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
Claims 13, 15, 19-24, 26 and 28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/05/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 3, 6, 7, 12, 14, 16-18, 25, 27 and 29-33 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 2, 4-5, 9-11, 13, 15, 19-24, 26, and 28 are as previously presented. Claims 34-36 are new. Claims 13, 15, 19-24, 26 and 28 remain withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13, 15, 19-24, 26, 28, and 34-36 are currently pending and claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, and 34-36 have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "generate a output'' in line 15 of claim 1. However, it is suggested to amend to - generate an output -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation "a overpressure control valve'' in line 1 of claim 8. However, it is suggested to amend to - an overpressure control valve -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "generates a output'' in line 4 of claim 10. However, it is suggested to amend to - generates an output -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation "to secured the housing'' in line 3 of claim 8. However, it is suggested to amend to – to secure the housing -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 as follows:
“A releasable coupling mechanism” in line 5 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “for coupling the housing to the mounting surface of the cargo container” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A mounting member” in lines 1-2 of claim 11. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “member” coupled with functional language “to couple one or more brackets” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Air circulation system” in lines 5 of claim 34. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “air circulation” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Air circulation system” in lines 6 of claim 36. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “air circulation” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“An exhaust system” in lines 4 of claim 8. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “exhaust” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “A releasable coupling mechanism” in line 5 of claim 1, because claim 5 states “the releasable coupling mechanism comprises at least one of hook and clip configured to couple with the mounting plate; a magnet configured to releasably couple the interface to the mounting plate; a screw fastener for releasably coupling the interface to the mounting plate; a sliding fastener; a snap-fit fastener; and a clamp” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “at least one of a hook and clip; a magnet; a screw fastener; a sliding fastener; a snap-fit fastener; and a clamp”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification does not appear have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A mounting member” in lines 1-2 of claim 11 (Para. 0013, 0018).
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the “Air circulation system” in lines 5 of claim 34 and in lines 6 of claim 36 because Para. 0067 states “Air circulation system 25 may include first conduit 36, second conduit 38, third conduit 40, circulation fan 32, smoke detector 16, temperature sensor 17, and receptacle 42 for interfacing with a cargo container.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “a conduit”, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears have corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the “An exhaust system” in lines 4 of claim 8 because Para. 0090 states “an exhaust system of aircraft 10 such as an aircraft outflow valve.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as “an outflow valve”, or equivalent thereof.
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 limitation “a mounting member” in lines 1-2 of claim 11 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. No structure for “a mounting member” was found in the applicant’s specification (Para. 0013, 0018). 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.
Claims 4, 34, and 36 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 4 recites the limitation “the housing comprises a decompression panel… the housing and the decompression panel cover the opening defined by the cargo container preventing air from venting from the internal volume of the cargo container… expose the opening to the cabin to vent air within the cargo container to the cabin,” however claim 1 recites the limitation “a housing having an interface for coupling to a mounting surface … a first surface configured to releasably couple and seal to a mounting surface of the cargo container defining an opening … the smoke detector sensor being disposed to fluidly communicate with the internal volume through the opening,” and as claimed it appears as if the opening recited in claim 1 is the same as the opening in claim 4 which have different functions of venting air within the cargo container to the cabin and communicating with the sensor and therefore appear to be different openings further evidenced by Fig. 8 which shows an opening for item 42 which includes the sensor and an opening 75 for the decompression panel 75 and further the housing and decompression panel are separate distinct elements and therefore it is unclear as to how the housing can comprise the decompression panel. Therefore, the examiner cannot define the meets and bounds of this invention.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the air circulation system" in line 5 of claim 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, “the air circulation system” is interpreted by the examiner as “a conduit” as detailed in the 112(f) interpretation, and claim 34 further recites “a conduit” in line 3 of claim 34. It is unclear which conduits are required and further if the claimed air circulation system requires all of the components in Para. 0067.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the cargo containers" in lines 1-2 of claim 36 however, claims 1 and 35 from which claim 36 depends only recites a cargo container in the singular form. It is unclear if the applicant intends to have a plurality of cargo containers or a cargo container. The Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the cargo container.”
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the air circulation system" in line 5 of claim 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, “the air circulation system” is interpreted by the examiner as “a conduit” as detailed in the 112(f) interpretation, and claim 34 further recites “a conduit” in line 3 of claim 34. It is unclear which conduits are required and further if the claimed air circulation system requires all of the components in Para. 0067.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the smoke detector" in line 5 of claim 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 1 from which claim 36 depends recites “a sensor configured to detect at least one of a concentration of smoke or temperature,” and it is unclear if the sensor of claim one and the smoke detector of claim 36 are the same element.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 11, and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seebaluck (US 2015/0034342) in view of Barson (EP 2320397 B1), Diaz (US 11,318,337), and Chang (US 5,108,048).
Regarding claim 1, Seebaluck discloses a system comprising:
a housing Fig. 3A, (exterior surfaces of 28 and 36) having an interface (Fig. 3A, top surface of 28) for coupling to a mounting surface of a cargo container (Fig. {2, 3a, 5}, 30) in an aircraft cabin (Fig. 1-2, 20) of an aircraft (The interface is functionally capable of performing this limitation. The cargo container and aircraft cabin of an aircraft are not positively recited.);
a sensor (Fig. 3A, 28 omitting the housing) configured to detect at least one of a concentration of smoke or temperature (Para. 0024);
a controller (Fig. 1, 30) configured to:
receive data from the sensor indicative of the at least one of the concentration of smoke or temperature (Para. 0026); and
Seebaluck does not disclose the interface comprising a first surface configured to releasably couple and seal to a mounting surface of the cargo container defining an opening; a releasable coupling mechanism for coupling the housing to the mounting surface of the cargo container; within an internal volume defined by the cargo container, the sensor being disposed to fluidly communicate with the internal volume through the opening when the housing is coupled to the mounting surface of the cargo container; a mount secured to a structure in the aircraft cabin, wherein the housing is configured to releasably couple to the mount when stowed; and the controller configured to when the at least one of the concentration of smoke or temperature exceed a prescribed value, generate a output for communicating a first alert.
However, Barson teaches a prior art comparable fire detection system (Fig. 2-5, utilizing the fire sensor of Figs 2-4 for item 20 of Fig. 5 as described in Para.0069, specifically “However, in many situations, the fire sensor will form part of a fire detection system, of which an example is schematically depicted in Figure 5. In the fire detection system, one or more fire sensors of the sort shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2 are provided, each being arranged to detect fires within a corresponding monitored region M.”) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2, 21 & 25) having an interface (Fig. 2, 22 & 25 excluding releasable coupling mechanism in Annotated Fig. 2) for coupling to a mounting surface (Fig. 3, C) of a cargo container in an aircraft cabin of an aircraft (The interface is functionally capable of performing this limitation. The cargo container and aircraft cabin of an aircraft are not positively recited.), the interface comprising a first surface (Fig. 3, 29; Para. 0050) configured to releasably couple and seal to a mounting surface of the cargo container defining an opening (Fig. 2, 23a; The interface is functionally capable of performing this limitation. The cargo container and opening are not positively recited.);
a releasable coupling mechanism (Annotated Fig. 2; See 112(f), the releasable coupling mechanism is a sliding fastener because it slides when rotated in position as described in Para. 0050.) for coupling the housing to the mounting surface (Fig. 3, C; Para. 0050) of the cargo container (The releasable coupling mechanism is functionally capable of performing this limitation. The mounting surface of the cargo container is not positively recited.);
a sensor (Fig. 4, 15b-15d) configured to detect a concentration of smoke (Para. 0059) within an internal volume (Fig. 5, M), the sensor being disposed to fluidly communicate with the internal volume through the opening when the housing is coupled to the mounting surface (Para. 0049);
a controller (Fig. 5, 30) configured to:
receive data from the sensor (Para. 0069 – “Each of the sensors is arranged to communicate
with a control panel 30 by any appropriate communication means, wired or wireless) indicative of the at least one of the concentration of smoke or temperature; and
when the concentration of smoke exceeds a prescribed value (Para. 0073),
generate a output for communicating a first alert (Fig. 6, S108; Para. 0073-0074).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the system disclosed by Seebaluck upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the fire detection system taught by Barson that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (interface comprising a first surface configured to releasably couple and seal to a mounting surface defining an opening; a releasable coupling mechanism for coupling the housing to the mounting surface; within an internal volume, and the controller configured to when the at least one of the concentration of smoke or temperature exceed a prescribed value, generate a output for communicating a first alert.), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely detecting a fire and activating an alarm, with the benefit of the detector having a low-profile aesthetic (Para. 0009) and system having a reduced possibility of false alarms (Para. 0011, 0014), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Seebaluck in view of Barson does not teach the sensor configured to detect the concentration of smoke within an internal volume defined by the cargo container (Underline is to emphasize difference from the applicant’s claim language.), the sensor being disposed to fluidly communicate with the internal volume of the cargo container (Underline is to emphasize difference from the applicant’s claim language); and a mount secured to a structure in the aircraft cabin, wherein the housing is configured to releasably couple to the mount when stowed.
However, Diaz teaches a prior art comparable system for suppressing a fire condition (Fig. 3, 120) comprising a sensor (Fig. 3, 134) configured to detect at least one of a concentration of smoke or temperature (Col. 5: Ln. 42 to Col. 6: ln. 5) within an internal volume (Fig. 3, 114a) defined by the cargo container, the sensor being disposed to fluidly communicate with the internal volume of the cargo container (Fig. 3).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the system taught by Seebaluck in view of Barson upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely system for suppressing a fire condition taught by Barson that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (the sensor configured to detect the concentration of smoke within an internal volume defined by the cargo container, the sensor being disposed to fluidly communicate with the internal volume of the cargo container), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely detecting a fire within an internal volume, with the benefit of enabling effective suppression of a fire inside a cargo container within the cargo compartment (Col. 2: Ln. 62-63), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Seebaluck in view of Barson and Diaz does not teach a mount secured to a structure in the aircraft cabin, wherein the housing is configured to releasably couple to the mount when stowed.
However, Chang teaches a mount (Fig. 9, 110) secured to a structure (Fig. 9, 66) in an aircraft cabin wherein a housing (Fig. 9, 108) is configured to releasably couple to the mount when stowed (Col. 5: Ln. 3-12.).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (attaching/installing), that in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately (The system of Seebaluck in view of Barson and Diaz will detect smoke in a cargo container and communicate an alert and the mount taught by Cheng will store a housing.), and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely a system that can detect smoke in a cargo container and communicate an alert and store a housing.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
921
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, and Chang teaches the system of claim 1.
Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, and Chang further teaches wherein the housing defines a first portion of a closed loop flow path (Barson: Fig. 2, portion entering through 23a continuing through 12-15 and exiting via 23b), wherein when the interface of the housing is coupled to the mounting surface of the cargo container, internal volume of the cargo container defines a second portion of the closed loop flow path (Barson: Fig. 3 shows the second portion of the closed loop flow path below the detector.); and where the sensor being disposed along the first portion of the closed loop flow path (Fig. 2 & 4), optionally the system comprising a circulation fan (Barson: Fig. 2, 13) configured to circulate air from the internal volume to the sensor (This limitation is optional and not required. See MPEP § MPEP 2173.05(h).).
Regarding claim 5, Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, and Chang teaches the system of claim 1.
Barson further teaches wherein the mounting surface is a mounting plate (Fig. 3, C is shown as a plate), and wherein the housing comprises the releasable coupling mechanism (Annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1) to couple to the mounting plate (Fig. 3), wherein the releasable coupling mechanism comprises a sliding fastener (The releasable coupling mechanism is a sliding fastener because it slides when rotated in position as described in Para. 0050.).
Regarding claim 11, Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, and Chang teaches the system of claim 1.
Chang further teaches wherein the housing comprising a mounting member (Fig. 9, 146 & 158) configured to couple to one or more brackets of the cabin for supporting one or more overhead bins, wherein the mounting member is configured to secured the housing when stowed (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 34, Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, and Chang teaches the system of claim 1.
Seebaluck further discloses the system comprising a fire expellant system (Fig. 1, {12, 14, 16, 19, 24}; Fig. 2, 34; Fig. 3A, {16, 34}) having:
a reservoir (Fig. 1, 12) for fire expellant;
a conduit (Fig. {1, 2, 3A}, 19) coupling the reservoir to the housing defining a first portion of a closed loop flow path, and the internal volume of the container defining a second portion of the closed loop flow path;
a valve (Fig. 1, 24) to control the flow of fire expellant from the reservoir to the air circulation system (Fig. 2 & 3A, 34; Item 34 has a conduit to allow fluid to flow out of 36; Para. 0026-0028) the conduit fluidly communicating with the housing and the internal volume of the cargo container when the valve is in an open position (Para. 0026-0028).
Regarding claim 35, Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, and Chang teaches the system of claim 1.
Seebaluck further discloses the controller to receive data indicative of at least one of a concentration of smoke and temperature, within the internal volume defined by the cargo container from the sensor (Para. 0026);
receive data indicative of the position of the cargo container within the aircraft (Para. 0026 – “i.e., location "1C"”);
Barson further teaches the controller configured to:
receive data (Para. 0069) indicative a concentration of smoke (), within an internal volume (Fig. 5, M)
receive data indicative of the position of the cargo container within the aircraft;
determine that at least one of the concentration of smoke and temperature within the internal volume (Underline is to emphasize difference from the applicant’s claim language.) exceeds a prescribed value (Para. 0069 – “Each of the sensor units preferably includes an encoded address such that the control panel can corroborate received signals with actual locations of the monitored regions”; Para. 0073); and
when the concentration of smoke exceeds the prescribed value, generate an output (Fig. 6, S108; Para. 0073-0074) configured to cause an indicator (Para. 0069 – “visual display panel”) to be activated associated with the position of the internal volume (Para. 0069; Underline is to emphasize difference from the applicant’s claim language.).
In combination Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, and Chang teaches where the internal volume is the cargo container.
Regarding claim 36, Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, and Chang teaches the system of claim 35.
Seebaluck further discloses the controller configured to deploy fire expellant to one of the cargo containers, and to generate a signal to open a valve controlling flow of fire expellant from a reservoir to the cargo container (Para. 0024-0026).
Barson further teaches the system comprising one or more sensors (Para. 0067 – “airflow sensor”) for determining a status of the cargo containers within the aircraft cabin of the aircraft and wherein the controller is configured to receive data from the one or more sensors (Para. 0067-0069) indicative of the status of
operational status of the smoke detector (Para. 0067-0069);
wherein the controller is configured to generate an output (Para. 0068 – “an obstruction signal”) to cause an indicator (Para. 0038 – “a fault indicator”) to be activated
Diaz further teaches wherein the fire expellant is deployed by the controller from data from a switch (Fig. 1, 152; Col. 6: ln. 60 to Col. 7: Ln. 7).
Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, and Chang does not explicitly teach the controller configured to cause the indicator to be activated associated with the status and the position of the cargo container in the aircraft.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the indicator to be activated associated with the status and the position of the cargo container in the aircraft because Seebaluck discloses the controller may include an alarm on a cockpit panel that receives a wireless signal from the controller for enunciating an alarm condition (Para. 0025) and further that suppressant is directed to the location of the fire event (Para. 0026) and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that knowing the location of the fire would be advantageous to the pilot so he would know what cargo may be on fire.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, Chang, and Karppa (US 9,903,491).
Regarding claim 4, Seebaluck in view of Barson teaches the system of claim 1,
Seebaluck in view of Barson does not teach wherein: the housing comprises a decompression panel that is configurable between a closed position and an opened position; when the decompression panel is in the closed position, the housing and the decompression panel cover the opening defined by the cargo container preventing air from venting from the internal volume of the cargo container; when the decompression panel is in the opened position, the decompression panel is configured to expose the opening to the cabin to vent air within the cargo container to the cabin; the decompression panel is configured to transition from the closed position to the opened position when a pressure within the cargo container exceeds a pressure within the cabin by a prescribed amount.
However, Karppa teaches a prior art comparable system (Figs. 1-3, all structural features; Ab. – “An explosion vent mounted to seal an opening formed on a wall of a closed space”) comprising a
decompression panel (Figs. 1, 4-7 & 9-12) that is configurable between a closed position (Col. 3: Ln. 48-53 – “not open”) and an opened position (Col. 3: Ln. 48-53 – “open”);
when the decompression panel is in the closed position, the housing and the decompression panel cover an opening (Fig. 1, 3) defined a container (Col. 3: Ln. 65 – “closed space”) preventing air from venting from the internal volume of the container (Col. 3: Ln. 48-53);
when the decompression panel is in the opened position, the decompression panel is configured to expose the opening to vent air within the container an external environment (Fig. 1, side opposite of item 1; Col. 4: Ln. 21-22; The vent opens at a predetermined pressure.) ;Underline is to emphasize difference from the applicant’s claim language);
the decompression panel is configured to transition from the closed position to the opened position when a pressure within the container exceeds a pressure within the external environment by a prescribed amount (Col. 4: Ln. 21-22; The vent opens at a predetermined pressure.).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the system taught by over Seebaluck in view of Barson upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the decompression panel taught Karppa that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely preventing over pressurization in a confined space with the benefit of preventing damaged equipment due to over pressurization (Col. 1: ln. 13-25).
In combination Seebaluck in view of Barson, Diaz, Chang, and Karppa teaches wherein the container is the cargo container which comprises the decompression panel that vents to the external cabin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the most relevant prior art includes Seebaluck who discloses an overpressure control valve that is configured to vent air to a location exterior to the cabin when, but does not disclose the overpressure control valve is configure to vent air in the internal volume when a pressure within the cargo container exceeds a prescribed pressure, wherein the air is directed to an ambient environment via an exhaust system of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 9, the most relevant prior art includes Seebaluck who discloses an overpressure control valve (Para. 0044), but does not disclose wherein the housing comprises an equalization valve configured to open allowing fluid communication between the cabin and the internal volume when a pressure within the cargo container is less than a second prescribed pressure and close when the pressure within the cargo container is greater than or equal to the second prescribed pressure.
Regarding claim 10 the most relevant prior art includes Seebaluck who does not disclose wherein the interface comprises a plurality of receptacle sensors configured to signal the controller when the receptacle sensors are positioned on the mounting surface, wherein upon receipt of the signal from the receptacle sensor the controller generates a output for communicating a second alert.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 3, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights