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 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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "the water refill system" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rey (US 5,699,862).
Regarding claim 1, Rey teaches an aerial firefighting system (col. 1, ln. 7-12), comprising: a stream straightener (12) comprising tubing having an entrance and an exit (upper end and lower end, respectively, see fig. 3); a plurality of nozzles (5) disposed upstream of and proximate to the entrance of the tubing (fig. 3); a foam production unit (22) comprising: a water storage apparatus (24), a foaming agent storage apparatus (26), a foam proportioning system (36/38/40) coupled to the nozzles and configured to mix water and foaming agent in a predetermined ratio (col. 2, ln. 35-37 - the ratio can be controlled by the control tap 40) and send the mixed water and foaming agent through the nozzles (fig. 4), and a fan (46) configured to provide an airflow through the stream straightener (col. 3, ln. 23-26; fig. 4); and, an aircraft (20), wherein the foam production unit is carried by the aircraft (fig. 1), and wherein the stream straightener extends from the foam production unit (fig. 2-4) and is configured to deliver the foam mixture from the foam production unit to a fire (col. 3, ln. 32-34).
Regarding claim 4, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the stream straightener comprises tubing (fig. 3) and power winches (col. 3, ln. 39-41) configured to lower the stream straightener from a retracted configuration into an extended configuration for delivery of foam (fig. 3 - right side), and to raise the stream straightener from the extended configuration to the retracted configuration after completion of the delivery of foam (fig. 3 - left side).
Regarding claim 7, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a telemetry unit configured to adjust fan speed, water pressure, and foam proportioning according to instructions received by a pilot while the aircraft is in flight (col. 4, ln. 17-31 - the pilot controls the speed of the blades 46 to fly the aircraft and further controls “activating of the pump system after the dose adjustment of the emulsifier”).
Regarding claim 8, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the fan is configured to deliver at least seventy-five thousand cubic feet per minute of air (col. 3, ln. 23-24 - fan 46 is capable of lifting the helicopter, which configures it to deliver the recited flow of air).
Regarding claim 10, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the fan is configured to provide an airflow of at least seventy-five thousand cubic feet per minute of air through the stream straightener (col. 3, ln. 23-24 - fan 46 is capable of lifting the helicopter, which configures it to deliver the recited flow of air).
Regarding claim 13, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the entrance of the tubing is coupled to the fan, and the tubing comprises an extended configuration in which the exit is disposed vertically below the entrance (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 13, and further comprising a weighted ring (19) coupled to the tubing proximate to the exit (fig. 3), thereby keeping the tubing in the extended configuration against wind currents while the aircraft is in flight.
Regarding claim 15, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the foam production unit is configured to be suspended externally from the aircraft (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the foam proportioning system is configured to mix water and foam concentrate at a ratio of one hundred gallons of water to between one and five gallons of foam concentrate (col. 2, ln. 35-37 - the ratio can be controlled by the control tap 40).
Regarding claim 17, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 16, and further comprising a telemetry unit operable to adjust the ratio of water to foam concentrate mixed by the foam proportioning system (col. 4, ln. 17-31 - the pilot controls “activating of the pump system after the dose adjustment of the emulsifier”).
Regarding claim 19, Rey teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a meshed screen grating (11), wherein the foam is pushed through the meshed screen grating into the tubing of the stream straightener (fig. 3).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rey in view of Jamison et al. (US 3,186,490).
Regarding claim 3, Rey discloses the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1. Rey does not further disclose wherein the foam production unit is removably attached to the aircraft and capable of operating as a standalone ground unit.
Jamison teaches a vehicle-mounted firefighting system (fig. 2) comprising a foam production unit (54), a stream straightener (58), and a vehicle (56); wherein the foam production unit is removably attached to the vehicle and capable of operating as a standalone ground unit (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the foam production unit of Rey to be removably attached to the aircraft, which is analogous to the vehicle of Jamison, as taught by Jamison. This would provide a firefighting system capable of being transported by the aircraft to a remote location (e.g., a house) and unloaded for use fighting fires at that location, without requiring the continued use of the aircraft, which could then be used to fight the fire at additional locations.
