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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/102495 (ROSENBAUER).
As per claim 1, ROSENBAUER discloses a system for applying a fire retardant with a hose (an extinguishing lance for fighting fires by dispensing a fluid and an additive; title; abstract), comprising:
a nozzle (a nozzle 18; paragraph [0051]) including: a first fluid inlet (the nozzle 18 comprises a first nozzle body 19 with inlet opening 22 (first fluid inlet); paragraphs [0051-0052]);
a second fluid inlet in fluid communication with the first fluid inlet (the nozzle body 19 includes an inlet opening 21 (second fluid inlet) that is in fluid communication with the inlet opening 22 via the mixing chamber 24; paragraph [0052]), the second fluid inlet being coupleable to the hose (fluid supply line 10 (hose) supplies fluid to inlet opening 21 via channel 7; paragraphs [0049-0053]);
and a fluid outlet in fluid communication with the first fluid inlet and the second fluid inlet to define a fluid path through the nozzle (fluid flows though the nozzle 18 from the mixing chamber 24 (fluid communication with the first and second fluid inlets) out the outlet opening 23 (fluid outlet); paragraphs [0051-0052]);
a straw coupled to the first fluid inlet of the nozzle (channel 15 (straw) supplies the additive 2 from container 12 to inlet opening 22; paragraphs [0051-0052]; figures 1-2); a container removably coupled to the first fluid inlet of the nozzle with the straw received in the container (the container 13 is detachably mounted to the lance body 3 and the inlet opening 22 via removable coupling 14, and wherein the channel 15 includes an inlet 16 disposed within the container; paragraphs [0051-0052]; figures 1-2);
and a fire retardant liquid in the container (container 13 is filled with firefighting additive 2 which comprises a foaming agent, an extinguishing powder, or extinguishing additive; paragraph [0023, 0050]; figures 1-2), the nozzle structured to receive water from the hose via the second fluid inlet of the nozzle and mix the water with the fire retardant liquid in the container via the straw and the first fluid inlet to create a fire retardant mixture and discharge the fire retardant mixture through the fluid outlet of the nozzle under pressure from water in the hose (water from fluid supply line 10 meets firefighting additive 2 from container 13 via inlets 21, 22 in mixing chamber 24 wherein said mixture is discharged under pressure from the lance 1 though outlet opening 23; paragraphs [0046, 0049-0052]; figures 1-2).
As per claim 2, ROSENBAUER discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the nozzle further includes: a first rotary valve in fluid communication with the fluid path between the first fluid inlet and the fluid outlet (to move the fluid from the first channel 7 forward, a separating member 51 (first valve) is provided In the run of the second channel 15 that is in fluid communication with the fluid inlet 22 and the fluid outlet 23; paragraph [0097]; figures 1-2), the first valve being manipulatable between a closed position and an open position (the flow of the first additive 2 through the second channel 15 can be interrupted or shut off wherein it's possible to remove the nozzle body 19 with a section of the second channel 15 up to the blocking or separating element 51; paragraph [0097]).
As per claim 3, ROSENBAUER discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the nozzle further includes: a second rotary valve in fluid communication with the fluid path between the second fluid inlet and the fluid outlet (nozzle 18 includes control pin 31 (second valve) that is in fluid communication with the first channel 7. the fluid inlet 21 and the fluid outlet 23; paragraphs [0066, 0070]; figure 2], the second valve being manipulatable between a closed position and an open position (actuating means group 36 is arranged in the control pin 31 which includes actuators 37 & 38. Actuator 38 interrupts the flow connection between the first channel 7 and the sub channel 34 by pivoting the direction of the control pin 31 in a counterclockwise direction; paragraphs [0062-0070]; figures 6-8).
As per claim 4, ROSENBAUER discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the first valve controls only introduction of the fire-retardant chemical into the fluid path and the second valve controls only introduction of water into the fluid path (the separating member 51 is in the run of the second channel 15 which form the connection line between the container 13 and the first nozzle body 19 wherein the first additive 2 is sucked into the mixing chamber 24. The control pin 31 controls the flow of the fluids under pressure from the first channel 7 which pumps the pressurized fluid which contains water; paragraphs [0046, 0091-0092, 0097, 0099].
As per claim 8, the system can discharge at least 15 feet.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSENBAUER (WO ‘495) in view of BEAVER (US 6,283,385).
As per claims 5 and 6, ROSENBAUER discloses the system of claim 1. ROSENBAUER fails to disclose wherein the nozzle includes a first collar corresponding to the first fluid inlet and having a first diameter and a second collar corresponding to the second fluid Inlet and having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter.
BEAVER discloses wherein the nozzle includes a first collar corresponding to the first fluid inlet and having a first diameter and a second collar corresponding to the second fluid inlet (the sprayer 10 (nozzle) comprises a first collar 48 that correspond to the first fluid inlets of the fluid containers 16, 18. Additionally, a rotatably attached coupling 112 (second collar) corresponds to the inlet at the rear end of the sprayer barrel adapted to attach to a source of water under pressure such as a garden hose; figures 1-2; column 7, lines 13-20; column 8, lines 27-31) and having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter (as seen in figures 1 and 2, the diameter of the first collar 48 is substantially larger than the coupling 112. The collar 48 goes around the mouth of 2 conjoined containers 16, 18 that are large enough to fill and pull liquid out of both containers 16, 18. The coupling 112 is smaller, as it only needs to couple to a hose; figures 1-2; column 7, lines 13-20; column 8, lines 2.
7-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the system of ROSENBAUER to include a collar for the first fluid inlet and a second collar for the second fluid inlet, as taught by BEAVER, to secure the connections for the fluid delivery systems into the nozzle.
As per claim 6, ROSENBAUER in view of BEAVER disclose the system of claim 5. ROSENBAUER fails to disclose wherein the container has a neck with a plurality of threads structured to engage the first collar.
BEAVER discloses wherein the container has a neck with a plurality of threads structured to engage the first collar (the containers 16, 18 have necks 20, 22 respectively. The inside of the collar 48 is provided with threads 50 designated to mate with the threads 44, 46 on the neck portions 20, 22 respectively; figure 1; column 7, lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the system of ROSENBAUER to include wherein the container is threaded onto the first collar, as taught by BEAVER, because the container could have heavy liquids inside of it, and a threaded connection is the best connection to ensure that the container does not break and or fall off.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSENBAUER (WO ‘495) in view of CN 104565565 (SHANGHAI).
As per claim 7, ROSENBAUER discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the straw has a length from a first end to a second end opposite the first end (the channel 15 has a first end that connects to the second channel inlet 16, and a second end on the opposite side of the channel 15 that connects to the second channel outlet 17; paragraph [0051]; figure 1), the straw including a longitudinal axial bore through the straw from the first end to the second end (the channel 15 has a longitudinal axial bore though the middle of the channel 15 from the first end to the second end such that the channel 15 can transport the first additive 2; paragraph [0051]; figure 1), and a fire retardant liquid (first additive 2; paragraph [0051]).
ROSENBAUER fails to disclose the longitudinal axial bore defined by an inner surface of the straw including a plurality of lands and grooves in an alternating helical configuration to increase flow rate of the liquid through the straw.
SHANGHAI discloses the longitudinal axial bore defined by an inner surface of the straw including a plurality of lands and grooves in an alternating helical configuration to increase flow rate of the liquid through the straw (the longitudinal axial bore of the coiling plastic drain pipe 10 (straw) has an inner wall 11 with triangle spiral ribbed steel wire 12 (inverse grooves) and junctions 13 (wherein the space in between each junction is the land) in an alternating helical configuration to increase pipe friction resistance; abstract; paragraph [0005]; figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the system of ROSENBAUER to include alternating helical configuration on the inside of the straw to increase flow rate of the liquid, as taught by SHANGHAI, because when you can increase the flow rate, the proper ratio of fire-retardant liquid to water will be easier to achieve.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSENBAUER (WO ‘495) in view of “Miracle-Gro Next Generation 500 sq. ft. Garden Feeder” (HOMEDEPOT).
As per claim 9, ROSENBAUER discloses the system of claim 1. ROSENBAUER fails to disclose wherein the container has a volume between 8 fluid ounces and 192 fluid ounces.
HOMEDEPOT discloses wherein the container has a volume between 8 fluid ounces and 192 fluid ounces (The container contains 1 lb. (16 fluid ounces) of Miracle-Gro Water Soluble All Purpose Plant food; page 2, figure 1; page 3, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the system of ROSENBAUER to include a limit on how much the container can hold, as taught by HOMEDEPOT, because the container attaches to the nozzle, and it should be light enough for most people who would need to spray fire retardant to hold, but also hold enough that they don't have to stop to refill frequently.
As per claim 10, ROSENBAUER discloses the system of claim 1.
ROSENBAUER fails to disclose wherein the container includes a handle.
HOMEDEPOT discloses wherein the container includes a handle (built with trigger lock technology for one-handed feedings; page 2, figure 1; page 3, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the system of ROSENBAUER to include a handle on the container, as taught by HOMEDEPOT, so the user to hold the handle of the container with one hand and the nozzle with the other hand to help stabilize the system when in use with the added weight.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSENBAUER (WO ‘495).
As to claims 11 and 12, ROSENBAUER fails to teach a second container and an adapter to swap between first and second container. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple containers that already have the material in place in order to do a quick swap and not waste time for refilling. In addition, having an adapter is an obvious design choice for accommodating differences sizes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSENBAUER (WO ‘495) in view of “Phos-Chek Wildfire Home Defense Retardant” (RDR).
As per claim 13, ROSENBAUER discloses the system of claim 1.
ROSENBAUER fails to disclose wherein the fire retardant mixture has a ratio of fire retardant liquid to water between 1:5 and 1:15.
RDR discloses wherein the fire retardant mixture has a ratio of fire retardant liquid to water between 1:5 and 1:15 (Phos-Chek Wildfire Home Defense is a liquid concentrate that needs to be mixed with water at a 5.5:1 (water: concentrate); page 6, under "HOW DO I MIX IT WITH WATER?").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the system of ROSENBAUER to include a water fire retardant ratio, as taught by RDR, to ensure that the user gets the maximum use out of the fire retardant, and doesn't waste it by adding too much water.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSENBAUER (WO ‘495) in view of OH (US 5,799,808).
As per claim 14, ROSENBAUER discloses the system of claim 1. ROSENBAUER discloses fire retardant liquid leaving the container through the straw (for transporting of the additive 2, a second channel 15 is provided in flow connection with the removal opening 14 of the first container 13; paragraph [0051]).
ROSENBAUER fails to disclose further comprising: an air hole in the nozzle or in the container structured to allow air to enter the container and replace liquid leaving the container.
OH discloses further comprising: an air hole in the nozzie or in the container structured to allow air to enter the container and replace liquid leaving the container (a breathing hole 52 is connected to the base of the container 42 that supports free rising and falling along the inner support of the container 42 (allowing air to enter the container) to keep the keep the nipple of the formula bottle filled with formula while the baby is adjusting the formula inside; abstract; figure 6; column 5, lines 36-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the system of ROSENBAUER to include a breathing hole in the container to all air to enter, as taught by OH, to increase the air flow to give the liquid moving through the container a more laminar and reliable flow and reduce vacuum within the container preventing the free flow of the additive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-27 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
.Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Len Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
