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 Objection
Preamble for the independent claim 1 should be “A multi-functional robotic system…”; and preamble for all dependent claims should be “The multi-functional robotic system…” for proper reference to the system of claim 1.
In claim 1 line 2, “a fire main connected to it” should be “a fire main connected to the pumping station” for clarity.
In claim 1, lines 11-12, “according to the present invention, it is equipped with” should be deleted.
Preamble for dependent claim 6 should be “The multi-functional robotic system…”
In claim 7, “portable nitrogen-water fire extinguishing installations” is duplicated and appears to be in error.
Claim 7 recites “a liquid ejector nitrogen”, which appears to be in error and meant to recite “a liquid nitrogen ejector”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a switching unit” in claim 1 line 7.
“a signal processing device” in claim 1 line 9-10.
“a process control system” in claim 1 line 10.
“a foam generating unit” in claim 1 line 12.
“a subsystem for irrigation of floors of production rooms” in claim 9.
“a unit for optimizing the parameters of the foam generating unit” in claim 10.
“a preventive monitoring system and a blitz monitoring system” in claim 11.
“a remote access system for fault diagnosis, database correction and event logging” in claim 12
“an adaptive fire extinguishing control unit” in claim 13.
“a gas concentration control system” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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.
In claim 1, limitation reciting “the jet” in line 5, “the outlet” in line 6, and “the inlet” in line 7 lack proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 1 lines 12 and 14 recite “according to the present invention, it is equipped with a foam generating unit connected to robotic fire extinguishing installations”. The specification appears to describe two different types of fire extinguishing installations (items 2 and 22 shown in fig. 1) with similar naming:
On page 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
193
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On page 7:
PNG
media_image2.png
85
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Due to different claim wordings and both are described connected to the foam conduit 20, it is unclear if limitations reciting “robotic fire extinguishing installations” of lines 12 and 14 refer to the same or different structure from the “at least two robotized fire extinguishing installations” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
As best understood by examiner, the two limitations (robotized fire extinguishing installations in line 3 and robotic fire extinguishing installations in lines 12-14) are addressed as the same component, until further clarification. If this was applicant’s intension, “robotic fire extinguishing installations” of lines 12 and 14 should be changed to “the at least two robotized
Claim 1 line 15 recites “the fire monitor entrance”, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Further in claim 1, limitation reciting:
“a portable control console mounted at the outlet of the fire monitor, upstream of the head, connected to a switching unit at the inlet, and, via a network controller, to a control device at the outlet with a control device, mounted on the fire monitor is a fire detection and video surveillance device that is connected to a signal processing device that is connected to a video monitor device and to a process control system that are connected to a control device that is connected via a receiving and control device to fire alarms”
This limitation is unclear and indefinite. It is not clear if the “the inlet” and “the outlet” refers to that of the fire monitor. It is not clear if the claim requires the “portable control console” connected to a switching unit and two different control device.
It is not clear if limitation reciting “mounted on the fire monitor is a fire detection and video surveillance device” refers to mounting of the “control device” recited immediately before this limitation, i.e. Is the second mention of “a control device” referring to a fire detection and video surveillance device? If not, is “a fire detection and video surveillance device” another and separate component in addition to the previously recited two “control device” ?
It is not clear if the third mention of “a control device” refers to a third control device or one of the previously defined control device. The claim is addressed as best understood via the latter interpretation.
Claim 1 line 15-17 recites “installed on the foam conduit in front of the fire monitor entrance with an additional controlled butterfly valve with an additional drive connected to the switching unit”. It is not clear what is installed on the foam conduit or applicant meant to define an additionally butterfly valve and drive installed on the foam conduit. The claim will be addressed as best understood.
The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claim is addressed as best understood until further clarification.
Claim 9 recites “the heating temperature of the supporting structures”, both of which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Other claim(s) listed in the rejection title is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency upon the rejected base claim.
Further in claim 1, limitations:
“a switching unit” in claim 1 line 7.
“a signal processing device” in claim 1 line 9-10.
“a process control system” in claim 1 line 10.
“a foam generating unit” in claim 1 line 12.
“a subsystem for irrigation of floors of production rooms” in claim 9.
“a unit for optimizing the parameters of the foam generating unit” in claim 10.
“a preventive monitoring system and a blitz monitoring system” in claim 11.
“a remote access system for fault diagnosis, database correction and event logging” in claim 12
“an adaptive fire extinguishing control unit” in claim 13.
“a gas concentration control system” in claim 14.
The claim limitations above invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Aside from the same generic mention of these features in the claims and specification, no additional description can be found in the specification associated with these limitations; as such, the corresponding structure(s) are not known. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorban (RU2319530C2; see translation attached), in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (paragraphs 3-4 of the specification; hereafter referred to as “AAPA”), further in view Zhang (US20240350848).
Regarding claim 1 (addressed as best understood; see 112 rejections above), Gorban discloses multi-functional robotic system for preventive monitoring, fire detection and fire extinguishing control of production sites comprising
a pumping station (not shown but described in translation page 3: “When working out the start command, technological teams are sent to start the pumping station”), a fire main (translation page 2: “fire pipe 2”) connected to it,
at least two robotized fire extinguishing installations (translation page 2: “robotic fire extinguishing installations 1”; see item 1 in figure) connected to the fire main (fire pipe 2) and comprising
a fire monitor (3) with drives for vertical and horizontal aiming (translation page 2: “vertical and horizontal actuators 4, 5”) and a head (6) with a drive for adjusting the spray angle of the jet (translation page 2: “nozzles with a drive for changing the spray angle of the jet 6”),
a controlled butterfly valve with a drive mounted at an inlet (at 8) upstream of the fire monitor (translation page 2: “a disk shutter with an actuator 8 installed at the input and installed at the barrel exit”; translation page 4 mentions the same structure “on monitors it’s additionally installed ovleny butterfly valve with a drive”),
a pressure sensor (translation pg. 2: “pressure sensor 9”) and
a portable control console (translation pg. 2: “portable local control panel 7”)
the head (at 6) is designed to be capable of supplying water and compressed air foam at a controlled concentration and rate (since the nozzle 6 can spray agent, the nozzle structure is capable of supplying water and foam).
Alternatively with regard to limitations regarding the “a portable control console… connected to a signal processing device that is connected to a video monitor device and to a process control system that are connected to a control device that is connected via a receiving and control device to fire alarms”, applicant further admits that this feature is well known in the art, page 1 of the applicant’s specification:
PNG
media_image3.png
274
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
If applicant disagree with the teaching cited in Gorban, AAPA shown above demonstrate that the claimed configuration of the “portable control console” is well known in the art. 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 Gorban to incorporate the teachings of AAPA to provide the portable control console connected to a signal processing device that is connected to a video monitor device and to a process control system that are connected to a control device that is connected via a receiving and control device to fire alarms . Doing so would provide improvement in fire detection and extinguishing performance.
Additionally, Gorban does not teach a foam generating unit connected to robotic fire extinguishing installations by a foam conduit, additional reserve pipes for supplying water and compression air foam connected to robotic fire extinguishing installations, installed on the foam conduit in front of the fire monitor entrance with an additional controlled butterfly valve with an additional drive connected to the switching unit.
Zhang discloses a comparable fire extinguishing system (figs. 6-9) having a foam generating unit (item 5 or 7, “foam generation subsystem”; fig. 6) connected to robotic fire extinguishing installations (items 4 or 6) by a foam conduit (11), additional reserve pipes (12 and piping connected to other items 4, 6) for supplying water and compression air foam connected to robotic fire extinguishing installations (4, 6), installed on the foam conduit in front of the fire monitor entrance with an electric valve 15 connected to the switching unit 10.
Although Zhang does not specify that the electric valve is a butterfly valve with drive, Gorban’s disclosure demonstrate that such valve is known for flow control.
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 Gorban to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to provide a foam generating unit connected to robotic fire extinguishing installations by a foam conduit, additional reserve pipes for supplying water and compression air foam connected to robotic fire extinguishing installations, installed on the foam conduit in front of the fire monitor entrance with an additional controlled butterfly valve with an additional drive connected to the switching unit. Doing so would provide for a more efficient fire extinguishing system.
Regarding claim 3, Gorban, as modified, above, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein Gorban does not teach, but Zhang discloses at least one small-sized robotic fire extinguishing installation (18) connected to the fire main and foam conduit (11, 12) and connected to the control device (8) installed in the aisle and / or in the area not covered by the robotic fire extinguishing installations (see figs. 7-9).
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 Gorban to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to provide at least one small-sized robotic fire extinguishing installation connected to the fire main and foam conduit and connected to the control device installed in the aisle and / or in the area not covered by the robotic fire extinguishing installations. Doing so would provide more efficiency in fire suppression and reduce pressure on station operation and maintenance personnel (par. 51).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorban (RU2319530C2; see translation attached) in view of AAPA and Zhang (US20240350848), further in view of Hansen (US20140299803).
Regarding claim 2, Gorban, as modified, above, discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to teach position sensors for controlled butterfly valves installed on the fire main and foam conduit.
Hansen discloses a comparable butterfly valve having a position sensor 77 (par. 48-50) to indicate whether or not the disk 14 is in the open condition, which is a safety feature (end of par. 48).
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 Gorban to incorporate the teachings of Hansen to provide position sensors for controlled butterfly valves installed on the fire main and foam conduit. Doing so would provide a safety feature to monitor proper operation of the valve (paragraph 48).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorban (RU2319530C2; see translation attached) in view of AAPA and Zhang (US20240350848), further in view of Cerrano (US 20120061108).
Regarding claim 5, Gorban, as modified, above, discloses the system of claim 1, but does not further teach fire hydrants connected to the foam conduit with hand monitors and controlled valves equipped with position sensors.
Cerrano discloses a comparable fire control system, with liquid source 140 connected to fire hydrant (par. 21, 36) and a hand monitor (first nozzle 156) with controlled valve (“valve”, not shown; par. 21”) equipped with position sensor (236; (par. 24, 36).
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 Gorban to incorporate the teachings of Cerrano to provide fire hydrants connected to the foam conduit with hand monitors and controlled valves equipped with position sensors, given the feature is a known feature in fire suppression. Doing so would increase efficiency in fire fighting capacity with additional spraying feature.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorban (RU2319530C2; see translation attached) in view of AAPA and Zhang (US20240350848), further in view of Multer (US 20130199803)
Regarding claim 6, Gorban, as modified, above, discloses the system of claim 1. Gorban fails to teach but Multer discloses an additional automatic water fire extinguishing system (fig. 1) equipped with forced-start sprayers (2) and associated with a sprayer control device (16). While Multer does not mention a fire detection and video surveillance device, Gorban has already shown a fire detection and video surveillance device is known to be used for fire protection.
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 Gorban to incorporate the teachings of Multer to provide an automatic water fire extinguishing system equipped with forced-start sprayers and associated with a sprayer control device and a fire detection and video surveillance device. Doing so would provide for additional fire suppression capacity to enhance fire safety.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorban (RU2319530C2; see translation attached) in view of AAPA and Zhang (US20240350848), further in view of Gorban (EP2599524; hereafter “Gorban 524”)
Regarding claim 7, Gorban, as modified, above, discloses the system of claim 1. Gorban fails to further teach portable nitrogen-water fire extinguishing installations by additional fire hoses to the fire main, comprising a liquid ejector nitrogen, connected by a vacuum pipeline to a container containing liquid nitrogen.
Gorban 524 however teaches a comparable system (fig. 1) with additional portable nitrogen-water fire extinguishing installations (22, 23, 24, 25) portable nitrogen-water fire extinguishing installations by additional fire hoses (piping 2) to the fire main (26), comprising a liquid ejector nitrogen (ejecting devices 24), connected by a vacuum pipeline (piping between 24 and 25) to a container (25) containing liquid nitrogen (end of paragraph 12).
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 Gorban to incorporate the teachings of Gorban 524 to provide portable nitrogen-water fire extinguishing installations by additional fire hoses to the fire main, comprising a liquid ejector nitrogen, connected by a vacuum pipeline to a container containing liquid nitrogen. Doing so would reduce water requirements with higher efficiency of suppression (par. 10).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorban (RU2319530C2; see translation attached) in view of AAPA and Zhang (US20240350848), further in view of Gorban (RU2433847C1; hereafter “Gorban 847”).
Regarding claim 8, Gorban, as modified, above, discloses the system of claim 1. Gorban does not teach, but Gorban 847 teaches a comparable system with a jet control unit 16 connected to the process control system 15 (see fig. 1).
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 Gorban to incorporate the teachings of Gorban 847 to provide a jet control unit connected to the process control system. Doing so would provide increased accuracy of jet pointing on fire point with control of real trajectory of jet movement (Abstract).
Regarding claims 9-14, in lieu of the numerous indefinite issues and lack of sufficient disclosure of the corresponding structures cited above (see 112 rejections), the claims need clarification before a suitable art rejection may be applied. See MPEP 2173.06.II "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art."
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