Regarding claim 5, Rey discloses the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 3. Rey does not further disclose that the stream straightener comprises synthetic nylon tubing.
Jamison teaches a foam production unit (fig. 1) comprising a tubing portion (58) attached to the foam production unit (fig. 2) and comprising nylon tubing (col. 4, ln. 28-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the tubing from nylon material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to make the tubing from nylon since this material was taught by Jamison to be suitable for such an application.
Claims 6, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rey in view of Zimmerman et al. (US 2013/0199806).
Regarding claim 6, Rey discloses the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1. Rey does not further disclose wherein the water storage apparatus comprises a light weight bladder tank system and the foaming agent storage apparatus comprises a light weight bladder tank system.
Zimmerman teaches an aerial firefighting system (10) comprising a foam production unit (fig. 1) having a water storage apparatus (20) and a foam storage apparatus (30), wherein the foaming agent storage apparatus comprises a light weight bladder tank system (par. 76).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have made the foaming agent storage apparatus of the firefighting system of Rey a light weight bladder tank system, as taught by Zimmerman, since this would provide a lightweight and space-saving structure for storing the foaming agent. Although Zimmerman does not teach that the water storage apparatus also comprises a light weight bladder tank system, it would have been obvious to do so for the same reasons as explained regarding the foaming agent storage apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, Rey discloses the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1. Rey does not further disclose wherein the foam production unit comprises a water refill system configured to extend a tube or hose to draw water into the water storage apparatus while the aircraft is in flight.
Zimmerman teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 6, and further comprising a water refill system configured to extend a tube or hose to draw water into the water storage apparatus while the aircraft is in flight (par. 78; fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the firefighting system of Rey to further comprise a water refill system configured to extend a tube or hose to draw water into the water storage apparatus while the aircraft is in flight, as taught by Zimmerman, since this would allow the system to refill the water tank from a reservoir or lake (Zimmerman, par. 78).
Regarding claim 18, Rey discloses the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 17. Rey does not further disclose comprising a water refill system, wherein the telemetry unit is operable to activate the water refill system.
Zimmerman teaches the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 6 and 9, and further wherein a telemetry unit is operable to activate the water refill system (par. 62 - “a dedicated operator of system 10 is located on the aerial vehicle”; par. 86 - “reversible motor 360, and motor controller 361, for deploying or retracting collapsible hose 362”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the firefighting system of Rey to further comprise a water refill system, wherein the telemetry unit is operable to activate the water refill system, as taught by Zimmerman, since this would allow an operator of the system to refill the water storage tanks while the aircraft is in flight from a reservoir or lake (Zimmerman, par. 78).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rey in view of Needham (US 5,560,429).
Regarding claim 11, Rey discloses the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising a cable retracting/expansion control unit coupled to the tubing and configured to selectively restrict the flow of foam within the tubing so that there is an increase in force of the foam as it exits the tubing.
Needham teaches an aerial firefighting system (10) comprising a stream straightener comprising a tubing (19) and a cable retracting/expansion control unit (25/46/42) coupled to the tubing (fig. 1) and configured to selectively restrict the flow of foam within the tubing so that there is an increase in force of the foam as it exits the tubing (col. 6, ln. 52-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the aerial firefighting system of Rey to further comprise a cable retracting/expansion control unit coupled to the tubing and configured to selectively restrict the flow of foam within the tubing, as taught by Needham, since this was known to provide the operator with more control over the discharge of the foam onto a fire.
Regarding claim 12, Rey in view of Needham discloses the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 11, and Needham further teaches wherein the CRCU is coupled to the tubing proximate to the exit (fig. 2).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rey in view of Stults (US 3,750,754).
Rey discloses the aerial firefighting system described regarding claim 1, but not wherein the stream straightener further comprises a honeycomb stream straightening system within the tubing.
Stults teaches a firefighting system (fig. 1) comprising a foam production unit comprising a water tank (20), a foam tank (21), a foam proportioning system (25), a source of pressurized gas (17), a manifold (60) having a plurality of nozzles (61), a tubing portion (30/31/32), wherein the foam proportioning system is configured to mix water from the water tank into foam concentrate from the foam tank and send the mixed water and foam concentrated though the nozzles of the manifold (figs. 1, 3), and wherein the tubing portion comprises a honeycomb stream straightening system (34, see fig. 5) within the tubing (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the firefighting system of Rey to make the stream straightening system comprise a honeycomb structure, as taught by Stults, since this was known to produce high foam generating rates (Stults- col. 10, ln. 40).
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, 2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 4-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in view of Rey. U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in combination with Rey discloses each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10, 14, 16-17, and 19 of the instant application, as explained in the rejection above.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in view of Rey and Jamison. U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in combination with Rey and Jamison discloses each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 3 and 5 of the instant application, as explained in the rejection above.
Claims 6, 9, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in view of Rey and Zimmerman. U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in combination with Rey and Zimmerman discloses each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 6, 9, and 18 of the instant application, as explained in the rejection above.
Claims 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in view of Rey and Needham. U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in combination with Rey and Needham discloses each of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 11-12 of the instant application, as explained in the rejection above.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in view of Rey and Stults. U.S. Patent No. 11,992,716 in combination with Rey and Stults discloses each of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 20 of the instant application, as explained in the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2 recites subject that is not taught or disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the aerial firefighting systems described in the rejections above, Jamison discloses a foam production unit (col. 1, In. 11 12; fig. 1) configured to be carried by an aircraft (the unit is portable and configured to be loaded into a cargo aircraft, see figs. 1 3), comprising: a foam tubing straightener (10) comprising tubing having an entrance and an exit (fig. 1); and one or more flow vanes (52, see col. 4, In. 23) coupled to the tubing along a diagonal path along a portion of the tubing between the entrance and the exit (fig. 1); a plurality of nozzles (40/42) disposed proximate to the entrance of the tubing (fig. 1); a foam proportioning system (46/48/50) coupled to the nozzles (fig. 1) and configured to mix water and a foam-concentrate in a predetermined ratio and send the mixed water and foam concentrate through the nozzles (col. 3, In. 65-67); and an internal fan (18) configured to provide an airflow through the foam tubing straightener (fig. 1).
Faulkner et al. (US 2,609,240) discloses a foam production unit (col. 1, In. 1-4; fig. 1) comprising a foam tubing straightener comprising tubing (16) having an entrance and an exit (fig. 1); and one or more flow vanes (26/27) coupled to the tubing along a diagonal path along a portion of the tubing between the entrance and the exit (fig. 1).
The prior art does not disclose a foam production unit in which the plurality of nozzles are disposed upstream of the entrance of the tubing, the vanes extend the entire length of the tubing, and further comprising the remaining elements recited in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wise (US 6,688,402) discloses an aerial firefighting system (10) comprising: a helicopter (fig. 1); a foam production unit (col. 4, In. 57-67; fig. 3) attached to the helicopter (fig. 1), comprising: a water tank (40); a foam tank (30); a foam proportioning system (32/34/50); a fan (60) configured to deliver a flow of gas (col. 4, In. 39-45); an air straightener (27, see fig. 2); a manifold (50) having a plurality of nozzles (28); and wherein the foam proportioning system is configured to mix water from the water tank into foam concentrate from the foam tank (col. 4, In. 59-65) and send the mixed water and foam concentrate through the nozzles of the manifold (col. 4, In. 65-67), causing the mixed water and foam concentrate to expand into foam by laminar air flow from the air straightener (col. 4, In. 67 to col. 5, In. 4).
Wiedorn (US 3,500,935) and Baker et al. (US 5,385,208) also both disclose foam firefighting systems having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 (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 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752