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 .
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 are 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:
“one output device for discharging the fire extinguishant from the motor” in claim 1,
“one feeding device for providing the fire extinguishant additive” in claim 1,
“one output device for discharging the fire extinguishant additive” in claim 1,
“remote control means for transmitting and executing a command” in claim 1,
“timing means for the automatic start-up or shut-down of the motor and of the mixing pump” in claim 1,
“remote read-out means for automatically receiving and transmitting data” in claim 1, and
“a drive apparatus configured to set the motor into rotation” in claim 5.
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. Such corresponding structure(s) is/are:
“one output device for discharging the fire extinguishant from the motor”, no structure appears to be described,
“one feeding device for providing the fire extinguishant additive” in claim 1, no structure appears to be described,
“one output device for discharging the fire extinguishant additive” in claim 1, no structure appears to be described,
“remote control means for transmitting and executing a command” in claim 1, a programmable logic controller or an internet-based computer,
“timing means for the automatic start-up or shut-down of the motor and of the mixing pump”, a programmable logic controller or an internet-based computer,
“remote read-out means for automatically receiving and transmitting data” in claim 1, a programmable logic controller or an internet-based computer,
“the drive apparatus configured to set the motor into rotation”, an electric motor.
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 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 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further, regarding claim 1, each of the limitations “one output device for discharging the fire extinguishant form the motor”, “one feeding device for providing the fire extinguishant additive”, and “one output device for discharging the fire extinguishant additive” 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 as-filed disclosure appears to be devoid of any description of the corresponding structures. 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.
Again regarding claim 1, the limitations “remote control means”, “timing means”, and “remote read-out means” render this claim indefinite because all three separate elements appear to be described by the same structure in the disclosure. As a result, it is unclear what structure or structures correspond to these limitations rendering the metes and bounds of the limitations indefinite.
Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "at least one output device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 2, Claim limitation “at least one output device” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because even though the limitation recites the nonce term “device” it does not further modify this term by reciting a function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the line circuit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is further rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what the “line circuit” consists of. Lines 4-6 appear to require the line circuit to be the portion of the mixing line from the motor side-end to the motor output-side end of the bypass line. But, lines 6-8 appear to require the line circuit to be the portion of the fire extinguishant inlet line between the motor input-side end of the bypass line and the inlet to the motor.
Claims 6-7 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the return line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the switching device” in lines 4-5 and "the return line" in line 7. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
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 1-2, 4-6, 10, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulinsky et al. (DE 10 2019 215 406) in view of Jiang et al. (US 2021/0346740).
Regarding claim 1, Hulinsky discloses an admixing system (1) for fire-extinguishing units for producing a fire extinguishant and fire extinguishant additive mixture (premix) by mixing a fire extinguishant additive, in particular a foaming agent, into a fire extinguishant, in particular water (p. 1, par. 2; fig. 1), comprising:
a motor (2) able to be driven by a flow of fire extinguishant, in particular a water motor (p. 6, par. 3), which has at least one feeding device (3) for supplying the fire extinguishant to the motor (fig. 1), in particular from a fire extinguishant tank (23) or from a fire extinguishant supply line (fig. 1 – the line connecting the tank 23 to the motor 2), at least one output device (4) for discharging the fire extinguishant from the motor (fig. 1), and a motor shaft (5) able to be driven by the motor (p. 6, par. 5),
a fire extinguishant inlet line having a motor-side end connected to the at least one feeding device of the motor and a fire extinguishant supply-side end able to be connected in particular to a fire extinguishant tank or to a fire extinguishant supply line (fig. 1 – the line between the tank 23 and the motor 2),
a mixing pump (6, see p. 6, par. 6) for pumping the fire extinguishant additive (p. 6, par. 7), preferably a piston pump and further preferably a plunger pump (p. 6, par. 6), which has a drive shaft (9) coupled to the motor shaft of the motor (fig. 1), at least one feeding device (7) for providing the fire extinguishant additive (fig. 1), in particular from an extinguishant additive tank (24) or from an extinguishant additive supply line (fig. 1 – line between tank 24 and inlet 7), and at least one output device (8) for discharging the fire extinguishant additive (fig. 1),
a mixing line (10) having a motor-side end and an outlet-side end (fig. 1), wherein the motor-side end is fluidly connected to the at least one output device of the motor (fig. 1),
a fire extinguishant additive line (13) with a pump-side end and a mixing line-side end (fig. 1), wherein the pump-side end is fluidly connected to the at least one output device of the mixing pump and the mixing line-side end is fluidly connected to the mixing line at a mixing point (16, see fig. 1),
wherein the admixing system has control means for transmitting and executing a command for the automatic start-up or shut-down of the system (p. 8, par. 3).
Hulinsky does not disclose that control means is remote and transmits and executes a command for the automatic start-up or shutdown of the motor and of the mixing pump, and/or timing means for the automatic start-up or shut-down of the motor and of the mixing pump, wherein the remote control means and/or the timing means allow the automatic start-up or respectively shut-down of the motor and of the mixing pump without the presence of an operator at the admixing system, and that the admixing system has remote read-out means for automatically receiving and transmitting data relating to the state of the admixing system, wherein the remote read-out means allows the automatic receiving and transmitting of this data without the presence of an operator at the admixing system.
Jiang teaches a remote control means (13) for transmitting and executing a command for the automatic start-up or shutdown of a motor and of a pump (par. 42), and/or timing means for the automatic start-up or shut-down of the motor and of the mixing pump (the use of “and/or” is interpreted to make the “timing means” optional), wherein the remote control means and/or the timing means allow the automatic start-up or respectively shut-down of the motor and of the mixing pump without the presence of an operator at the admixing system (par. 42 – “system can automatically adjust control parameters, start the relevant pump group to supply liquid/gas, and maintain the stability of the system”), and that the admixing system has remote read-out means for automatically receiving and transmitting data relating to the state of the admixing system, wherein the remote read-out means allows the automatic receiving and transmitting of this data without the presence of an operator at the admixing system (Par. 33 – “communication module…of the single-chip microcomputer” and “data acquisition module”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the admixing system of Hulinsky to further comprise a remote control means for transmitting and executing a command for the automatic start-up or shutdown of the motor and of the mixing pump, and/or timing means for the automatic start-up or shut-down of the motor and of the mixing pump, wherein the remote control means and/or the timing means allow the automatic start-up or respectively shut-down of the motor and of the mixing pump without the presence of an operator at the admixing system, and that the admixing system has remote read-out means for automatically receiving and transmitting data relating to the state of the admixing system, wherein the remote read-out means allows the automatic receiving and transmitting of this data without the presence of an operator at the admixing system, as taught by Jiang. Such a modification was known to provide a system having automatic control and intelligent operation (Jiang, par. 16).
Regarding claim 2, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the admixing system further comprises a fire extinguishant pump (27) for pumping fire extinguishant from a fire extinguishant tank (23) and supplying to the motor (fig. 1), its at least one output device connected to the fire extinguishant supply-side end of the fire extinguishant inlet line (fig. 1), and that the remote control means and/or the timing means are configured to start up and to shut down the fire extinguishant pump (as explained regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a remote control means that controls operation of the pump of a firefighting admixing system).
Regarding claim 4, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the admixing system further comprises a bypass line for the motor which is fluidly connected to the fire extinguishant inlet line at a motor input-side end and to the mixing line at a motor output-side end (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 5 as best understood, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 4, and further wherein the admixing system further comprises a drive apparatus (27) configured to set the motor into rotation (p. 6, par. 3), and that the motor is configured to pump the fire extinguishant contained in the line circuit consisting of the part of the mixing line between the motor side-end of the mixing line and the motor output-side end of the bypass line (fig. 1), the bypass line and the part of the fire extinguishant inlet line between the motor input-side end of the bypass line and the motor-side end of the fire extinguishant inlet line, through said line circuit (fig. 1) .
PNG
media_image1.png
692
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure of Hulinsky for Claim 4
Regarding claim 6, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 5, and Jiang further teaches wherein the remote control means and/or the timing means are configured to start up and to shut down the drive apparatus (par. 42 – “system can automatically adjust control parameters, start the relevant pump group to supply liquid/gas, and maintain the stability of the system”).
Regarding claim 10, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 4, and further wherein the bypass line has at least one first measuring device (45), in particular a flow rate measuring device, preferably a magnetic-inductive flow meter, a pressure measuring device (p. 6, par. 8) or a temperature measuring device, and the remote read-out means are configured to read data from the first measuring device and to transmit them (Jiang – fig. 3; par. 36-38).
Regarding claim 12, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the return line has at least one third measuring device (45, see fig. 1), preferably a flow rate measuring device and further preferably a magnetic-inductive flow meter, and the remote read-out means are configured to read data from the third measuring device and to transmit them (Jiang – fig. 3; par. 36-38).
Regarding claim 13, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the motor has at least one fourth measuring device, in particular a tachometer (22, see p. 8, par. 3), and the remote read-out means are configured to read data from the fourth measuring device and to transmit them (Jiang – par. 42, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the remote control means are arranged remotely from the components of the admixing system for which the remote control means is configured to start up and shut down (fig. 1 – the control means 13 is disposed at a distance from the components of the admixing system), and/or the remote read-out means are arranged remotely from the components of the admixing system for which the remote read-out means is configured to receive data from and to transmit them (fig. 1 – the control means 13 is disposed at a distance from the components of the admixing system), in particular on a remote server computer (par. 33 – “microcomputer”).
Regarding claim 16, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses a method for the maintenance of an admixing system according to claim 1 having the steps:
the remote control means and/or timing means starting up the motor and the mixing pump (Jiang – par. 42),
the remote read-out means receiving and transmitting data relating to the state of the admixing system (par. 42; fig. 3), and
the remote control means and/or timing means shutting down the motor and the mixing pump (par. 42).
Regarding claim 17, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the method for the maintenance of an admixing system described regarding claim 16, and further wherein the following step is performed prior to starting up the motor and the mixing pump:
the remote control means and/or timing means switching (Jiang, par. 42 – the control system adjusts control parameters) the switching device (34) in the fire extinguishant additive line such that a flow of fire extinguishant additive is directed from the pump-side end of the fire extinguishant additive line into the return line (35, see par. 67 – the “Return” position),
and that the following step is performed subsequent to shutting down the motor and the mixing pump: the remote control means and/or timing means switching (Jiang, par. 42 – the control system adjusts control parameters) the switching device in the fire extinguishant additive line such that a flow of fire extinguishant additive is directed through the fire extinguishant additive line from the pump-side end of the fire extinguishant additive line to the mixing point (par. 63 – the “Admixture” position).
Hulinsky in view of Jiang does not explicitly describe the status of the motor and the mixing pump during these steps. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Hulinsky in view of Jiang to perform the former step prior to starting up the motor and the pump since this would lineup the system to determine the flow rate of the additive prior to operating the system and discharging a fire extinguishant of unknown additive concentration. Further, it would have been obvious to perform the latter step subsequent to shutting down the motor and the mixing pump since this would ensure the system is lined up to discharge a fire extinguishant immediately upon the occurrence of a fire.
Claims 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulinsky in view of Jiang, and further in view of Knight (US 2018/0272164).
Regarding claim 3, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the fire extinguishant inlet line has a fire extinguishant valve (31) for feeding fire extinguishant to the motor (2) from a fire extinguishant supply line, but not that the remote control means and/or the timing means are configured to open and close the fire extinguishant valve.
Knight teaches an admixing system (10) comprising a fire extinguishant valve (70) in a fire extinguishant inlet line for feeding fire extinguishant to a pump (24) from a fire extinguishant supply (22), and a remote control means (86) configured to open and close the fire extinguishant valve (par. 21 - the remote activation means 86 operating the mixer and pump 24 and controlling and selecting the valves 70”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the admixing system of Hulinsky in view of Jiang to further configure the remote control means and/or the timing means to open and close the fire extinguishant valve, as taught by Knight, since this would provide further control over the admixing system from a remote location.
Regarding claim 8, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 4, and further wherein the bypass line has a cut-off valve (44), but not wherein the remote control means and/or the timing means are configured to open and close the cut-off valve.
Knight teaches an admixing system (10) comprising a cut-off valve (70), and a remote control means (86) configured to open and close the cut-off valve (par. 21 - the remote activation means 86 operating the mixer and pump 24 and controlling and selecting the valves 70”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the admixing system of Hulinsky in view of Jiang to further configure the remote control means and/or the timing means to open and close the cut-off valve, as taught by Knight, since this would provide further control over the admixing system from a remote location.
Regarding claim 9, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 4, and further wherein a switching device, in particular a ball valve (34, see p. 6, par. 9), is arranged in the fire extinguishant additive line (fig. 1) which further is fluidly connected to a return line (35), wherein the switching device can be switched such that a flow of fire extinguishant additive from the pump-side end of the fire extinguishant additive line is selectively directed through the fire extinguishant additive line to the mixing point or into the return line (fig. 1), but not wherein the remote control means and/or the timing means are configured to switch the switching device.
Knight teaches an admixing system (10) comprising valves (70), and a remote control means (86) configured to open and close the valve (par. 21 - the remote activation means 86 operating the mixer and pump 24 and controlling and selecting the valves 70”).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the admixing system of Hulinsky in view of Jiang to further configure the remote control means and/or the timing means to switch the switching device, as taught by Knight, since this would provide further control over the admixing system from a remote location.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulinsky in view of Jiang, and further in view of Manicone (US 2016/0237843).
Regarding claim 7, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 5, but not further wherein the drive apparatus is a drive motor, in particular an electric motor, its motor shaft being connected to the motor shaft of the motor so as to selectively transmit torque, in particular via a freewheel and/or via a flexible coupling.
Manicone teaches a water motor (23) able to be driven by a flow of water (par. 42) and a drive apparatus (11) configured to set the motor into rotation (par. 57), wherein the drive apparatus is a drive motor, in particular an electric motor (par. 36), its motor shaft (15) being connected to the motor shaft (29) of the motor so as to selectively transmit torque (fig. 2, par. 41), in particular via a freewheel and/or via a flexible coupling (31, see par. 8).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the admixing system of Hulinsky in view of Jiang to further include the drive apparatus of Manicone having a drive motor, in particular an electric motor, its motor shaft being connected to the motor shaft of the motor so as to selectively transmit torque, in particular via a freewheel and/or via a flexible coupling. Such an arrangement was known to provide a means for starting up the flow of the fluid in the system before transitioning to operating primarily via the water motor (par. 57).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulinsky in view of Jiang, and further in view of Yoshida (US 2006/0180321).
Regarding claim 11, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the mixing pump has at least one second measuring device, in particular an oil level sensor and/or an oil quality sensor, and the remote read-out means are configured to read data from the second measuring device and to transmit them.
Yoshida teaches a firefighting pump (par. 2) having at least one second measuring device, in particular an oil level sensor (126, see par. 80) and/or an oil quality sensor, and a remote read-out means (103) are configured to read data from the second measuring device and to transmit them (par. 78; fig. 6).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the admixing system of Hulinsky in view of Jiang to further include at least one second measuring device, in particular an oil level sensor and/or an oil quality sensor, and the remote read-out means are configured to read data from the second measuring device and to transmit them, as taught by Yoshida, since this would provide information regarding the health of the pump.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulinsky in view of Jiang, and further in view of Statter (US 2019/0262637).
Regarding claim 15, Hulinsky in view of Jiang discloses the admixing system described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the data transmitted by the remote read-out means can be stored remotely from the components of the admixing system for which the remote read-out means is configured to receive data from and to transmit them, in particular in a memory of a remote server computer or in a cloud storage.
Statter teaches a firefighting system (par. 2; fig. 3) having a remote read-out means (1132) and wherein data transmitted by the remote read-out means can be stored remotely from the components of the admixing system for which the remote read-out means is configured to receive data from and to transmit them, in particular in a memory of a remote server computer or in a cloud storage (par. 131).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the admixing system of Hulinsky in view of Jiang to configure the remote read-out means to transmit the data to be stored remotely from the components of the admixing system for which the remote read-out means is configured to receive data from and to transmit them, in particular in a memory of a remote server computer or in a cloud storage, as taught by Statter, since this would ensure the data is stored at a safe location that is not at risk of the fire.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gamble et al. (US 2011/0056707), Arvidson et al. (US 6,085,586), Juidici et al. (US 6,684,959), and Hosfield (US 8,789,614) all disclose systems having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like
assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752