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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on July 6, 2026. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 14-20 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm (US 6,006,840) in view of Ham (KR 20100121851 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Sundholm discloses a fire extinguisher, comprising: a first tank (4) defining a first interior volume containing a foam concentrate solution (Col. 3 line 37);a second tank (6) coupled with the first tank (4), the second tank (6) defining a second interior volume separate from the first interior volume (Fig. 1), the second interior volume containing compressed air (Col. 2 lines 46-47; a first manifold (lower portion of 100/200, Fig. 7) disposed inside the first tank (as seen in figure 7, lower portion of manifold 100/200 is inside the neck of first tank), the first manifold (lower portion of 100/200) defining a first cavity, the first cavity having at least one opening in the interior volume for receiving the compressed air (see annotated figure below) and at least one opening in the interior volume for receiving the foam concentrate solution (see annotated figure below); a second manifold (line between 6 and 7 in Fig. 1) coupled with the second tank (6), the second manifold defining a second cavity in fluid communication with the second interior volume (Fig. 1); a first conduit (14) extending between the first tank (4) and the second manifold of the second tank (line between 6 and 7 in Fig. 1), the first conduit providing fluid communication between the first interior volume (4) and the second interior volume (6); a second conduit (15) in fluid communication with the first interior volume (4) and a nozzle (3), the nozzle selectively actuatable (by valve 20) to discharge a foam formed from compressed air and foam concentrate solution passing through the first cavity of the first manifold (100/200).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sundholm does not disclose that a normally-closed valve coupled with the second manifold and selectively actuatable in response to a source of compressed air to open and allow compressed air to enter into the second cavity and the second interior volume.
Ham teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a normally-closed valve (5) coupled with a second manifold (connector between 1 and 6 as seen in Figure) and selectively actuatable in response to a source of compressed air to open and allow compressed air to enter into the second cavity and the second interior volume (“an air inlet hose 6 having an air check valve 5 is connected to an inlet side of gas tank 1).
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 extinguisher of Sundholm, by incorporating a supply of compressed gas to the system as taught by Ham, for the benefit of automatically replenishing the tank of compressed air when pressure inside the tank dropped to predetermined threshold.
With regard to claim 6, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Sundholm further discloses that the first conduit (14) is in communication with the second manifold (line between 6 and 7 in Fig. 1) via a one-way check valve (8).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm in view of Ham as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Binger (DE 202006012921 U1).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. They do not disclose a pressure relief valve.
Binger teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a pressure relief valve (18).
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 extinguisher of Sundholm, by incorporating the pressure relief valve as taught by Binger, for the purpose of venting any excessive pressure from within the cylinder that could cause the fire extinguisher to burst due to over pressurization of the chamber.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm in view of Ham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dreil (US 3,058,669).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, they do not disclose that the first tank and the second tank each are welded to a frame.
Drell teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a first tank (25) and a second tank (10), wherein the first tank and the second tank each are welded to a frame (19, “separate units secured to said plate by such means as welding”).
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 extinguisher of Sundholm, by incorporating the welding to secure the first and the second to the frame as taught by Dreil, since welding creates a strong bond between two materials.
With regard to claim 5, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, they do not disclose that the first and second conduits each comprise a rubber.
Drell further teaches the conduit (15) comprise a rubber (Col. 2 line 64).
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 extinguisher of Sundholm, by forming the first and second conduits from rubber as taught by Drell, since rubber is flexible and chemically inert to propellant gas (Col. 2 lines 63-65).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm in view of Ham and Drell as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rousseau et al. (US 2016/0243385 A1).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham and Drell discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, they do not disclose that the first tank and the second tank are formed from aluminum.
Rousseaul teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a tank is formed from aluminum (Par. [0031]).
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 extinguisher of Sundholm, by forming the first and second tanks from aluminum as taught by Rousseaul, since aluminum is lightweight and corrosion resistance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm in view of Ham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benton et al. (US 2023/0034481 A1).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, they do not disclose that the first interior volume and the second interior volume are each between 1 gallon and 10 gallons.
Benton teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a tank comprising an interior volume is 3 gallons (Para. [0104-0105]).
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 extinguisher of Sundholm, by forming the first and second interior volumes of Sundholm in 3 gallons as taught by Benton, for the purpose of providing sufficient amount of agent and gas for fire-fighting (Par. [0104]).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm in view of Ham and Bongiornio (US 2015/0060093 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Since the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham discloses all structure of the claim 1, in its use, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 8.
Sundholm does not disclose that the method of filling the second interior volume to a pressure between about 100 PSI and 150 PSI.
However, Bongiornio teaches a fire extinguisher comprising the method of filling the system at a pressure between about 100 PSI and 150 PSI (Par. [0002]).
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 device of Sundholm, by filling the second interior volume with compressed air via the valve to a pressure between about 100 PSI and 150 PSI as taught by Bongiornio, for the benefit of providing sufficient pressure to extinguish fire.
With regard to claim 9, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham and Bongiornio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Ham further discloses that the first interior volume and the second interior volume are the same size (Fig. 1 shows the first interior volume 2 and the second interior volume 1 are the same size) .
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 device of Sundholm, by forming the first interior volume and the second interior volume at the same size as taught by Ham, since the modification is a matter of design choice.
With regard to claim 10, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham and Bongiornio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Sundholm further discloses that actuation of the nozzle (by valve 20) causes foam concentrate solution and compressed air to enter the first cavity (100) and generate the foam, wherein the foam then enters the second conduit (15) and is discharged from the nozzle (3).
With regard to claim 11, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham and Bongiornio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Sundholm further discloses that exhausting the foam concentrate solution in the first interior volume (4) without refilling the second interior volume with compressed air (6, since the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham and Bongiornio discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham and Bongiornio will inherently perform all the method steps).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham and Bongiornio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Sundholm further discloses that wherein the first interior volume is defined in a first tank (4), wherein the second interior volume is defined in a second tank (6) separate from the first tank, and wherein the first and second tanks are fixed together (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 13, the device of Sundholm as modified by Ham and Bongiornio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Sundholm further discloses that filling the entirety of the first interior volume (4) with foam concentrate solution.
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights