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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 7 and 8 be found allowable, claims 17 and 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation "liquid fire suppressant" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "pressurized expellant gas" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 3, the recitation “wherein the activator is configured selectively release” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "pressurized hydraulic fluid" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the spray” in line 8. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “spray” of the at least one nozzle or the “spray” of the second nozzle.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the spray” in line 2. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “spray” of the at least one nozzle or the “spray” of the second nozzle.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "liquid fire suppressant" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a plurality of nozzles” in line 1. At least one of the plurality of nozzles is a double inclusion of the “nozzle” recited in claim 9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “liquid fire suppressant” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “liquid fire suppressant” recited in claim 9.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "liquid fire suppressant" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the spray” in line 8. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “spray” of the at least one nozzle or the “spray” of the second nozzle.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the spray” in line 2. It is uncertain whether the reference is to the “spray” of the at least one nozzle or the “spray” of the second nozzle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sandahl et al. (2015/0251031).
Sandahl et al. disclose a vehicle (paragraph 0003, line 2) comprising:
a chassis (inherent in a vehicle);
a body (inherent in a vehicle) coupled to the chassis and defining an enclosure H (the body of the vehicle inherently is an enclosure because the body encloses a space including the engine compartment which includes an ignition source and fuel/flammable materials; hazard H defined in paragraph 0035 to include an ignition source and fuel/flammable materials);
a plurality of tractive elements (wheels) coupled to the chassis;
a driver (vehicle engine) extending within the enclosure and configured to output mechanical energy to drive at least one of the tractive elements, a portion of the driver defining a surface (surface of the engine); and
a fire suppression system, comprising:
a fire suppression tank 14 containing a volume of liquid fire suppressant (fire fighting agent, such as for example a chemical agent, paragraph 0035; the fire fighting agent must be in liquid form for the device of Sandahl et al. to function; figure 1 shows the piping of nozzle 12 going to the base of tanks 14; the pressurizing lines from cylinder assemblies 16 are connected at the mid level of tank 14; in order for the pressurizing gas, such as nitrogen, to drive the fire fighting agent, the fire fighting agent must be in liquid form);
at least one nozzle 12 having an outlet at least selectively fluidly coupled to the fire suppression tank and configured to release a spray of the liquid fire suppressant therefrom, wherein the outlet is positioned within the enclosure; and
an activator 16a (paragraph 0036) configured to selectively release the liquid fire suppressant from the fire suppression tank such that at least a portion of the liquid fire suppressant passes through the outlet of the nozzle, wherein all of the liquid fire suppressant remains in the fire suppression tank until it is released by the activator (inherent, the fire suppressant remains in tank 14 because tank 14 is not pressurized until activated/pressurized by rupturing device 16a).
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) 1-6, 9-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sandahl et al. (2015/0251031).
Sandahl et al. disclose a vehicle (paragraph 0003, line 2) comprising:
a chassis (inherent in a vehicle);
a body (inherent in a vehicle) coupled to the chassis and defining an enclosure H (the body of the vehicle inherently is an enclosure because the body encloses a space including the engine compartment which includes an ignition source and fuel/flammable materials; hazard H defined in paragraph 0035 to include an ignition source and fuel/flammable materials);
a plurality of tractive elements (wheels) coupled to the chassis;
a prime mover (vehicle engine) configured to output mechanical energy to drive at least one of the tractive elements, wherein the enclosure is a compartment (e.g., engine compartment) that at least partially receives the prime mover;
a fire suppression system, comprising:
a fire suppression tank 14 containing a volume of liquid fire suppressant (fire fighting agent, such as for example a chemical agent, paragraph 0035; the fire fighting agent must be in liquid form for the device of Sandahl et al. to function; figure 1 shows the piping of nozzle 12 going to the base of tanks 14; the pressurizing lines from cylinder assemblies 16 are connected at the mid level of tank 14; in order for the pressurizing gas, such as nitrogen, to drive the fire fighting agent, the fire fighting agent must be in liquid form);
at least one nozzle 12 positioned in the enclosure and having an outlet at least selectively fluidly coupled to the fire suppression tank and configured to release a spray of the liquid fire suppressant therefrom
a fire detection device 32 configured to generate a signal in response to detecting a fire;
a controller 20 configured to receive the signal from the fire detection device and generate an activator signal; and
an activator 16a (paragraph 0036) configured to release the liquid fire suppressant from the fire suppression tank in response to receiving the activator signal, such that at least a portion of the liquid fire suppressant passes through the outlet of the nozzle.
Sandahl et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the nozzle having a spray angle between 110 and 130 degrees. The nozzle of Sandahl et al. inherently has a spray angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a spray angle between 110 degrees and 130 degrees to optimize fire suppressant distribution, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Sandahl et al. further disclose wherein the fire suppression system further comprises a pressurized cylinder 16b (figures showing 16d), containing a volume of pressurized expellant gas (nitrogen), that is fluidly coupled to the fire suppression tank.
Regarding claim 3, Sandahl et al. further disclose wherein the activator is configured selectively release the pressurized expellant gas from the pressurized cylinder to pressurize the fire suppression tank and, wherein all of the liquid fire suppressant remains in the fire suppression tank until it is released by the activator (inherent, the fire suppressant remains in tank 14 because tank 14 is not pressurized until activated/pressurized by rupturing device 16a).
Regarding claim 4, Sandahl et al. further disclose wherein the fire suppression tank and the pressurized cylinder are outside of the enclosure (figure 1 shows cylinder 14 and cylinder 16b/d outside of hazard H, i.e., the engine compartment).
Regarding claim 5, Sandahl et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the spray angle being 120 degrees and the nozzle having an effective suppression area of at least 7 square feet at the surface of the prime mover. The nozzle of Sandahl et al. inherently has a spray angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a spray angle of 120 degrees to optimize fire suppressant distribution, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the nozzle of Sandahl et al. inherently has an effective suppression area at the surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided an effective suppression area of at least 7 square feet at the surface to optimize fire suppression, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Sandahl et al. further disclose wherein the prime mover is an electric motor (an engine, even a gasoline engine, utilizes electricity). In the alternative, an electric motor is well known for propelling vehicles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided an effective the fire suppression system of Sandahl et al. to an electric motor vehicle to suppress fires in electric vehicles.
Regarding claim 9, see the explanation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Sandahl et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the nozzle being configured to have an effective suppression area of at least 3 square feet at the surface when the nozzle is positioned between 6 inches and 24 inches away from the surface. Doing so is merely a design choice to control the effectiveness of the nozzle and the spray, i.e., at least 3 square feet coverage, of the fire suppressant therefrom on the fire. Placing the nozzle close to the surface (the fire) provides a concentrated spray of the fire suppressant while placing the nozzle away from the surface (the fire) provides a wider coverage by the spray issuing from the nozzle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have positioned the nozzle of Sandahl et al. at between 6 inches and 24 inches away from the surface with a suppression area of at least 3 square feet to optimize the coverage of the fire by the spray of the fire suppressant. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Sandahl et al. further disclose wherein the surface is an external surface (external surface of the engine) of the vehicle and wherein the nozzle is oriented such that the spray is directed toward the external surface.
Regarding claim 12, Sandahl et al. further disclose wherein a plurality of nozzles 12 are selectively fluidly coupled to the fire suppression tank.
Regarding claim 13, Sandahl et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of each of the plurality of nozzles having a spray angle between 110 and 130 degrees. The each of the nozzles of Sandahl et al. inherently has a spray angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a spray angle between 110 degrees and 130 degrees to each of the nozzles to optimize fire suppressant distribution, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, see the explanation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Sandahl et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the nozzle having a spray angle between 90 and 150 degrees. The nozzle of Sandahl et al. inherently has a spray angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a spray angle between 90 degrees and 150 degrees to optimize fire suppressant distribution, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,717. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,717 fully disclose the currently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 O Hall can be reached on (571) 270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights