Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-6, 8, 9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burch (US 2,612,403).
As to claim 1, Burch discloses a system comprising:
A first fluid inlet
A second fluid inlet
A fluid outlet
A straw coupled to the first fluid inlet
A removable container coupled to the first inlet
Container can contain fire retardant
The hose can be connected to the second inlet (annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, a first valve (62) in fluid communication with the fluid path between the first inlet and the fluid outlet.
As to claim 3, a second valve (17) in fluid communication with the fluid path between the second fluid inlet and the fluid outlet.
As to claim 4, wherein first valve can control a fire retardant and second valve to control water.
As to claim 5, based on the annotated figure above, the first inlet having a first collar and the second collar having a second collar.
As to claim 6, the annotated figure above shows the neck of the container has plurality of threads.
As to claim 8, the nozzle can discharge the retardant mixture at least 15 feet.
As to claim 9, the container can hold between 8 and 192 fluid ounces.
As to claim 13, the container can hold any mixture ratio of retardant to water.
As to claim 14, an air hole (37) in the nozzle to allow air to enter the container.
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) 7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burch (US ‘403).
As to claim 7, Burch discloses a straw, but fail to teach wherein the straw has lands and grooves. However, since Burch discloses a straw, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include structural features such as lands and grooves inside the straw in order to change the flowrate of the liquid coming out of the straw depending on the design choice.
As to claim 10, Burch fails to teach a handle on the container. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a handle on the container for controlling and handling purposes.
As to claims 11 and 12, Burch 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.
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