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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-13) and Species I (Figs. 1-6) in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 16, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8, each contains the trademark/trade name “Strader valve.” 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 a pneumatic valve and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The term “about” in claims 7 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims recites numerical ranges modified by the term “about”, for example: “about 3 gallons” and “about 100 PSI and 150 PSI.” The term “about” is a term of approximation which, absent objective boundaries or guidance in the specification, renders the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter unclear.
Claims 2-7 and 9-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of dependency on claims 1 and 8 respectively.
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, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham (KR 20100121851 A1) in view of Binger (DE 202006012921 U1), Kosovski (WO 2014/203238 A1) and Zlatintsis (EP 2489410 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Ham discloses a fire extinguisher (Fig. 1), comprising: a first tank (2) defining a first interior volume (interior volume of 2) containing a solution (“extinguishing liquid”); a second tank (1) coupled with the first tank (2), the second tank (1) defining a second interior volume (interior volume of 1) separate from the first interior volume (Fig. 1), the second interior volume containing compressed air (“gas mixed with at least one of air and nitrogen is pressurized and charged into the gas tank”); a first manifold (see annotated figure below) disposed inside the first tank (2), the first manifold defining a first cavity, the first cavity having at least one opening for receiving the compressed air (see annotated figure below) and at least one opening for receiving the foam concentrate solution (see annotated figure below); a second manifold (see annotated figure below) coupled with the second tank (1), the second manifold defining a second cavity in fluid communication with the second interior volume (interior volume of 1); a valve (“check-valve” 5) coupled with the second manifold (Fig. 1) and selectively actuatable to introduce compressed air 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 the gas tank 1”); a first conduit (4) extending between the first tank (2) and the second manifold of the second tank (1 and see annotated figure below), the first conduit (4) providing fluid communication between the first interior volume and the second interior volume (Fig. 6); a second conduit (11) in fluid communication with the first interior volume (2) and a nozzle (10), the nozzle (10) selectively actuatable to discharge a mixture formed from compressed air and solution (“the extinguishing liquid opening and closing 9 for intermittent discharging the mixture in the liquid tank 2”).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ham does not disclose that the extinguisher agent is a foam concentrate solution and the nozzle selectively actuatable to discharge a foam formed from compressed air and foam concentrate solution passing through the first cavity of the first manifold.
Zlatintsis teaches a fire extinguisher comprising an extinguisher agent is a foam concentrate solution (23) and a propellant gas (24).
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 Ham, by replacing the fire extinguisher agent with the foam concentrate solution as taught by Zlatintsis, for the benefit of creating a stable blanket that smothers the fire, cuts off oxygen, cools the fuel, and prevents re-ignition.
Binger teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a first tank (1), a first manifold (see annotated figure below), a second conduit (37) and a nozzle (34-36), the nozzle (34-36) selectively actuatable to discharge a foam formed from compressed air and foam concentrate solution passing through the first cavity of the first manifold (see annotated figure below, second conduit 37 is in communication with the manifold).
PNG
media_image2.png
650
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Ham, by arranging the second conduit in fluid communication with the first interior volume and the volume via the first cavity of the first manifold as taught by Binger instead of arranging in the bottom of the tank, for the benefit of having an integrated manifold that would reduce the cost for forming an additional opening at the bottom of the tank.
Ham does not disclose that the check valve is a Schrader valve.
Kosovski teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a Schrader valve (Page 4 line 21).
It is noted by the Examiner that Schrader valve is a specific, spring-loaded type of check valve, So 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 Ham, by replacing the check valve with the Schrader valve as taught by Kosovski, since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Ham as modified by Binger, Kosovski, and Zlatintsis discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Binger further teaches 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 Ham, 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.
With regard to claim 6, the device of Ham as modified by Binger, Kosovski, and Zlatintsis discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Binger further teaches the conduit (38) is in communication with manifold via a one-way check valve (10).
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 Ham, by incorporating the check valve as taught by Binger between the first conduit and the second manifold as taught by Binger, doing it would prevent fluid back flow.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Binger, Kosovski, and Zlatintsis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dreil (US 3,058,669).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Ham as modified by Binger, Kosovski, and Zlatintsis 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 Ham, 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 Ham as modified by Binger, Kosovski, and Zlatintsis 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 Ham, 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 Ham in view of Binger, Kosovski, Zlatintsis, 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 Ham as modified by Binger, Kosovski, Zlatintsis 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 Ham, by forming the first and second tanks of Ham 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 Ham in view of Binger, Kosovski, and Zlatintsis 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 Ham as modified by Binger, Kosovski, and Zlatintsis 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 about 3 gallons.
Benton teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a tank comprising an interior volume is about 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 Ham, by forming the first and second interior volumes of Ham in 3 gallons as taught by Benton, for the purpose of providing sufficient amount of agent and gas for fire-fighting (Par. [0104]).
Claims 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Kosovski, Zlatintsis, and Bongiornio (US 2015/0060093 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Ham discloses a method of operating a fire extinguisher (Fig. 1), the method comprising: providing a fire extinguisher comprising a tank assembly (20), the tank assembly defining a first interior volume and a second interior volume (1 and 2), the tank assembly further comprising: a first manifold disposed within the first interior volume (see annotated figure above), the first manifold defining a first cavity, the first cavity defining a plurality of openings to the first interior volume (see annotated figure above); a valve (“check valve” 5) in fluid communication with the second interior volume; a first conduit (4) having a first end and a second end, the first end of the conduit in fluid communication with the first interior volume and the second end of the conduit in fluid communication with the second interior volume (Fig. 1); and a nozzle (10) in fluid communication with the first interior volume (2) via a second conduit (11); filling the first interior volume (2) with an extinguisher agent; filling the second interior volume (1) with compressed air via the valve to a pressure; and actuating the nozzle (10) to dispense a mixture formed by the extinguisher agent and the compressed air (by opening and closing 9).
Ham does not disclose the solution is a foam concentrate solution.
Zlatintsis teaches a fire extinguisher comprising an extinguisher agent is a foam concentrate solution (23) and a propellant gas (24).
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 Ham, by replacing the fire extinguisher agent with the foam concentrate solution as taught by Zlatintsis, for the benefit of creating a stable blanket that smothers the fire, cuts off oxygen, cools the fuel, and prevents re-ignition.
Ham does not disclose that the check valve is a Schrader valve.
Kosovski teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a Schrader valve (Page 4 line 21).
It is noted by the Examiner that Schrader valve is a specific, spring-loaded type of check valve, So 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 Ham, by replacing the check valve with the Schrader valve as taught by Kosovski, since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
Ham does not disclose that the method of filling the second interior volume to a pressure between about 100 PSI and 150 PSI.
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 Ham, by filling the second interior volume with compressed air via the Schrader 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 Ham as modified by Kosovski, Zlatintsis, 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) .
With regard to claim 11, the device of Ham as modified by Kosovski, Zlatintsis, and Bongiornio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Ham further discloses that exhausting the foam concentrate solution in the first interior volume (2) without refilling the second interior volume with compressed air (1, since the device of Ham as modified by Kosovski, Zlatintsis, and Bongiornio discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Ham as modified by Kosovski, Zlatintsis, and Bongiornio will inherently perform all the method steps).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Ham as modified by Kosovski, Zlatintsis, and Bongiornio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Ham further discloses that wherein the first interior volume is defined in a first tank (2), wherein the second interior volume is defined in a second tank (1) 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 Ham as modified by Kosovski, Zlatintsis, and Bongiornio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Ham in view of Zlatintsis further discloses that filling the entirety of the first interior volume (2) with foam concentrate solution.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Kosovski, and Zlatintsis as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Binger (DE 202006012921 U1)
With regard to claim 10, the device of Ham as modified by Kosovski, Zlatintsis, and Bongiornio discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8 above. Ham does not disclose that wherein actuation of the nozzle causes foam concentrate solution and compressed air to enter the first cavity and generate the foam, wherein the foam then enters the second conduit and is discharged from the nozzle.
Binger teaches a fire extinguisher comprising a first tank (1), a first manifold (see annotated figure above), a second conduit (37) and a nozzle (34-36), actuation of the nozzle causes foam concentrate solution and compressed air to enter a cavity of the first manifold and generate the foam, wherein the foam then enters the second conduit (37) and is discharged from the nozzle (see annotated figure above).
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 Ham, by arranging the second conduit in fluid communication with the first interior volume and the volume via the first cavity of the first manifold as taught by Binger, for the benefit of having integrated manifold that would reduce the cost of forming an additional opening at the bottom of the tank.
Conclusion
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