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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II (claims 10-20) with traverse has been acknowledged. The traversal has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant contends that restriction is improper because the search and examination of one group would be relevant to the search and examination of the other group and therefore would not impose a serious search or examination burden under MPEP §803. However, the argument is not persuasive. As set forth in the Restriction Requirement, the inventions are properly restricted under 35 U.S.C. §121 and MPEP §806.05(i) as related products that are independent or distinct.
Specifically, the elected invention (Group II) is directed to a nozzle system in which the operator proximity assembly is coupled to at least one of the firefighter and the nozzle. In contrast, the nonelected invention (Group I) is directed to a nozzle in which the operator proximity assembly is coupled to the nozzle body and communicatively coupled to the beacon. These differences define materially different structures and corresponding modes of the operation and function.
Furthermore, the inventions do not overlap in scope. The Claims of Group I are directed to a nozzle apparatus, whereas the claims of Group II are directed to a nozzle system including relationships between the nozzle and other system components. Accordingly, the claims are mutually exclusive for purposes of restriction practice as discussed in MPEP §805.05(i).
Applicant has not presented persuasive arguments or evidence demonstrating that the inventions are not independent or distinct. Accordingly, the traversal is not sustained, and the restriction requirement is maintained.
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.
The term “low visibility conditions” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes “low visibility conditions,” as the claim does not specify any measurable or otherwise ascertainable criteria by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether a particular condition falls within the scope of the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 10-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerrano (US 2016/0078733 A1) in view of Stumberg et al. (US 5,157,378).
With regard to claim 10, Cerrano discloses a nozzle system (Fig. 2) for use in a fire-fighting environment, said nozzle system comprising: a nozzle (232) adapted for handheld control by a firefighter; a beacon (“beacon locator”) mounted on said nozzle and operable to output at least one of an audible and a visual signal when said beacon is activated (abstract).
Cerrano does not disclose that an operator proximity assembly coupled to at least one of the firefighter and said nozzle, said operator proximity assembly configured to activate said beacon in response to the firefighter being separated from said nozzle.
Stumberg teaches an operator proximity assembly (46) coupled to at least one of the firefighter and a user device, said operator proximity assembly configured to activate a beacon (148/150) in response to the user being separated from said user device (Fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the beacon of Cerrano, by incorporating the operator proximity assembly in conjunction with the beacon (Fig. 2) as taught by Stumberg, for the benefit of determining whether the firefighter is physically inactive for a predetermined time period (Col. 2 lines 54-63).
With regard to claim 11, the nozzle system of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above, Stumberg further discloses that said operator proximity assembly (46) comprises at least one of a first sensor (46) operable to detect movement of said nozzle (144, Fig. 2B) and generate a signal indicative of the detected movement (Fig. 2C) and a second sensor operable to detect the firefighter within a predefined range of said nozzle.
With regard to claim 12, the nozzle system of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above, Stumberg further discloses that a base controller (12) communicatively coupled to said operator proximity assembly (46), said beacon (18a and 18b), and an alert visible by an adjacent firefighter (16), wherein said base controller (12) is configured to receive a signal from said operator proximity assembly (46) indicating that the firefighter is separated from said nozzle and activate said beacon and the alert in response (Fig. 2B).
With regard to claim 18, the nozzle system of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above, Cerrano and Stumberg further disclose that said beacon comprises at least one LED (Par. [0025] of Cerrano and Fig. 3 of Stumberg) configured to be perceptible in low visibility conditions by the firefighter when separated from said nozzle.
With regard to claim 19, the nozzle system of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above, Cerrano and Stumberg further disclose that said beacon comprises a speaker (Par. [0025] of Cerrano and 18b of Stumberg) configured to be audible in at a distance of at least 20 yards.
Claims 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerrano in view of Stumberg et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tyers (US 2019/0242966 A1).
With regard to claim 13, the nozzle system of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above, Cerrano further discloses that a sensor (locator component) coupled to said nozzle (Para. [0006]).
They do not disclose that the sensor operable to detect movement of said nozzle and generate a signal indicative of the detected movement, and wherein said operator proximity assembly is configured to detect that the firefighter has become separated from said nozzle by determining that the detected movement of the nozzle exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Tyers teaches an operator proximity assembly (“proximity devices”) comprises a sensor (“device sensors”) operable to detect movement of a device and generate a signal indicative of the detected movement, and wherein said operator proximity assembly is configured to detect that the device has become separated from other devices (“distance”) by determining that the detected movement of the device exceeds a predetermined threshold (“detecting that the device has moved more than a threshold distance or the identity of other proximate devices,” see Par. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operator proximity assembly of Cerrano, by incorporating the sensor apparatus as taught by Tyers on both the firefighter and the nozzle of Cerrano, for the benefit of detecting that the nozzle has moved more than a threshold distance or the identity of the firefighter (Par. [0036]).
With regard to claim 14, the nozzle system of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10 above, they do not explicitly disclose that said operator proximity assembly comprises a sensor operable to detect a distance between the firefighter and said nozzle and generate a signal indicative of the detected distance, wherein said operator proximity assembly is configured to detect that the firefighter has become separated from said nozzle by determining that the detected distance exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Tyers teaches an operator proximity assembly (“proximity devices”) comprises a sensor (“device sensors”) operable to detect a distance between devices and generate a signal indicative of the detected distance, wherein said operator proximity assembly is configured to detect that the separation (“distance”) between devices by determining that the detected distance exceeds a predetermined threshold (detecting that the device has moved more than a threshold distance or the identity of other proximate devices,” see Par. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operator proximity assembly of Cerrano, by incorporating the sensor apparatus as taught by Tyers on both the firefighter and the nozzle of Cerrano, for the benefit of detecting that the nozzle has moved more than a threshold distance or the identity of the firefighter (Par. [0036]).
With regard to claim 20, since the device of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg and Tyers discloses all structure of the claimed invention above, in its use, the device of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg and Tyers will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 20.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerrano in view of Stumberg et al. and Tyers as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 10,147,295 B2).
With regard to claim 15, the nozzle system of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg and Tyers discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above, they do not explicitly disclose that said sensor comprises a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag configured to be coupled to one of the firefighter and said nozzle and a RFID reader configured to be coupled to the other of the firefighter and said nozzle.
Chung teaches a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag and a RFID reader configured to be coupled to a firefighter or other devices (Col. 2 lines 52-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operator proximity assembly of Cerrano, by incorporating the radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag as taught by Chung on one of the firefighter and said nozzle, for the benefit of providing two-way radios for producing a warning or alert to all personnel in an area should a condition dangerous or hazardous suddenly arise (Col. 3 lines 1-4).
With regard to claims 16 and 17, the nozzle system of Cerrano as modified by Stumberg, Tyers, and Chung discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 15 above. Chung further discloses said RFID reader is coupled to said nozzle and said RFID tag is embedded in an article of clothing configured to be worn by the firefighter (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights