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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 6/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15, 19, 32 are cancelled and pending claims 4, 10-12, 16-18, 20-31 are addressed below.
The indicated allowability of claims 4, 10-12, 16-18, 20-31 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) cited below.
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.
Claims 4, 11, 12, 16-18, 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geue (US 20230338762) in view of Tabor (US 20230311136).
(Note 1: cross-out limitations in this office action indicates the lack of explicit teaching in the primary reference; the limitation is addressed by the teaching reference(s) below).
Regarding claim 12, Geue discloses a method of extinguishing a fire (par. 12, and fig. 17) comprising:
providing a device (100 and pipe; as shown in fig. 17) for aiding in extinguishing fires (abstract), comprising a body (110; figs. 8-11) surrounding a volume defining a fluid plenum (interior of body 110), the body defining a plurality of exit ports (120) therethrough to direct pressurized fluid at a target (par. 34: “When placed under a vehicle, the spray is accurately distributed over the underside of the vehicle”), and at least one fluid input port (130a, 130b) to couple to a pressurized fluid source (fig. 9, par. 41: “water source”), wherein (i) the body is defined by a base plate (140, 150, 160) configured to be slid along the ground (par. 45, slide via skid 140) and an upper surface (surface where 120 is provided) above the base plate,
removably (threading connection are removable, par. 51) attaching a first end of a threaded tubular coupling (via the quick connect hose connector 132, fig. 8; par. 41 or 400 in fig. 17) with the threads (at 130a) of the pipe of the at least one fluid input port (130a, 130b);
removably threading a first end of an elongate
removably (par. 51) coupling a second end of the elongate
coupling the firehose (380a) to the pressurized fluid source (Geue, par. 6; see also par. 50);
deploying the device proximate an EV fire by sliding the device underneath a first side of the EV and underneath the battery pack of the EV (fig. 17, par. 6: “sliding the system beneath the vehicle so that the spray nozzle is placed between the axles of the vehicle”), wherein the elongate
extinguishing the fire by directing water through the elongate
1) While Geue indicates that the body can be of any shape (par. 35), Geue does not teach (ii) the base plate and the upper surface cooperate to define the fluid plenum the plurality of exit ports are formed through the upper surface, and the base plate and the upper surface are fused along their periphery to form the fluid plenum.
However, Tabor discloses a comparable device, (i) the body is defined by a base plate (bottom plate of 102) configured to be slid along the ground and an upper surface (top surface of 102; see annotation below) above the base plate, (ii) the base plate and the upper surface cooperate to define the fluid plenum the plurality of exit ports (104) are formed through the upper surface (see annotation below), and the base plate and the upper surface are fused along their periphery (at side walls of 102, see figs. 19-20) to form the fluid plenum;
PNG
media_image1.png
777
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Figure 1 (Tabor)
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 Geue to incorporate the teachings of Tabor to provide the base plate and the upper surface cooperate to define the fluid plenum the plurality of exit ports are formed through the upper surface, and the base plate and the upper surface are fused along their periphery to form the fluid plenum. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating another body shape that can be easily slid along the ground with more stability.
2) Additionally, Geue is silent regarding the pipe or conduit 380b being crush-resistant, wherein the elongate crush-resistant pipe or conduit is configured to support the weight of the EV in the event of collapse of one or more tires of the electric vehicle to permit water to be continued to be delivered to the battery pack of the EV through the elongate crush-resistant pipe or conduit after the collapse.
Geue’s paragraph 36 discloses the intention to make the body 110 of a sturdy material that can keep shape and withstand the heat of a battery fire. Paragraph 109 of Tabor also discloses a body 102 being crush-resistant such that the body can maintain the body’s shape while under pressure from the weight of a vehicle. Paragraph 66 discloses that the body and adapter maybe made of steel.
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 Geue to incorporate the additional teachings of Tabor to make various components and the elongate pipe crush-resistant. Doing so would allow the body and input port to maintain shape, consequently yielding the predictable result of facilitating the intended spray performance while under pressure (par. 109). Resulting from the modification of Tabor above, the elongate pipe or conduit (as annotated above) is configured (would have the structural capability) to support the weight of the EV in the event collapse of one or more tires of the electric vehicle to permit water to be continued to be delivered to the battery pack of the EV through the elongate pipe or conduit after the collapse (Tabor, par. 109).
(Note 2: all references made in parenthesis hereafter are referencing the primary reference, unless otherwise stated.)
Regarding claim 28, Geue, as modified in view of Tabor, discloses all of the elements of claim 28 similar to claim 12 above, except Geue is silent regarding sliding the device by pushing on the elongated pipe.
However, Tabor discloses in par. 113: “the dimensions of the device, as described above, make it simple for a single person or firefighter to maneuver the device underneath the vehicle…directly below the battery” and par. 64: “The device is designed to be pushed or pulled underneath the center of a burning electric vehicle or other burning object, where the largest amount of water needs to be applied. In the case of a burning electric vehicle the largest amount of water is applied directly to the battery components themselves with the device.”; Tabor’s above disclosure to place the device underneath the center of vehicle would require pushing in from one side prior to pulling from another side via a hook.
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 Geue to incorporate the teachings of Tabor to position the device via sliding by pushing on the elongated pipe. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating versatility in quick positioning the device at time of the fire.
Regarding claim 11, Geue, as modified above, discloses the body and conduit are formed from steel (Geue, par. 36; and Tabor, par. 66).
Regarding claim 16, Geue, as modified in view Tabor, discloses the discloses water is directed through the device and into contact with the EV at a volume flow rate between about 80 GPM and about 500 GPM (Tabor, par. 111).
Regarding claim 17, Geue, as modified in view Tabor, discloses water is directed through the device and into contact with the EV at a volume flow rate between about 350 GPM and about 500 GPM (Tabor, par. 111).
Regarding claim 18, Geue, as modified in view Tabor, discloses water is directed through the device and into contact with the EV at a volume flow rate between about 450 GPM and about 500 GPM (Tabor, par. 111).
Regarding claim 24, Geue is silent but Tabor further discloses the device is deployed by attaching an implement (chain, rope; par. 106) to a coupling (first hook, 116 shown on fig. 18; par. 106) defined on the body and further wherein the implement is pulled from the second side of the EV to slide the device under the EV (par. 106).
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 Geue to incorporate the teachings of Tabor to provide the device deployed by attaching an implement to a coupling defined on the body and further wherein the implement is pulled from the second side of the EV to slide the device under the EV. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating versatility in quick positioning the device at time of the fire.
Regarding claim 25, Geue, as modified in view Tabor, discloses the method of claim 24, wherein Tabor discloses the implement includes a chain (par. 106).
Regarding claim 26, Geue, as modified in view Tabor, discloses the method of claim 24, wherein Tabor discloses the implement includes a tool (chain, rope; par. 106).
Regarding claim 27, Geue discloses the pipe or conduit is between about 18 to 72 inches in length (380b is 30 inch; par. 50).
Regarding claim 4, Geue discloses pipe 380b is 30 inch in length but is silent regarding the device is between about twelve and about thirty inches in lateral dimension, and between about two and about eight inches in height.
Tabor, however, does disclose the device is between about two and about eight inches in height (par. 107: “The device 100 may have a maximum height (e.g. along the vertical axis 202) of … about 2 inches, about 2.5 inches, about 3 inches, about 3.5 inches, or about 4 inches”) and various width dimensions that is close to 12 inches (par. 107).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize lateral dimensions between twelve and thirty inches for the device body since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the width or lateral dimension, whether it’s 10 inches or above 12 inches, would not perform differently than the prior art device as the main function is to spray liquid/water. From various examples provided in paragraph 48 of the disclosure, applicant appears to have placed no criticality in the specific dimensions of the device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geue (US 20230338762) in view of Tabor (US 20230311136), further in view of Hisch (US 20180037198).
Regarding claim 10, Geue fails to teach the body has a circular shape when viewed in a top view.
However, Hisch discloses a sprayer with body 120 (fig. 2) that has a circular shape when viewed in a top view (see fig. 2).
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 Geue to incorporate the teachings of Hisch to utilize the body has a circular shape when viewed in a top view. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating circular spray coverage when the intended spray target is circular or can be covered via the circular spray pattern.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geue (US 20230338762) in view of Tabor (US 20230311136), further in view of Siemann (US 1539331).
Regarding claim 23, Geue fails to teach the upper surface of the body is dome-shaped.
However, Geue discloses in paragraph 35 that the elongated body may be any suitable size or shape, such as a cylinder, elongated oval, or rectangle.
Siemann teaches a spray device (figs. 1-4) having an upper surface 6 is dome-shaped.
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 Geue to incorporate the teachings of Siemann to provide the upper surface of the body is dome-shaped. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating a wider spray pattern with better spray width for the intended target, as opposed to limited straight/angular sprays a flat upper surface. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality in the shape of the upper surface as understood via disclosure of US PGPub paragraph 41 (“the base plate 120 and upper shell portion 110 can be created in many various shapes and sizes…”).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geue (US 20230338762) in view of Tabor (US 20230311136), further in view of Shevers (US D321574).
Regarding claim 20, Geue and Tabor fail to disclose the device includes less than 12 exit ports.
However, Shevers discloses a spray device meant for the underside of a vehicle, wherein figure 1 shows less than 12 exit ports.
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 Geue to incorporate the teachings of Shevers to provide the device includes less than about 12 exit ports. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating certain desired spray pattern intended for the spray target and expected coverage.
Claim(s) 21-22, 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geue (US 20230338762) in view of Tabor (US 20230311136), further in view of Bainton (US 9974990).
Regarding claims 21-22, Geue fails to disclose wherein the fluid source includes a high-pressure standpipe or the fluid source includes a fire hose operably coupled to a fire hydrant or standpipe.
Bainton discloses that it is known to extinguish fire using fire hose attached to fire hydrant (col. 2, ln 2-5), and pressurized water source can also be a standpipe (col. 5, ln 53).
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 Geue to incorporate the teachings of Bainton to provide the fluid source includes a high-pressure standpipe or the fluid source includes a fire hose operably coupled to a fire hydrant or standpipe. Doing so would yield the predictable result of supply a flow of water for fire suppression, as disclosed by Bainton.
Regarding claim 31, Geue, as modified in view of Tabor, discloses all of the elements of claim 28 similar to claim 12 above, except Geue is silent regarding the pressurized fluid source comprises a standpipe.
Bainton discloses that it is known to extinguish fire using fire hose attached to fire hydrant (col. 2, ln 2-5), and pressurized water source can also be a standpipe (col. 5, ln 53).
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 Geue to incorporate the teachings of Bainton to provide the pressurized fluid source comprises a standpipe. Doing so would yield the predictable result of supply a flow of water for fire suppression, as disclosed by Bainton.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection with new primary reference presented above.
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights