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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the diffuser” should be - -the foam diffuser- -. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins et al (US 5265651 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026), hereafter Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins et al (US H001158 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026), hereafter Perkins ‘158, and Moeller (US 1733551 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Perkins ‘651 teaches 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 ‘651 does not disclose a foam diffuser;
the foam diffuser is submerged in the flammable liquid in operation.
However, Perkins ‘158 teaches a foam diffuser (Figure 1; 26, 20, 12, 16) fluidly coupled to a foam supply conduit (Figure 1; 34) and affixed to an underside (The underside of Figure 1; 40) of a roof (Figure 1; 40), the foam diffuser including at least one outlet (The outlet of Figure 1; 30) for discharging a foam (The foam from Figure 1; 34) from the foam supply conduit.
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 ‘651 to include a foam diffuser as taught by and suggested by Perkins ‘158 because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Perkins ‘158’s use of a foam diffuser according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Perkins ‘651’s fire extinguishing system, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case providing foam, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the foam generator of Perkin ‘158 in Perkins ‘651).
Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 does not teach wherein the foam diffuser is submerged in the flammable liquid in operation.
However, Moeller teaches a foam diffuser (Figure; 8);
the foam diffuser is submerged in a flammable liquid (Figure; 15, Page 1, lines 1-6) in operation (The operation in the Figure).
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 ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 wherein the foam diffuser is submerged in the flammable liquid in operation as taught by and suggested by Moeller in order to provide an improved means for introducing foam (Page 1, lines 24-27, The modification uses a foam diffuser like Moeller that is submerged.)
Regarding claim 7, Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 does not disclose wherein the foam diffuser includes a housing abutting the underside of the floating roof, and wherein the at least one outlet is defined within the housing.
However, Perkins ‘158 teaches wherein the foam diffuser includes a housing (Figure 1, 20, 12, 16) abutting the underside of the floating roof, and wherein the at least one outlet is defined within the housing.
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 ‘651 wherein the foam diffuser includes a housing abutting the underside of the floating roof, and wherein the at least one outlet is defined within the housing as taught by and suggested by Perkins ‘158 because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Perkins ‘158’s use of a foam diffuser according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Perkins ‘651’s fire extinguishing system, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case providing foam, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 does not disclose wherein a screen extends across the at least one outlet, the screen including a perforated panel or a wire mesh.
However, Perkins ‘158 teaches wherein a screen (Figure 1; 32) extends across the at least one outlet, the screen including a perforated panel or a wire mesh (A screen by definition is a perforated plate or wire mesh, see Merriam Webster definition 3a).
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 ‘651 wherein a screen extends across the at least one outlet, the screen including a perforated panel or a wire mesh as taught by and suggested by Perkins ‘158 because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Perkins ‘158’s use of a foam diffuser according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Perkins ‘651’s fire extinguishing system, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case providing foam, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Perkins ‘651 and Perkins ‘158 and Moeller teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 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 ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 and Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651).
Regarding claim 3, Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller and Tuve teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 and Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller and Tuve teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 and Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 further discloses wherein the foam supply conduit extends over an upper end (The upper end of the vertical wall) of the vertical wall.
Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 and Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller and Moser teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 and Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hunter (US 2414260 as referenced in OA dated 1/30/2026).
Regarding claim 9, Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller does not teach a check valve or a backflow preventer within the foam diffuser to prevent a flow of the flammable liquid into the foam supply conduit.
However, Hunter teaches a check valve or a backflow preventer (Figure 3; 18, 19) within a foam diffuser (Figure 3; 15) to prevent 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 ‘651 and Perkins ‘158 and Moeller to include a check valve or a backflow preventer within the foam diffuser to prevent a flow of the flammable liquid into the foam supply conduit as taught by and suggested by Hunter in order to prevent backwards flow (Column 2, lines 45-52, the modification adds a non-return valve to the diffuser).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 in view of Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 and Perkins ‘158 and Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Moeller and Hunter.
Regarding claim 18, Perkins ‘651 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 ‘651 does not disclose a foam diffuser;
the foam diffuser submerged in the flammable liquid;
a backflow preventer for preventing flow of the flammable liquid into the foam supply conduit.
However, Moeller teaches a foam diffuser (Figure; 8);
the foam diffuser submerged in a flammable liquid (Figure; 15, Page 1, lines 1-6).
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 ‘651 to include a foam diffuser; wherein the foam diffuser submerged in the flammable liquid as taught by and suggested by Moeller in order to provide an improved means for introducing foam (Page 1, lines 24-27, The modification uses the foam diffuser of Moeller in Perkins ‘651).
Perkins ‘651 in view of Moeller does not teach a backflow preventer for preventing flow of the flammable liquid into the foam supply conduit.
However, Hunter teaches 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 ‘651 and Moeller to include a backflow preventer for preventing flow of the flammable liquid into the foam supply conduit as taught by and suggested by Hunter 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 ‘651 in view of Moeller and Hunter as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Tuve.
Regarding claim 19, Perkins ‘651 in view of Moeller and Hunter teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 in view of Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Moeller 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 ‘651).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins ‘651 in view of Moeller and Hunter as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Moser.
Regarding claim 20, Perkins ‘651 in view of Moeller and Hunter teaches the invention as claimed.
Perkins ‘651 further discloses wherein the foam supply conduit extends over an upper end (The upper end of the vertical wall) of the vertical wall.
Perkins ‘651 in view of Moeller 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 ‘651 in view of Moeller 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 filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Perkins ‘158 in Perkins ‘651 does not disclose a foam diffuser affixed to an underside of the floating roof. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Perkins ‘651 discloses a foam nozzle affixed to an underside of the floating roof while Perkins ‘158 teaches a foam diffuser.
Applicant asserts that Moeller does not disclose the foam diffuser submerged in the flammable liquid in operation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Moeller shows in the Figure that 8 is at least partially submerged in the flammable liquid in operation. As a note, Applicant should claim that the foam diffuser is fully submerged or that a topmost surface of the foam diffuser is below a topmost surface of the flammable liquid.
Applicant asserts that Moeller does not disclose a floating roof with a foam diffuser affixed to the underside of the floating roof. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As shown above, Perkins ‘158 in Perkins ‘651 teach the foam diffuser affixed to the underside of the floating roof while Moeller teaches a foam diffuser is at least partially submerged in the flammable liquid in operation.
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 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
Prosecution Insights