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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/14/2026 has been entered.
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 18-20 are 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.
Claim 18 recites a topmost surface of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface of the flammable liquid and the foam diffuser including: a backflow preventer which is considered new matter because Figure 3 of the instant application shows the backflow preventer above the topmost surface of the flammable liquid.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-11, 18-20 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.
Claim 1, lines 13-14 and 16 recite “a topmost surface of the flammable liquid” and “an upper surface of the flammable liquid” and claim 18, lines 15-16, 21-22 recite “a topmost surface of the flammable liquid” and “an upper surface of the flammable liquid” which renders the respective claim indefinite because it is unclear if these surfaces are the same or different.
Claim 7 recites a housing abutting the underside of the floating roof which renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 recites a topmost surface of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface of the flammable liquid, so that it is unclear how the housing abuts the underside when the foam diffuser is below the topmost surface of the flammable liquid.
Claim 18 recites a topmost surface of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface of the flammable liquid and the foam diffuser including: a backflow preventer which renders the claim indefinite because Figure 3 of the instant application shows the backflow preventer above the topmost surface of the flammable liquid, so that it is unclear how the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface of the flammable liquid when the backflow preventer, which is part of the foam diffuser, is below the topmost surface of the flammable liquid.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins et al (US 5265651 as referenced in OA dated 5/21/2026) in view of Seliverstov et al (US 20120312564).
Regarding claim 1, Perkins discloses a fire extinguishing system (Figure 1), comprising:
a storage tank (Figure 1; 12) providing a vertical wall (The vertical walls of Figure 1; 12) for retaining a flammable liquid (Figure 1; 62) therein;
a floating roof (Figure 1; 28 and 16) circumscribed by the vertical wall and vertically movable along the vertical wall in response to a changing level (The changing level of Figure 1; 62) of the flammable liquid within the storage tank;
a rim seal (Figure 1; 19) defined circumferentially between the floating roof and the vertical wall;
a foam supply conduit (Figure 1; 56) extending to the storage tank from a remote location (The location of Figure 1; 52); and
a foam nozzle (The nozzle of Figure 1; 48) fluidly coupled to the foam supply conduit and affixed to an underside (The underside of the top horizontal line of Figure 1; 28) of the floating roof, the foam nozzle including at least one outlet (The outlet of the nozzle of Figure 1; 48) for discharging a foam(The foam from Figure 1; 52) from the foam supply conduit into the flammable liquid adjacent the underside of the floating roof and an upper surface (The upper side of Figure 1; 62) of the flammable liquid.
Perkins does not disclose a foam diffuser;
the foam diffuser is submerged in the flammable liquid in operation,
wherein, when the floating roof is floating on the flammable liquid, a topmost surface of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface of the flammable liquid.
However, Seliverstov teaches a fire extinguishing system (Figure 3), comprising:
a storage tank (Figure 3; 4) providing a vertical wall (The vertical wall of Figure 3; 4) for retaining a flammable liquid (Figure 1; 6) therein;
a floating roof (Figure 3; 10) circumscribed by the vertical wall and vertically movable along the vertical wall in response to a changing level (The changing level of Figure 1; 6) of the flammable liquid within the storage tank (Functional Language, the floating roof moves vertically in response to the changing level of the flammable liquid);
a foam supply conduit (Figure 3; 5. Paragraph 0039, 0046) extending to the storage tank from a remote location (The remote location of Figure 3; 1); and
a foam diffuser (Figure 3; 7) fluidly coupled to the foam supply conduit and affixed to an underside (The underside of Figure 3; 10) of the floating roof such that the foam diffuser is submerged in the flammable liquid in operation (Paragraph 0046, 0066), wherein, when the floating roof is floating on the flammable liquid, a topmost surface (The topmost surface of Figure 3; 7) of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface (The topmost surface of Figure 3; 6) of the flammable liquid, the foam diffuser including at least one outlet (The outlets for Figure 5; 7) for discharging a foam (The foam from the foam supply conduit) from the foam supply conduit into the flammable liquid adjacent the underside of the floating roof and an upper surface (The upper surface of the flammable liquid) of the flammable liquid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins to include a foam diffuser; the foam diffuser is submerged in the flammable liquid in operation, wherein, when the floating roof is floating on the flammable liquid, a topmost surface of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface of the flammable liquid as taught by and suggested by Seliverstov in order to provide a 360 degree sweep of fire extinguishing mixture (Paragraph 0033 and claim 1 of Perkins) and because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Seliverstov’s use of a fully submerged diffuser according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Perkins’s fire extinguishing system, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case extinguishing a fire, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification replaces Figure 1; 48 of Perkins with the foam diffuser of Seliverstov and lowers the foam diffuser in the flammable liquid instead of above the flammable liquid).
Regarding claim 11, Perkins in view of Seliverstov teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins further discloses a foam supply (Figure 1; 52) coupled to the foam supply conduit at the remote location, the foam supply including at least one of a low expansion protein foam, aqueous film forming foam (Column 2, lines 34-38), film forming fluoro-protein foam or a synthetic foam.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Seliverstov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tuve et al (US 2556239 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026)
Regarding claim 2, Perkins in view of Seliverstov teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins in view of Seliverstov does not teach a foam agitator coupled within the foam supply conduit and defining a central flow passage extending longitudinally therethrough and at least one lateral opening defined through a sidewall thereof for introduction of air into the central flow passage.
However, Tuve teaches a foam agitator (Figure 1) coupled within a foam supply conduit (The hose or pipe of Column 3, lines 52-58) and defining a central flow passage (The central flow passage of Figure 1) extending longitudinally therethrough and at least one lateral opening (Figure 1; 21, 22, 23) defined through a sidewall (The side wall of Figure 1; 14) thereof for introduction of air into the central flow passage (Column 4, lines 8-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins in view of Seliverstov to include a foam agitator coupled within the foam supply conduit and defining a central flow passage extending longitudinally therethrough and at least one lateral opening defined through a sidewall thereof for introduction of air into the central flow passage as taught by and suggested by Tuve in order to provide an improved foam generating apparatus (Column 2; lines 39-43, The modification uses the foam agitator of Tuve in Perkins).
Regarding claim 3, Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Tuve teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins in view of Seliverstov does not teach wherein the central flow passage defines converging and diverging portions to provide a Venturi flow path through the foam agitator.
However, Tuve teaches wherein the central flow passage defines converging and diverging portions (Figure 1; 14, 24) to provide a Venturi flow path (The venturi flow path through Figure 1; 14, 24) through the foam agitator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins in view of Seliverstov wherein the central flow passage defines converging and diverging portions to provide a Venturi flow path through the foam agitator as taught by and suggested by Tuve in order to provide an improved foam generating apparatus (Column 2; lines 39-43, This is the same modification as claim 2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Tuve as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Teske et al (US 5255747 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026).
Regarding claim 4, Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Tuve teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Tuve does not teach one or more fins protruding into the central flow path to mechanically agitate the foam flowing therethrough.
However, Teske teaches one or more fins (The fins in Figure 3; 40) protruding into a central flow path (The central flow path through Figure 3; 15a, 30, 32, 40) to mechanically agitate foam (The foam flowing in the central flow path) flowing therethrough.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Tuve to include one or more fins protruding into the central flow path to mechanically agitate the foam flowing therethrough as taught by and suggested by Teske in order to enhance mixing (Column 4, lines 30-33, The modifications adds fins downstream of the diverging portion).
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Seliverstov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moser et al (US 1787792 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026).
Regarding claim 5, Perkins in view of Seliverstov teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins further discloses wherein the foam supply conduit extends over an upper end (The upper end of the vertical wall) of the vertical wall.
Perkins in view of Seliverstov does not teach the foam supply conduit includes an adjustable-length portion extending between the upper end of the vertical wall and the floating roof, the adjustable-length portion being adjustable in length in response to vertical movement of the floating roof.
However, Moser teaches a foam supply conduit (Figure 6; 39, 41) includes an adjustable-length portion (Figure 5; 41) extending between an upper end of a vertical wall (The upper end of Figure 1; A as applied to Figure 5) and a floating structure (Figure 5; 43), the adjustable-length portion being adjustable in length in response to vertical movement of the floating roof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins in view of Seliverstov wherein the foam supply conduit includes an adjustable-length portion extending between the upper end of the vertical wall and the floating roof, the adjustable-length portion being adjustable in length in response to vertical movement of the floating roof as taught by and suggested by Moser in order to allow correct length of the foam supply conduit (Page 3, lines 55-65, The modification adds a telescoping portion to the foam supply conduit which attaches to the floating roof).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Moser teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins in view of Seliverstov does not teach wherein the adjustable-length portion includes at least one of a bellows, a flexible coil and a plurality of telescoping segments.
However, Moser teaches wherein the adjustable-length portion includes at least one of a bellows, a flexible coil and a plurality of telescoping segments (Figure 5; 41 has telescoping segments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins in view of Seliverstov wherein the adjustable-length portion includes at least one of a bellows, a flexible coil and a plurality of telescoping segments as taught by and suggested by Moser in order to allow correct length of the foam supply conduit (Page 3, lines 55-65, This is the same modification as claim 4).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Seliverstov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flandre et al (US 4893681 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026).
Regarding claim 10, Perkins in view of Seliverstov teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins in view of Seliverstov does not teach a dike surrounding the storage tank and defining a basin therein, wherein the remote location from which the foam supply conduit extends is located outside the dike.
However, Flandre teaches a dike (Figure 1; 2) surrounding a storage tank (Figure 1; 1) and defining a basin (The basin formed by Figure 1; 2) therein, wherein a remote location 9The location of Figure 1; 3) from which a foam supply conduit (Figure 1; 4) extends is located outside the dike.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins in view of Seliverstov to include a dike surrounding the storage tank and defining a basin therein, wherein the remote location from which the foam supply conduit extends is located outside the dike as taught by and suggested by Flandre in order to contain the storage tank (Column 2, line 14-20, The modification adds the dike).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Hunter.
Regarding claim 18, Perkins discloses a fire extinguishing system (Figure 1), comprising:
a storage tank (Figure 1; 12) defining a vertical wall (The vertical walls of Figure 1; 12);
a flammable liquid (Figure 1; 62) stored within the storage tank;
a floating roof (Figure 1; 28 and 16) floating on an upper surface (The upper surface of the flammable liquid) of the flammable liquid and circumscribed by the vertical wall, the floating roof movable vertically along the vertical wall in response to a changing level (The changing level of Figure 1; 62) of the flammable liquid within the storage tank;
a rim seal (Figure 1; 19) defined circumferentially between the floating roof and the vertical wall;
a foam supply (Figure 1; 52) at a remote location (The remote location of Figure 1; 52 with respect to the storage tank) with respect to the storage tank;
a foam supply conduit (Figure 1; 56) extending to the storage tank from the foam supply at the remote location; and
a foam nozzle (The nozzle of Figure 1; 48) fluidly coupled to the foam supply conduit, the foam diffuser affixed to an underside (The underside of the top horizontal line of Figure 1; 28) of the floating roof, the foam diffuser including:
at least one outlet (The outlet of the nozzle of Figure 1; 48) for discharging a foam (The foam from Figure 1; 52) from the foam supply conduit into the flammable liquid adjacent the underside of the floating roof and an upper surface (The upper side of Figure 1; 62) of the flammable liquid.
Perkins does not disclose a foam diffuser;
the foam diffuser submerged in the flammable liquid;
wherein, when the floating roof is floating on the flammable liquid, a topmost surface of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface of the flammable liquid;
a backflow preventer for preventing flow of the flammable liquid into the foam supply conduit.
However, Seliverstov teaches a fire extinguishing system (Figure 3), comprising:
a storage tank (Figure 3; 4) providing a vertical wall (The vertical wall of Figure 3; 4);
a flammable liquid (Figure 1; 6) stored within the storage tank;
a floating roof (Figure 3; 10) floating on an upper surface (The upper surface of Figure 1; 6) of the flammable liquid and circumscribed by the vertical wall, the floating roof movable vertically along the vertical wall in response to a changing level (The changing level of Figure 1; 6) of the flammable liquid within the storage tank (Functional Language, the floating roof moves vertically in response to the changing level of the flammable liquid);
a foam supply (Figure 3; 1, Paragraph 0039, 0046) at a remote location (The remote location of Figure 3; 1) with respect to the storage tank;
a foam supply conduit (Figure 3; 5. Paragraph 0039, 0046) extending to the storage tank from the foam supply at the remote location; and
a foam diffuser (Figure 3; 7) fluidly coupled to the foam supply conduit, the foam diffuser submerged in the flammable liquid and affixed to an underside (The underside of Figure 3; 10) of the floating roof, wherein, when the floating roof is floating on the flammable liquid, a topmost surface (The topmost surface of Figure 3; 7) of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface (The topmost surface of Figure 3; 6) of the flammable liquid, the foam diffuser including:
at least one outlet (The outlets for Figure 5; 7) for discharging a foam (The foam from the foam supply conduit) from the foam supply conduit into the flammable liquid adjacent the underside of the floating roof and an upper surface (The upper surface of the flammable liquid) of the flammable liquid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins to include a foam diffuser; the foam diffuser submerged in the flammable liquid; wherein, when the floating roof is floating on the flammable liquid, a topmost surface of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface of the flammable liquid as taught by and suggested by Seliverstov in order to provide a 360 degree sweep of fire extinguishing mixture (Paragraph 0033 and claim 1 of Perkins) and because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Seliverstov’s use of a fully submerged diffuser according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Perkins’s fire extinguishing system, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case extinguishing a fire, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification replaces Figure 1; 48 of Perkins with the foam diffuser of Seliverstov and lowers the foam diffuser in the flammable liquid instead of above the flammable liquid).
Perkins in view of Seliverstov does not teach a backflow preventer for preventing flow of the flammable liquid into the foam supply conduit.
However, Hunter teaches a foam diffuser (Figure 3; 15, 18, 19) including:
a backflow preventer (Figure 3; 18, 19) for preventing a flow of flammable liquid (The flow of oil from Figure 1; 1) into a foam supply conduit (The conduit from Figure 1; 12 to 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins in view of Seliverstov to include a backflow preventer for preventing flow of the flammable liquid into the foam supply conduit as taught by and suggested by Moeller in order to prevent backwards flow (Column 2, lines 45-52, the modification adds a non-return valve to the diffuser).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Hunter as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Tuve.
Regarding claim 19, Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Hunter teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Hunter does not teach a foam agitator coupled within the foam supply conduit, the foam agitator operable to draw atmospheric air into the foam supply conduit by flowing the foam through converging and diverging portions of a central passage extending through the foam agitator.
However, Tuve teaches a foam agitator (Figure 1) coupled within a foam supply conduit (Figure 3; 37, 38), the foam agitator operable to draw atmospheric air (The air drawn in from Figure 1; 21, 22, 23) into the foam supply conduit by flowing foam (The foam through Figure 3) through converging and diverging portions (Figure 1; 14, 24, respectively) of a central passage (The central flow passage of Figure 1) extending through the foam agitator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Hunter to include a foam agitator coupled within the foam supply conduit, the foam agitator operable to draw atmospheric air into the foam supply conduit by flowing the foam through converging and diverging portions of a central passage extending through the foam agitator as taught by and suggested by Tuve in order to provide an improved foam generating apparatus (Column 2; lines 39-43, The modification uses the foam agitator of Tuve in Perkins).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Hunter as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Moser.
Regarding claim 20, Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Hunter teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins further discloses wherein the foam supply conduit extends over an upper end (The upper end of the vertical wall) of the vertical wall.
Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Hunter does not teach wherein the foam supply conduit includes an adjustable-length portion extending between an upper end of the vertical wall and the floating roof, the adjustable-length portion passively adjustable in response to changing levels of the flammable liquid within the storage tank.
However, Moser teaches a foam supply conduit (Figure 6; 39, 41) includes an adjustable-length portion (Figure 5; 41) extending between an upper end of a vertical wall (The upper end of Figure 1; A as applied to Figure 5) and a floating structure (Figure 5; 43), the adjustable-length portion being adjustable in length in response to changing levels of a flammable liquid within a storage tank (The oil in the storage tank of Figure 5.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Perkins in view of Seliverstov and Hunter wherein the foam supply conduit includes an adjustable-length portion extending between an upper end of the vertical wall and the floating roof, the adjustable-length portion passively adjustable in response to changing levels of the flammable liquid within the storage tank as taught by and suggested by Moser in order to allow correct length of the foam supply conduit (Page 3, lines 55-65, The modification adds a telescoping portion to the foam supply conduit which attaches to the floating roof).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
