DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Control light emitting diode (claim 1)
RF receiving components (claim 1)
A cooling medium with a extinguishing effect
Pairing button (claim 1)
Internal or external power supply (claim 1)
At least one LED for monitoring an error of the transmitter (Claim 1)
A temperature or smoke sensor or a light spectrum sensor (Claim 3)
A pairing button for pairing the wireless communication (Claim 3)
The control LED for setting and pairing with the receiver (Claim 3)
A sensor (Claim 8)
The subject protected area (Claim 8)
An electrical circuit in which a protected area is arranged (claim 8)
A digital or analogue signaling/system initiation indication (claim 9)
Dimensions of the transmitter (Claim 10)
A size of the at least one protected areas (Claim 10)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term WiFi, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
The use of the term Bluetooth, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cooling medium with a extinguishing effect” in line 13-14 of claim 1. However, it is suggested to amend to - a cooling medium with an extinguishing effect-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites the limitation "MP'' in line 3 of claim 2. However, it is suggested to amend to -MPa-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites the limitation “a temperature or smoke sensor or a light spectrum sensor” in lines 3-4 of claim 3. However, it is suggested to amend to - a temperature sensor, a smoke sensor, or a light spectrum sensor -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a temperature or smoke sensor or a light spectrum sensor” in lines 3-4 of claim 8. However, it is suggested to amend to - a temperature sensor, a smoke sensor, or a light spectrum sensor-.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "this the carrier'' in line 6 of claim 9. However, it is suggested to amend to - the carrier-.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "at least one protected areas'' in line 3 of claim 10. However, it is suggested to amend to - at least one protected area-.
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 limitation(s) is/are as follows:
“RF receiving components” in lines 18-19 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “component” coupled with functional language “for communication via WIFI or Bluetooth or LAN or other possible transmission networks” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “RF receiving components” in lines 18-19 of claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. The applicant' s specification describes functional limitations of “RF receiving components” in lines 18-19 of claim 1 but fails to describe any structure, and merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Additionally, “RF receiving components is not shown in the drawings of the applicant' s specification, and therefore does not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 9-10 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 9-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 limitation “RF receiving components” in lines 18-19 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure for “RF receiving components” were found in the applicant' s specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 9-10 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 9-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth in line 19 of claim 1. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe conformance with a continuously changing communications protocol set forth by the BLUETOOTH standard and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim was construed to refer to any of the various BLUETOOTH communication variants.
Similar rejection applies to claim 3.
Claim 1 contains the trademark/trade name WiFi in line 19 of claim 1. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe conformance with a continuously changing communications protocol set forth by the WiFi standard and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim was construed to refer to any of the various WiFi communication variants.
Similar rejection applies to claim 3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a carrier (13) of the extinguishing cooling medium” in lines 9-10 of claim 1, and claim 1 also recites “a carrier (13) of a cooling medium with a extinguishing effect” in lines 13-14 of claim 1. Firstly, it is unclear if there are separate “carriers” or if these are the same “carrier”. Secondly, it is unclear if there are separate “cooling mediums” or if these are the same “cooling medium.” Thirdly, “the extinguishing cooling medium” in lines 9-10 of claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Fourthly, it is unclear if either of the cooling mediums are intended to be positively recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the protected area" in line 18 of claim 1. Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Secondly claim 1 also recites the limitation “at least one protected area” in line 5 of claim 1, it is unclear if these are different “areas” or the same “area.”
Claims 9-10 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 9-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the carrier (13) of the cooling medium with extinguishing effect” in lines 2-3 of claim 2. However, claim 1 recites the limitation “a carrier (13) of the extinguishing cooling medium” in lines 9-10 of claim 1, and claim 1 also recites “a carrier (13) of a cooling medium with a extinguishing effect” in lines 13-14 of claim 1. It is unclear as to how the carriers are related as they all appear to be directed to item 13, but are named differently.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the transmitter is externally powered” in line 2 of claim 5. It is unclear what the power is external to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an electrical circuit” in line 2 of claim 8, but claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one electrical circuit (8) of an electrical distribution box (2)” in lines 5-6 of claim 1. It is unclear if there are separate “electrical circuits” or if these are the same “electrical circuit”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a protected area” in lines 2-3 of claim 8, but claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one protected area” in lines 5-6 of claim 1, and claim 8 further recites “the subject protected area” in lines 5 of claim 8. It is unclear if there are separate “protected areas” or if these are the same “protected area”. Additionally, “the subject protected area” in lines 5 of claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an electrical circuit in which a protected area is arranged” in lines 2-3 of claim 8. It is unclear as to how a protected area can arranged in an electrical circuit.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a respective transmitter” in lines 4 of claim 8, but claim 1 recites the limitation “a transmitter” in line 5 of claim 8. It is unclear if there are separate “transmitters” or if these are the same “transmitter”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the receiver (1) comprises a digital or analogue signaling/system initiation indication, i.e. a release of a cooling medium with extinguishing effects from a carrier (13)” in lines 2-4 of claim 9. Firstly, the phrase "i.e." 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). Secondly, the limitation “the receiver comprises a digital or analogue signaling/system initiation indication” in lines 2-3 of claim 9 does not make sense. Does this limitation mean “the receiver comprises a digital signaling system, an analogue signaling system, or a system initiation indication”, “ the receiver comprises a digital signaling system, an analogue signaling system, or a system initiation indication wherein the system ignition condition comprises a release of a cooling medium with extinguishing effects from a carrier (13),” “the receiver comprises digital or analogue signaling and system initiation indication,” or something else. Thirdly, with regards to the term “a carrier” in line 4 of claim 9, claim 1 also recites the limitation “a carrier (13) of the extinguishing cooling medium” in lines 9 and 13 of claim 1, and it is unclear if there are separate “carriers” or if these are the same “carrier”. Fourthly, with regards to the term “a cooling medium” in line 3 of claim 9, claim 1 also recites “a cooling medium” in lines 13-14 of claim 1 and “the extinguishing cooling medium” in lines 9-10 of claim 1, and it is unclear if there are separate “cooling mediums” or if these are the same “cooling medium.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "this signal" in line 7 of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “adapted to a size of the at least one protected areas (6) in which the transmitter (7) is arranged” in lines 3-4 of claim 10. It is unclear if the size is any of the protected areas, a specific protected area, a combination of protected areas, all of the protected areas, or something else.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Critchley (US 11,547,883) in view of Oh (US 2005/0217872), and Koelewijn (US 8,496,067).
Regarding claim 1, Critchley discloses an automatic communication system (Fig. 1-2 & Fig. 4, 100) for local suppression of rising temperature or fire extinguishing in electrical equipment connected to a power source (Col. 3: Ln. 16-25), comprising:
a transmitter ({Fig. 1-2 & Fig. 4, 100} & {Fig. 4, [76, 78, 80]}) arranged in at least one protected area (Col. 3: Ln. 9-25; Area near electrical distribution components.),
wherein the transmitter comprises a carrier ({Fig. 1-2 & Fig. 4}, 40) of the extinguishing cooling medium (Fig. 4, 50), which is closed by a first terminal (Fig. 2, 42) on one side, a communication control unit (Fig. 4, 70 & 80) with a power source (Fig. 4, 80) is arranged, and on the other side a carrier of a cooling medium with a extinguishing effect is closed by a second terminal (Fig. 1 & 4, 44),
Critchley does not disclose the transmitter connected in at least one electrical circuit of an electrical distribution box, a receiver arranged in the electrical distribution box, the communication control unit with a battery arranged under the first terminal, and further the communication control unit comprises a control light emitting diode (LED) for setting the pairing with the receiver, wherein the receiver comprises a pairing button for pairing the wireless communication with the transmitter, an internal or external power supply, at least one LED for setting the pairing with the transmitter, at least one LED for monitoring an error of the transmitter arranged in the protected area, and further comprises RF receiving components for communication via WIFI or Bluetooth or LAN or other possible transmission networks.
However, Oh teaches a prior art comparable fire alarm system (Fig. 1, all structural elements) comprising a transmitter (Fig. 1-2, 100) arranged in at least one protected area (Para. 0026 – “a building”), connected in at least one electrical circuit (Fig. 3, {310, 320, 321a-b, 322a-b}) of an electrical distribution box (Fig. 1 & 5, Housing of 300), wherein the system further comprises
a receiver (Fig. 3, {310, 320, 321a-b, 322a-b}) arranged in the electrical distribution box,
wherein the transmitter comprises a communication control unit (Fig. 2, {110, 120, & 130}) with an auxiliary power source (Para. 0037) is arranged, and further the communication control unit comprises a control light emitting diode (LED) (Para. 0037; Reception of radio signals indicates pairing with the receiver.) for setting the pairing with the receiver,
wherein the receiver comprises a pairing button (Fig. 5, 321a-b) for pairing the wireless communication with the transmitter (Para. 0034 – “the test button 321a and the standby button 321b and configured to perform overall functions”; Overall functions includes pairing the wireless communication with the transmitter), an internal or external power supply (Para. 0034 – “auxiliary power source”), at least one LED (Fig. 5, 322a-b) for setting the pairing with the transmitter (The LEDs are connected to the pairing button and thus are for setting the pairing with the transmitter), at least one LED (Fig. 5, 322a-b) for monitoring an error of the transmitter (Para. 0037; Normal transmission and reception of radio signals indicates no error of the transmitter.) arranged in the protected area, and further comprises RF receiving components (Fig. 5, 310 & 320) for communication via other possible transmission networks (Para. 0037 – “Radio signals”).
Firstly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a receiver arranged in an electrical distribution box taught by Oh into the automatic communication system taught by Critchley by the known method of wirelessly connecting and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, which yields the predictable result of wirelessly communicating between the transmitter and the receiver.
Secondly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the transmitter to at least one electrical circuit of the distribution box when faced with the teachings Critchley whom discloses that the transmitter communicates via a transmission network to alert a user of a fire (Critchley – Col. 6: Ln. 36-55) and Oh whom teaches a transmitter arranged in at least one protected area connected in at least one electrical circuit to notify the fire management office of a fire (Oh – Para. 0028), with a reasonable expectation of success, namely notifying a user/fire management office of a fire.
Thirdly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when faced with the teachings of Oh, namely the use of LEDs to indicate status and perform overall functions (Para. 0036-0037), to incorporate a control light emitting diode (LED) for setting the pairing with the receiver into the transmitter disclosed by Critchley to visually indicate status, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely the transmitter comprising LEDs for setting the pairing with the receiver.
Critchley in view of Oh does not teach the communication control unit with a battery arranged under the first terminal.
However, Koelewijn (US 8,496,067) teaches a prior art comparable fire extinguishing system (Fig. 1 & 6, 1) comprising a communication control unit (Fig. 6, 5-8 & 30-31) with a battery (Fig. 6, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a battery with a known function providing electrical power taught by Koelewijn, by performing a simple substitution with the power source taught by Critchley in view of Oh yielding the predictable result of electrically powering the transmitter.
Critchley in view of Oh does not teach the communication control unit with the battery arranged under the first terminal.
However, locating the communication control unit with the battery under the first terminal is a mere rearrangement of parts, and courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the communication control unit with the battery under the first terminal (Para. 0005, 0020), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the system according to claim 1.
Critchley further discloses wherein the carrier of the cooling medium with extinguishing effect is a pressure device (Col. 5: ln. 17-24) and is made of polymeric materials (Col. 3: Ln. 57-60; A thermoplastic is a polymeric material.).
Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn does not teach wherein the carrier of the cooling medium with extinguishing effect is a low pressure device with a pressure up to 1 MP (The examiner is interpreting a low pressure device as a device capable of use with a pressure up to 1 MPa).
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the carrier of the cooling medium with extinguishing effect is a low pressure device with a pressure up to 1 MP, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges (0 to 1 MPa) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the carrier of the cooling medium with extinguishing effect is a low pressure device with a pressure up to 1 MP (Para. 0006, 0020), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the system of claim 1,
Critchley further discloses wherein the communication control unit includes a temperature sensor (Fig. 4, 70; Col. 6: Ln. 10-11), and an RF transmitter (Col. 6: Ln. 43-44 –“transponder”) for wireless communication.
Oh further teaches wherein a communication control unit (Fig. 2, {110, 120, & 130}) includes a detection unit (Fig. 2, 130), and an RF transmitter (Fig. 2, 110) for wireless communication between the transmitter and a receiver (Fig. 3, {310, 320, 321a-b, 322a-b}) via other possible transmission networks (Para. 0037 – “Radio signals”).
Firstly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the RF transmitter communicates wirelessly between transmitter and a receiver when faced with the teachings Critchley whom discloses that the transmitter communicates via a transmission network to alert a user of a fire (Critchley – Col. 6: Ln. 36-55) and Oh whom teaches transmitter arranged in at least one protected area connected in at least one electrical circuit to notify the fire management office of a fire (Oh – Para. 0028), with a reasonable expectation of success, namely notifying a user/fire management office of a fire.
Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn does not explicitly teach wherein the communication control unit includes a pairing button for pairing the wireless communication with the receiver, and further the communication control unit includes the control LED for setting and pairing with the receiver.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when faced with the teachings of Oh, namely the use of LEDs and buttons to indicate status and perform overall functions (Oh – Para. 0034, 0036-0037), to incorporate wherein the communication control unit includes a pairing button for pairing the wireless communication with the receiver, and further the communication control unit includes the control LED for setting and pairing with the receiver into the transmitter taught by Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn to visually indicate status and perform overall functions, with a reasonable expectation of success, namely the recover comprising a pairing button and a control LED and for setting the pairing with the receiver.
Regarding claim 4, Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the system according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the receiver is DIN rail compatible (The prior art device discloses all of the required structural components of the receiver and therefore is DIN rail compatible in the same way as the claimed invention. “DIN rail” is a term well-known and obvious to a one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and therefore the examiner will interpret this term as any rail capable of mounting electronic components.).
Regarding claim 5, Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the system according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the transmitter is externally powered (The prior art device discloses all of the required structural components of the transmitter and therefore is externally powered in the same way as the claimed invention. Additionally, Critchley discloses a power source (Fig. 1, 80) external to body of the transmitter.).
Regarding claim 6, Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the system according to claim 1.
Critchley further discloses wherein the transmitter further comprises an extinguishing function (Col. 3: Ln 4-25).
Regarding claim 7, Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein activation of the system is from 30° C in the protected area.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate the system at a fixed activating temperature in the protected area when faced with the teachings Critchley whom discloses that the sensor activates the system when a fire is detected (Critchley – Col. 6: Ln. 17-27) and Koelewijn whom teaches activating a device at a fixed activating temperature (Koelewijn – Col. 2: Ln. 45-52) and Koelewijn further teaches that the activation temperature depends on the nature and size of the inner space for protecting (Koelewijn – Col. 12: Ln. 58-59), with a reasonable expectation of success, namely activating the system to extinguish a fire when a fire is detected.
Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the fixed activating temperature is from 30° C. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the fixed activating temperature is from 30° C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of wherein the fixed activating temperature is from 30° C (Para. 0010, 0029), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the system according to claim 1.
Critchley further discloses wherein an electrical circuit (Col. 3: Ln. 9-25; Electrical distribution components) in which a protected area (Col. 3: Ln. 9-25; Area near electrical distribution components.) is arranged is disconnected (Col. 6: Ln. 56-60; Cutting off the utility by means of the utility cut-off features can disconnect electrical distribution components.), and in which rising temperature is detected by a sensor (Fig. 4, 70; Col. 6: Ln. 4-16; The sensor can be a thermocouple and detect rising temperature via a thermocouple.), based on a signal of a respective transmitter (Col. 6: Ln. 4-16; The sensor arranged in subject protected area {Col. 3: Ln. 9-25; Area near electrical distribution components.} of the transmitter detects the outbreak of a fire and sends a signal.) arranged in the subject protected area sent to a disconnector (Fig. 4, 78; Col. 6: Ln. 56-60; The utility cut-off features/disconnector can cut off the power source fueling the fire.).
Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn does not disclose the signal of the respective transmitter being sent via a receiver.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try transmitting the signal via a receiver because at the relevant time, there had been a recognized need in the art, namely transmitting a signal; from finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, namely transmitting the signal via the transmitter (Oh – Fig. 1-2, 100; Para. 0028) or the receiver (Oh – Fig. 3, {310, 320, 321a-b, 322a-b}; Para. 0034); which could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, namely transmitting the signal of the respective transmitter via the receiver.
Regarding claim 9, Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the system according to claim 1.
Critchley further discloses wherein the receiver comprises a digital or analogue signaling/system initiation indication, i.e. a release of a cooling medium with extinguishing effects from a carrier arranged in a transmitter (Col. 6: Ln. 17-27 ;Col. 6: Ln. 36-60; The transmitter electronically transmits via WiFi, which is a digital signal, utilizing a transponder when a fire is detected which also releases the cooling medium from the carrier.), said transmitter being arranged in the at least one protected area (Col. 3: Ln. 9-25; Area near electrical distribution components.), wherein due to increasing temperature (Fig. 4, 70; Col. 6: Ln. 4-16; A sensor (70) can be a thermocouple and detect rising temperature via a thermocouple.), this the carrier is damaged (Col. 6: Ln. 17-27), the cooling medium with extinguishing effects is released into the protected area (Col. 6: Ln. 17-27), and this signal is sent by the transmitter (Col. 6: Ln. 36-60).
Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn does not explicitly teach this signal is sent by the transmitter to the receiver.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try transmitting this signal sent by the transmitter to the receiver because at the relevant time, there had been a recognized need in the art, namely transmitting a signal; from finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, namely transmitting the signal via a transmitter (Oh – Fig. 1-2, 100; Para. 0028) to a receiver (Oh – Fig. 3, {310, 320, 321a-b, 322a-b}; Para. 0034) or transmitting the signal via the receiver to the transmitter; which could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, namely transmitting this signal sent by the transmitter to the receiver.
Regarding claim 10, Critchley in view of Oh and Koelewijn teaches the system according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein dimensions of the transmitter are adapted to a size of the at least one protected areas in which the transmitter is arranged (The prior art device discloses all of the required structural components of the transmitter and the at least one protected areas and therefore the transmitter are adapted to a size of the at least one protected areas in which the transmitter is arranged in the same way as the claimed invention).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 6, 2026
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752