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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/1/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure filed 12/1/2023 is objected to because it does not commence on a separate sheet apart from other text in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 16, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 13 Line 2, “an activated actuator” should be revised to “the activated actuator” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 16 Lines 2-3, “inserted into or above/below the handle” should be revised to “inserted into the handle, above the handle, or below the handle” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 16 Line 4, “removed from the handle or from above/below the handle” should be revised to “removed from the handle, from above the handle, or from below the handle” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 19 Line 3, “to stop substance” should be revised to “to stop fire extinguishing substance” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 20 Lines 2-3, “along the floor of a space” should be revised to “along a floor of a space” to ensure clarity in the claim.
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 “safety mechanism” in Claims 11-15, which uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure; and
The “communication unit” in Claims 11, 17, and 19, which uses the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language 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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “safety mechanism” in Claims 11-15 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0050 of the Specification which states, “The safety mechanism 6 may comprise a switch, knob, wheel or the like, which can be moved between at least two different positions/states, a second state/position wherein the handle can be activated and a first state/position wherein the handle is prevented from being activated. The safety mechanism 6 may, alternatively, comprise a safety pin 116 as illustrated in Figs 3, 4 and 5”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “safety mechanism” in Claims 11-15 to be a switch, knob, wheel, pin, or equivalents thereof.
The “communication unit” in Claims 11, 17, and 19 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0059 of the Specification which states, “The communication unit 8 may be arranged to receive an activation signal via a wireless signal, such as via Wifi, mobile networks, e.g. 3G, 4G, 5G, or combinations thereof. The signal may be alternatively, or in addition, be a signal from a fire detector or smoke detector or from a person, e.g. through a mobile app, which has been notified that there is a fire”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “communication unit” in Claims 11, 17, and 19 to be an electronic controller 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.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 is indefinite because Lines 2-3 state “the handle activator is connected to the actuator through a handle activation wire” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the handle activator” in the claim. It is not clear if a handle activator was intended to be previously recited or not or if Claim 14 is intended to depend from a different claim. For the purpose of examination, Claim 14 Lines 2-3 will be interpreted to state “a handle activator is connected to the actuator through a handle activation wire”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 11-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2017086202-A to Hanada et al. (“Hanada”).
As to Claim 11, Hanada discloses a fire extinguishing system (See Figs. 2 and 7 showing the entire system) comprising:
a fire extinguisher (#1) comprising:
an outlet (#5),
a container (#3), which is arranged to contain an agent that upon discharge through said outlet forms a fire extinguishing substance suitable for extinguishing a fire (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0006 disclosing extinguishant),
a handle (#7), configured such that upon activation thereof fire extinguishing substance is discharged through the outlet of the fire extinguisher (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0041), and
a safety mechanism (#8a, which is shown in Fig. 10 being a structure equivalent to a pin that connects to #8) with two states (See a first state in Fig. 8a and a second state in Fig. 9b), wherein when the safety mechanism is in a first state (See Fig. 8a) manual activation of said handle is prevented (See Fig. 8 and Machine Translation of Paragraph 0036) and when in a second state manual activation of said handle is allowed (See Fig. 9b and Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0037-0039), and
a control module (#40, #23, #23a, #22, #20, and #8, not including #8a. See Annotated Fig. 9a) comprising a communication unit (#40, which is equivalent to an electronic controller) and an actuator (#23, #23a, #22, #20, and #8), wherein:
the actuator is connected to the safety mechanism (See Fig. 9a, #8 of the actuator is connected to the safety mechanism that is the pin #8a),
the communication unit upon receipt of an activation signal is configured to activate the actuator (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0032-0034, a signal from a button activates the actuator by having #41 drive #23), and
the activated actuator is configured to cause the safety mechanism to change from its first state into its second state and to thereafter actuate the handle, thereby causing fire extinguishing substance to be discharged through the outlet of the fire extinguisher (See Figs. 9a and 9b and See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0037-0041).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above, Hanada further discloses wherein the actuator comprises a spring (#20), wherein when the spring is in an extended state the safety mechanism is arranged in the first state (See Fig. 3 and Fig. 8a), and when the spring is caused into a compressed state the safety mechanism is arranged to change into its second state (See Figs. 9a and 9b).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above, Hanada discloses the fire extinguishing system further comprising a handle activator (#27 and #25) connected between the actuator and the handle (See Fig. 9a), wherein when an activated actuator has caused the safety mechanism to change from its first state into its second state the handle is arranged to be activated by said handle activator (See Figs. 9a and 9b), such that fire extinguishing substance is discharged through the outlet of the fire extinguisher (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0037-0041).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above, Hanada further discloses wherein the safety mechanism comprises a safety pin (See #8a in Fig. 9 which is equivalent to a pin), wherein when at least a portion of the safety pin is inserted into or above/below the handle, the safety mechanism is arranged to be in the first state (See the first state in Fig. #8a where the pin #8a is inserted into the handle #7), and when said safety pin is removed from the handle or from above/below the handle the safety mechanism is arranged to be in the second state (See the second state in Fig. #9a where the pin #8a is removed from #7).
As to Claim 18, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above, Hanada discloses the fire extinguishing system further comprising a camera (#48) arranged at the fire extinguisher (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0035 which discloses that camera #48 is installed at a place where #1 is installed, thus the camera #48 is installed “at the fire extinguisher” as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
695
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada.
As to Claim 14, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 12 above, Hanada further discloses wherein a handle activator (#27 and #25) is connected to the actuator through a handle activation wire (#27), wherein upon activation of the actuator the handle activator wire is arranged to be pulled by the spring being compressed (See Fig. 9a and Fig. 9b showing #27 at least being partially pulled up by #20 via #22), such that the safety mechanism is changed from its first state to its second state (See Fig. 9a) and the handle activator is caused to act on the handle such that fire extinguishing substance is discharged through the outlet of the fire extinguisher (See Fig. 9b).
Regarding Claim 14, Hanada does not disclose wherein the safety mechanism is connected to the actuator through a safety mechanism wire and the safety mechanism wire is arranged to be pulled by the spring being compressed (See Figs. 9a and 9b. The safety mechanism #8a is connected to the actuator at #8, however details of the connection between #8 and #8a are not shown).
However, Hanada already discloses wherein a wire used to connect the actuator to the handle activator (See Fig. 9 showing #23a of the actuator connected to #25 using wire #27).
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 fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 14 above such that the safety mechanism #8a is connected to the actuator at #8 using a safety mechanism wire, since doing so would utilize a known connection configuration taught by Hanada to attach the safety mechanism to the actuator without modifying overall operation of the fire extinguishing system. Making such a modification would result in the safety mechanism wire being arranged to be pulled by spring #20 when it is compressed (See Figs. 9a and 9b).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 13 above, Hanada further discloses wherein the handle activator is connected to the actuator through a handle activation wire (#27), wherein upon activation of the actuator the handle activator wire is arranged to be pulled by the spring being compressed (See Fig. 9a and Fig. 9b showing #27 at least being partially pulled up by #20 via #22), such that the safety mechanism is changed from its first state to its second state (See Fig. 9a) and the handle activator is caused to act on the handle such that fire extinguishing substance is discharged through the outlet of the fire extinguisher (See Fig. 9b).
Regarding Claim 15, Hanada does not disclose wherein the safety mechanism is connected to the actuator through a safety mechanism wire and the safety mechanism wire is arranged to be pulled by the spring being compressed (See Figs. 9a and 9b. The safety mechanism #8a is connected to the actuator at #8, however details of the connection between #8 and #8a are not shown).
However, Hanada already discloses wherein a wire used to connect the actuator to the handle activator (See Fig. 9 showing #23a of the actuator connected to #25 using wire #27).
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 fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 15 above such that the safety mechanism #8a is connected to the actuator at #8 using a safety mechanism wire, since doing so would utilize a known connection configuration taught by Hanada to attach the safety mechanism to the actuator without modifying overall operation of the fire extinguishing system. Making such a modification would result in the safety mechanism wire being arranged to be pulled by spring #20 when it is compressed (See Figs. 9a and 9b).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada in view of CN-112206440-A to Jin (“Jin”).
Regarding Claim 17, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above, Hanada does not specifically disclose wherein the communication unit is arranged to receive an activation signal via a wireless signal (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0032-0034, a wireless signal is not disclosed).
However, Jin discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Machine Translation of Description Page 1 Paragraph 1), a fire extinguishing system (See Fig. 2) comprising a communication unit (#8) that is arranged to receive an activation signal via a wireless signal (See Machine Translation of Description Page 3 Paragraph 3).
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 fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above such that the communication unit is arranged to receive an activation signal via a wireless signal as taught by Jin, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing remote control of the fire extinguishing system (See Jin Machine Translation of Description Page 3 Paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 20, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above, Hanada does not disclose wherein the fire extinguisher system is provided with one or more wheels such that the fire extinguisher system is moveable along the floor of a space in which the fire extinguishing system is provided.
However, Jin further discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Machine Translation of Description Page 1 Paragraph 1), a fire extinguishing system (See Fig. 2) that is provided with one or more wheels (See multiple wheels in Fig. 2) such that the fire extinguisher system is moveable along a floor of a space in which the fire extinguishing system is provided (See Machine Translation of Description Page 3 Paragraph 5).
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 fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above such that the fire extinguisher system is provided with one or more wheels such that the fire extinguisher system is moveable along a floor of a space in which the fire extinguishing system is provided as taught by Jin, since doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating locating the fire extinguishing system to a desired target area in a large space (See Jin Machine Translation of Description Page 3 Paragraph 5).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada in view of US Patent 4,561,459 to Jackman (“Jackman”).
Regarding Claim 19, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above, Hanada does not specifically disclose wherein the communication unit, upon receiving a deactivation signal, is arranged to deactivate the actuator, wherein the actuator is arranged to stop substance from being discharged through the outlet of the fire extinguisher (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0037 discloses an activation signal but does not disclose a deactivation signal).
However, Jackman discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Col. 1 Lines 5-6), a fire extinguishing system (See Figs. 9-10) comprising a communication unit (#61 “radio receiver”), wherein the communication unit, upon receiving a deactivation signal, is arranged to deactivate an actuator (#43), wherein the actuator is arranged to stop fire extinguishing substance from being discharged through an outlet of a fire extinguisher (See Col. 5 Lines 60-65 disclosing rotating motor #43 in a reverse direction which is equivalent to deactivating motor #43, which closes a valve that prevents fire extinguishing substance from being discharged from a fire hydrant.)
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 fire extinguishing system of Hanada as applied to Claim 11 above such that the communication unit of Hanada, upon receiving a reversing deactivation signal, is arranged to deactivate the actuator, wherein the actuator is arranged to stop substance from being discharged through the outlet of the fire extinguisher by including an opening and closing valve as part of the actuator, since doing so would yield the predictable result of having the ability to selectively stop fire extinguishing substance from being dispensed from the fire extinguisher.
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 September 10, 2025