximate a top portion of the elevated tower (See Fig. 1), and said nozzle cannon assembly including a nozzle (#55) mounted on a horizontally oriented bearing (#50) and said nozzle cannon assembly having a motor (See Annotated Fig. 2C. The motor is made up of #45, #40, and #65, which combine to make up one motor assembly) operative to controllably pivot said nozzle along a vertical arc about said horizontally oriented bearing (See Paragraph 0050 and Fig. 3) and said nozzle cannon assembly further mounted on a vertically oriented bearing (#60) and said nozzle cannon assembly having said motor operative to controllably pivot said nozzle along a horizontal arc about said vertically oriented bearing (See Paragraph 0050 and Fig. 3);
a pump (See Paragraph 0068, Paragraph 0081, and Fig. 10. The air from #75 along with regulators #95, manifold #90, and valve #85 are equivalent to a pump system that controls transfer of fluid) operative to controllably pump the fire retardant substance from the tank through the nozzle of the nozzle cannon assembly and project the fire retardant material at a distance from the elevated tower (See Paragraph 0081);
a controller (#10) including executable code such than when executed controls the motor, the nozzle and nozzle cannon assembly to stepwise pivot the nozzle about the vertical and horizontal bearings respectfully with an oscillating pattern (See Paragraph 0056) and said controller further controls the pump to pump the fire retardant substance from the tank and through the nozzle at a desire flow rate and pressure (See Paragraphs 0081-0083); and
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra as applied to Claim 1 above, Ezra does not specifically disclose the elevated tower having a height of 15 feet or higher (Paragraph 0070 discloses ranges for targeting but does not disclose a height of #105).
However, Klarlund discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002), an apparatus for wildfire suppression (See Fig. 1) comprising an elevated tower (#14) having a height that is higher than 15 feet (See Paragraph 0041 disclosing heights of 6 feet to 100 feet or 20 feet to 50 feet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra such that the elevated tower has a height of 15 feet or higher, as taught by Klarlund, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to provide fire retardant substance at a desired distance to maximize fluid coverage on a target area (See Klarlund Paragraphs 0040-0042).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra in view of Klarlund as applied to Claim 1 above, Ezra further discloses the apparatus for wildfire suppression comprising:
a system of field sensors (#30 and #27) operable to measure one or more of the air temperature, the ground temperature, the wind velocity and direction, the barometric pressure, the temperature of the fire area, heat release rate, height of flames, oxygen/nitrogen levels, oxygen/nitrogen consumption (molar flow rates of incoming gases vs exhaust gases) rates, relative humidity, air temperature, specific heat capacities and relative humidity (See Paragraphs 0046 and 0056 at least disclosing wind speed and direction and air temperature),
where the controller controls sensor data to be fed to an onsite computing system that has modified hardware and software that analyzes the data and then determines and controls the controller to execute the optimal spray pattern and direction of spray and where the computing system is programmed to deactivate the wild life suppression system and algorithms are executed to direct the field sensors to perform a scan of the affected area to determine potential re-flash conditions (See Paragraphs 0042-0044, 0049-0051, and 0065 and See Figs. 7A-7B).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra in view of Klarlund as applied to Claim 2 above, Ezra further discloses the apparatus for wildfire suppression comprising:
an independent stand-alone power generation system for powering the wildfire suppression system (See Paragraph 0036 disclosing a local power source, which is equivalent to a stand-alone power generator, as a primary electrical feed and See Claim 54 disclosing “an independent power source”).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra in view of Klarlund as applied to Claim 2 above, Ezra further discloses where the tank is a tall above ground tank (See Fig. 2C showing #70 with a height such that it is above a ground surface. Also see Fig. 2B showing a tank #70 in an upright position) and Klarlund further discloses wherein the elevated tower is over 25 feet in height (See Paragraph 0041 disclosing heights up to 100 feet).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra in view of Klarlund as applied to Claim 2 above, Ezra further discloses the apparatus for wildfire suppression comprising:
a heat and vision system array for sensing an oncoming wildfire (#25 utilized with #30, See Paragraph 0040 disclosing a thermal camera used with a targeting system, which is equivalent to a heat and vision system array) disposed proximate a highest point of an elevated tank or the elevated tower (See Fig. 2C showing #25 on top of #105).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra in view of Klarlund as applied to Claim 2 above, Ezra further discloses where the fire retardant substance is one of water and a fire retardant foam (See Paragraph 0047 disclosing water or foam).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra in view of Klarlund as applied to Claim 2 above, Ezra further discloses where the computing system is programmed with software algorithms for calculating one or more of air temperature, ground temperature, wind velocity, wind direction, barometric pressure, temperature of the fire area, heat release rate, height of flames, oxygen/nitrogen levels, oxygen/nitrogen consumption (molar flow rates of incoming gases vs exhaust gases) rates, relative humidity, air temperature (91 °F), direction of advancement of fire and specific heat capacities based on the one or more field sensors (See Paragraph 0058 at least disclosing using field calibrated wind speed and direction data to input into an algorithm. Field calibrated wind speed and direction data is equivalent to wind speed and direction data that is calculated via a software algorithm).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra in view of Klarlund as applied to Claim 2 above, Ezra further discloses the apparatus for wildfire suppression comprising a redundant wildfire suppression apparatus (See Paragraph 0036 disclosing that #1 has a backup battery, and See Paragraph 0060 disclosing using a self-correcting adjustment feedback loop, thus the apparatus for wildfire suppression can be considered redundant since it has failsafe measures).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the apparatus for wildfire suppression of Ezra in view of Klarlund as applied to Claim 9 above, Ezra further discloses where the computing system of the wildfire suppression apparatus is communicably coupled with a redundant computing system of the redundant wildfire suppression apparatus (See Paragraph 0065 disclosing a smart mobile device being able to fully control the wildfire suppression apparatus remotely. See Paragraph 0083 disclosing #10 being electronic communication with various local and remote devices by wired or wireless networks, and See Claim 49 disclosing a remote station).
PNG
media_image1.png
966
1135
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 O 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 27, 2026