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 Status
Pending claims 1-16 are addressed below.
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(s) 10 is/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 10 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 1. As dependent of claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 10. Only claim 9 defines “a mixture”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jesclard (US20100025054).
Regarding claim 1, Jesclard discloses a fire suppression apparatus (figs. 6-8 showing pouches 214, par. 61-62; or figs. 1-5 showing pockets 109 with fire suppressant compound, par. 41) comprising:
a flexible container (109 in figs. 1 and 5, par. 42; or pouch 214 or inner layer 217; fig. 8; par. 62);
a fire suppression composition (fire suppression compound 211); the flexible container comprising an internal compartment (interior space of 217; see fig. 8) to enclose the fire suppression composition (211); and
the flexible container being configured to tear or puncture at a predetermined pressure so as to release the fire suppression composition (par. 42: “the shell should tear under a ballistic impact, to release such fire suppressant”; par. 61: “A dribble effect may be defined as when a hole is formed in a pocket (e.g. by small-caliber fire), and the fire suppression compound slowly pours out”).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jesclard discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flexible container comprises a top wall (top wall 217) and a bottom wall (bottom wall 217), and the internal compartment is formed by attaching the top wall and the bottom wall together (see annotation on fig. 8 of Jesclard).
Regarding claim 4, Jesclard discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flexible container is made of plastic (par. 62: “illustrated and exemplary pouch 214 includes 2 mil polyethylene (PE) on the inside layer 217 and 2 mil polyethylene terephalate (PET) on the outside layer 220. The two plastic materials can be joined together, the pouch 214 is made”).
Regarding claim 5, Jesclard discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flexible container has a rectangular shape (see rectangular shape of the pockets 109 in figs. 1, 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Jesclard discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a thickness of the flexible container is less than one inch (par. 62: “illustrated and exemplary pouch 214 includes 2 mil polyethylene (PE) on the inside layer 217 and 2 mil polyethylene terephalate (PET) on the outside layer 220”; where “2 mil” represents thickness measurement of 0.002 inches of the respective PE and PET film. The quoted description indicates: 1) the flexible container formed by inner layer 217 is 0.004 inches with top and bottom layers combined; or 2) the flexible container 214 with two layers of each 217 and 220 is 0.008 inches; both of which are less than one inch).
Regarding claim 7, Jesclard discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one additional flexible containers (fig. 8 shows one inner layer 217 previously cited as the flexible container in claim 1. Jesclard further shows an additional top and bottom layers 220 corresponding to additional flexible container).
Regarding claim 8, Jesclard discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fire suppression composition is non-toxic (par. 60: “Operable fire-fighting compounds or agents that may be incorporated into a fire suppression blanket nonexclusively include: …, sodium bicarbonate, potassium bicarbonate”, both of which are non-toxic known to be baking soda and its substitute).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesclard (US20100025054) in view of Zeik (US 20060008601).
Regarding claim 3, Jesclard discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach the internal compartment is vacuum sealed.
Zeik discloses that it is known in today’s market that many products are packaged in sealed containers using vacuum packing (par. 3). The vacuum packing works by reducing gas present in the headspace of a container and in turn reduces the extent to which the product oxidizes and degrades before reaching the consumer (par. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jesclard to incorporate the teachings of Zeik to provide the internal compartment of Jesclard vacuum sealed. Doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing oxidation and degradation of the product before use (See Paragraph 3-4).
Claims(s) 9-11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesclard (US20100025054) in view of Langselius (WO2022055840).
Regarding claim 9, Jesclard discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach the fire suppression composition comprises a mixture of vinegar, baking soda, and dish soap.
However, Langselius discloses flame retardant and fire extinguishing compositions for preventing and fighting fire in certain materials (Abstract). Langselius discloses on page 8, lines 12-15: “compositions comprising: a surfactant; an inorganic salt; and organic acid;…”. More specifically, Page 8, line 31 indicates “surfactant comprises a soap”; Page 11, line 27 and page 12 line 19 indicates “inorganic salt includes…sodium bicarbonate” (i.e. baking soda); and Page 18, line 32 indicates “the organic acid includes…acetic acid” (i.e. vinegar). Langselius further discloses that the compositions have the intended benefits of binding to a variety of surfaces so that extinguished surfaces cannot reignite during firefighting, products that can be stored in a ready-to-use format over a much longer period of time, and to reduce the environmental impact of firefighting while offering a significant cooling effect (page 3, lines 22-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jesclard to incorporate the teachings of Langselius to provide the fire suppression composition comprising a mixture of vinegar, baking soda, and dish soap. Doing so would provide for the compositions have the benefits of binding to a variety of surfaces so that extinguished surfaces cannot reignite during firefighting, products that can be stored in a ready-to-use format over a much longer period of time, and to reduce the environmental impact of firefighting while offering a significant cooling effect (page 3, lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 10, Jesclard discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 8, but fails to teach the mixture further comprises sodium chloride.
However, Langselius discloses flame retardant and fire extinguishing compositions for preventing and fighting fire in certain materials (Abstract). Langselius discloses on page 8, lines 12-15: “compositions comprising: a surfactant; an inorganic salt; and organic acid;…”. More specifically, Page 11, line 27 and page 12 line 20 indicates “inorganic salt includes…sodium chloride”. Langselius further discloses that the compositions have the benefits of binding to a variety of surfaces so that extinguished surfaces cannot reignite during firefighting, products that can be stored in a ready-to-use format over a much longer period of time, and to reduce the environmental impact of firefighting while offering a significant cooling effect (page 3, lines 22-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jesclard to incorporate the teachings of Langselius to provide the fire suppression composition comprising a mixture of vinegar, baking soda, and dish soap. Doing so would provide for the compositions have the benefits of binding to a variety of surfaces so that extinguished surfaces cannot reignite during firefighting, products that can be stored in a ready-to-use format over a much longer period of time, and to reduce the environmental impact of firefighting while offering a significant cooling effect (page 3, lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 11, Jesclard discloses a fire suppression apparatus (figs. 6-8 showing pouches 214, par. 61-62; or figs. 1-5 showing pockets 109 with fire suppressant compound, par. 41) comprising:
a flexible container (109 in figs. 1 and 5, par. 42; or pouch 214 or inner layer 217; fig. 8; par. 62);
a fire suppression composition (fire suppression compound 211); the flexible container comprising an internal compartment (interior space of 217; see fig. 8) to enclose the fire suppression composition (211);
the flexible container comprises a top wall (top wall 217) and a bottom wall (bottom wall 217), and the internal compartment is formed by attaching the top wall and the bottom wall together (see annotation on fig. 8 of Jesclard); and
the flexible container being configured to tear or puncture at a predetermined pressure so as to release the fire suppression composition (par. 42: “the shell should tear under a ballistic impact, to release such fire suppressant”; par. 61: “A dribble effect may be defined as when a hole is formed in a pocket (e.g. by small-caliber fire), and the fire suppression compound slowly pours out”).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jesclard fails to teach the fire suppression composition comprising a mixture of vinegar, baking soda, dish soap, and sodium chloride.
However, Langselius discloses flame retardant and fire extinguishing compositions for preventing and fighting fire in certain materials (Abstract). Langselius discloses on page 8, lines 12-15: “compositions comprising: a surfactant; an inorganic salt; and organic acid;…”. More specifically, Page 8, line 31 indicates “surfactant comprises a soap”; Page 11, line 27 and page 12 line 19-20 indicates “inorganic salt includes…sodium bicarbonate…, sodium chloride” (sodium bicarbonate is baking soda); and Page 18, line 32 indicates “the organic acid includes…acetic acid” (i.e. vinegar). Langselius further discloses that the compositions have the benefits of binding to a variety of surfaces so that extinguished surfaces cannot reignite during firefighting, products that can be stored in a ready-to-use format over a much longer period of time, and to reduce the environmental impact of firefighting while offering a significant cooling effect (page 3, lines 22-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jesclard to incorporate the teachings of Langselius to provide the fire suppression composition comprising a mixture of vinegar, baking soda, dish soap, and sodium chloride. Doing so would provide for the compositions have the benefits of binding to a variety of surfaces so that extinguished surfaces cannot reignite during firefighting, products that can be stored in a ready-to-use format over a much longer period of time, and to reduce the environmental impact of firefighting while offering a significant cooling effect (page 3, lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 16, Jesclard, as modified above, discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 11, wherein the fire suppression composition is non-toxic (Langselius, page 7, lines 9-11: “These features may render the disclosed compositions safe for the environment as compared to other commonly used fire prevention and firefighting products.”).
Claims 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesclard (US20100025054) in view of Langselius (WO2022055840), further in view of Zeik (US 20060008601).
Regarding claim 12, Jesclard, as modified above, discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 11, but fails to teach the internal compartment is vacuum sealed.
Zeik discloses that it is known in today’s market that many products are packaged in sealed containers using vacuum packing (par. 3). The vacuum packing works by reducing gas present in the headspace of a container and in turn reduces the extent to which the product oxidizes and degrades before reaching the consumer (par. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jesclard to incorporate the teachings of Zeik to provide the internal compartment of Jesclard vacuum sealed. Doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing oxidation and degradation of the product before use (See Paragraph 3-4).
Regarding claim 13, Jesclard, as modified above, discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein Jesclard further discloses the flexible container is made of plastic (par. 62: “illustrated and exemplary pouch 214 includes 2 mil polyethylene (PE) on the inside layer 217 and 2 mil polyethylene terephalate (PET) on the outside layer 220. The two plastic materials can be joined together, the pouch 214 is made”).
Regarding claim 14, Jesclard, as modified above, discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 13, wherein Jesclard further discloses the flexible container has a rectangular shape (see rectangular shape of the pockets 109 in figs. 1, 5-6).
Regarding claim 15, Jesclard, as modified above, discloses the fire suppression apparatus as claimed in claim 14, Jesclard further discloses a thickness of the flexible container is less than one inch (par. 62: “illustrated and exemplary pouch 214 includes 2 mil polyethylene (PE) on the inside layer 217 and 2 mil polyethylene terephalate (PET) on the outside layer 220”; where “2 mil” represents thickness measurement of 0.002 inches of the respective PE and PET film. The quoted description indicates: 1) the flexible container formed by inner layer 217 is 0.004 inches with top and bottom layers combined; or 2) the flexible container 214 with two layers of each 217 and 220 is 0.008 inches; both of which are less than one inch).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752