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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 08/20/2026.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejections as stated in the Non-Final Rejection filed 05/21/2026 are all withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posson (US 2005/0242319 A1, hereinafter Posson) in view of Hu (CN 101554520 A, hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an aerosol generating agent” and “an oxidizing agent” are an intended use/result and do not add structural difference, thus the intended use/result is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Posson teaches an aerosol fire suppression composition comprising an oxidizer represented by the formula M(XOx)y (claims 1), wherein M can be strontium (claim 2), XOx can be a perchlorate (claim 3). Thus, the oxidizer of Posson can be strontium perchlorate.
Posson also teaches that a smaller portion of additional powdered potassium iodide can be added to the composition to increase the flame suppressive properties of the aerosol ([0044]).
Posson does not explicitly teach that the oxidizer is strontium perchlorate.
However, Hu teaches an aerosol fire extinguishing composition comprising an oxidant (claim 1), wherein the oxidant can be a strontium salt (claim 1), and the strontium salt can be strontium perchlorate (claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the strontium perchlorate as taught by Hu as the oxidizer represented by the formula M(XOx)y in Posson, in order to make an aerosol fire suppression composition with a reasonable expectation of success, because the strontium perchlorate works as an oxidizer in the aerosol fire extinguishing composition as recognized by Hu.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an aerosol fire suppression composition comprising an oxidizer such as strontium perchlorate, and further comprising a smaller portion of additional powdered potassium iodide, in order to increase the flame suppressive property of the aerosol with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Posson teaches that the aerosol fire suppression composition comprises an oxidizer, and a fuel component (claim 1). Posson also teaches that the fuel component and the oxidizer can be combined by mechanical mixing, then dried and formed into solid units (i.e. the aerosol fire suppressant composition), having a density of between about 1.0 to about 3.0 g/cm3 ([0076]), which falls within the claimed range of “1.0 g/cm3 or more”.
Posson does not teach that the aerosol fire suppression composition has an apparent density of 1.0 g/cm3 or more.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed property of an apparent density of 1.0 g/cm3 or more, would flow naturally from the teaching of the combination of Posson and Hu, because the teaching of the combination of Posson and Hu provides substantially the same aerosol generating fire extinguishing agent composition comprising the same potassium iodide and strontium perchlorate as claimed, and also because the aerosol fire suppressant composition (a solid unit) has a density of between about 1.0 to about 3.0 g/cm3 as recognized by Posson. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Posson teaches that the aerosol fire suppression composition is dispersed as an aerosol in a dispersal device ([0082]); the device contains an ignition assembly which initiates the burning of the aerosol fire suppressant composition, emitting a thick flame-suppressive aerosol ([0085]); the ignition is facilitated by a thermal sensor ([0085]), which reads on the claimed aerosol generating automatic fire extinguishing device comprising the aerosol generating fire extinguishing agent composition.
2. Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomiyama (JP 2016168255 A, hereinafter Tomiyama) in view of Hu (CN 101554520 A, hereinafter Hu), and Posson (US 2005/0242319 A1, hereinafter Posson).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an aerosol generating agent” and “an oxidizing agent” are an intended use/result and do not add structural difference, thus the intended use/result is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Tomiyama teaches an aerosol fire extinguishing agent composition comprising an oxidizing agent (claim 1), wherein the oxidizing agent can be strontium nitrate (claim 4).
Tomiyama does not teach that the oxidizing agent is strontium perchlorate and/or strontium peroxide.
However, Hu teaches an aerosol fire extinguishing composition comprising an oxidant (claim 1), wherein the oxidant can be a strontium salt (claim 1), and the strontium salt can be strontium nitrate, or strontium perchlorate (claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the strontium perchlorate as taught by Hu as the oxidizing agent in Tomiyama, in order to make an aerosol fire extinguishing agent composition with a reasonable expectation of success, because the strontium perchlorate works as an oxidizer in the aerosol fire extinguishing composition as recognized by Hu.
Tomiyama does not teach that the aerosol fire extinguishing agent composition comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of trisodium citrate, cesium acetate, sodium fluoride, magnesium phthalate, calcium oxalate, potassium iodide, and lithium bromide.
However, Posson teaches an aerosol fire suppression composition comprising an oxidizer (claim 1). Posson also teaches that a smaller portion of additional powdered potassium iodide can be added to the composition to increase the flame suppressive properties of the aerosol ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an aerosol fire extinguishing agent composition comprising an oxidizing agent as taught by Tomiyama, further comprising a smaller portion of additional powdered potassium iodide as taught by Posson, in order to increase the flame suppressive property of the aerosol with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Tomiyama teaches that the aerosol fire extinguishing agent composition has an apparent density of 1.3 g/cm3 or higher (claim 5, [0016]), which falls within the claimed range of “1.0 g/cm3 or more”.
Regarding claim 5, Tomiyama teaches that an aerosol generating automatic fire extinguishing device comprises the aerosol fire extinguishing agent composition ([0007], claim 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejections. The current rejections utilize new references, Posson (US 2005/0242319 A1) and Hu (CN 101554520 A), in addition to the previous reference Tomiyama (JP 2016168255 A), under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims.
As stated above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posson (US 2005/0242319 A1) in view of Hu (CN 101554520 A).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomiyama (JP 2016168255 A) in view of Hu (CN 101554520 A) and Posson (US 2005/0242319 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights