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
Applicant’s election without traverse of the fire extinguishing system of invention Group I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 2/9/2026 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 1/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 2, “said system” should be revised to “said fire extinguishing system” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 1 Line 8, “the inside of said vehicle” should be revised to “an inside of said vehicle” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Line 11, “said car” should be revised to “said vehicle” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claims 2-13, each instance of “A fire extinguishing system” should be revised to “The fire extinguishing system” to ensure clarity in the claims.
In Claim 2 Line 3, “moveable between two positions” should be revised to “are moveable between two positions” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 2 Lines 3-4, “said piercing and injection means” should be revised to “said combined piercing and injection means” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 2 Line 5, “said piercing and injection means” should be revised to “said combined piercing and injection means” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
In Claim 3 Line 2, “comprising a guide system” should be revised to “comprises a guide system” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 3 Line 3, “are moveable connected” should be revised to “moveably connected” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 4 Line 2, “comprising support means” should be revised to “comprises support means” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 5 Line 2, “said fire extinguishing medium being a brine” should be revised to “said fire extinguishing medium is a brine” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 6 Line 2, “comprising an antifreeze liquid coolant” should be revised to “comprises an antifreeze liquid coolant” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 7 Line 2, “having a temperature” should be revised to “has a temperature” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 8 Line 2, “the viscosity of the fire extinguishing medium” should be revised to “a viscosity of the fire extinguishing medium” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 8 Line 3, “the viscosity of water” should be revised to “a viscosity of water” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 10 Line 2, “having a storing capacity being” should be revised to “has a storing capacity that is” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 11 Line 2, “said system” should be revised to “said fire extinguishing system” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
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.
Such claim limitations that use the word “means” are:
The “combined piercing and injection means” in Claims 1-4; and
The “support means” in Claim 4.
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:
The “cooling system” in Claims 1 and 12.
The “salt concentration regulating mechanism” in Claim 11.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “combined piercing and injection means” in Claims 1-4 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 4 of the Specification which states, “The combined piercing and injection means is preferably arranged as a longitudinal arm, arranged above a parked vehicle, such as arranged on a ceiling of a parking environment e.g, a parking area on a ship. One end of the longitudinal arm being pivot- ally connected above the vehicle, and the other end of the arm comprising a piercing and injection element, such as pointy element arranged as a piercing nozzle, or drilling unit, harpooning unit i.e., a pointy end with an opening therethrough for delivering the fire extinguishing medium.”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “combined piercing and injection means” in Claims 1-4 to be a piercing nozzle and equivalents thereof.
The “cooling system” in Claims 1 and 12 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 15 of the Specification which states, “Fig. 5 shows a diagram of a cooling system 14 for cooling the brine 22. The illustrated cooling system 14 is one possible embodiment but it should be understood that the cooling system 14 may be arranged differently. The system comprises a closed circuit having a refrigerant”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “cooling system” in Claims 1 and 12 to be a refrigerator and equivalents thereof.
The “support means” in Claim 4 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 14 of the Specification which states, “Onto the guide system 48 is arranged support means 50 comprised of two parallel10 arranged arms which support the combined piercing and injection means 52”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “support means” in Claim 4 to be arms and equivalents thereof.
The “salt concentration regulating mechanism” in Claim 11 corresponds to the disclosure in Page 11 of the Specification which states, “The system preferably comprises a salt regulating mechanism, such as a salt regulating mechanism arranged in connection with the cooling system. The system may comprise sensors for detecting the salt concentration of the fire extinguishing medium, and if the salt concentration falls outside a certain predefined range, such as a minimal lower value, the salt regulating mechanism adds an amount of salt, such that the concentration falls within the predefined range.”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “salt concentration regulating mechanism” in Claim 11 to be an apparatus comprising sensors and a source of salt, 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.
The examiner notes that the “guide system” in Claim 3 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as the guide system is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as corresponding to structure of a guide. Furthermore, the “release mechanism” in Claim 4 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as the “release mechanism” is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as corresponding to structure of a release.
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 1-13 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 1 is indefinite because Lines 2-3 state, “a vehicle , such as an electric car, said system comprising: a storage medium, such as a tank, being external to said vehicle” and the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, Claim 1 Lines 2-3 will be interpreted to state “a vehicle, said fire extinguishing system comprising: a storage medium being external to said vehicle”.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because Lines 5-6 state “a cooling system for cooling said fire extinguishing medium to a sub-zero temperature” and it is not clear if “a sub-zero temperature” means below 0 degrees Farenheit or below 0 degrees Celsius. For the purpose of examination, Claim 1 Lines 5-6 will be interpreted to state “a cooling system for cooling said fire extinguishing medium to a temperature that is below 0 degrees Celsius”.
Claims 2-13 depend from Claim 1, therefore Claims 2-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C> 112(b) for being indefinite since Claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 3 is also indefinite because Lines 1-5 state “wherein said delivery system comprising a guide system , such as a number of steel beams onto which said combined piercing and injection means , are moveable connected, such that said combined piercing and injection means are displaceable in a longitudinal direction of said guide system” and the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, Claim 3 Lines 1-5 will be interpreted to state “wherein said delivery system comprises a guide system onto which said combined piercing and injection means are moveably connected such that said combined piercing and injection means are displaceable in a longitudinal direction of said guide system such that said combined piercing and injection means are displaceable in a longitudinal direction of said guide system”.
Claim 7 is also indefinite because Lines 2-4 state “wherein said fire extinguishing medium having a temperature of below 0 degrees, preferably a temperature below -20 degrees, such as between -20 and -50 degrees, most preferred between -20 and -30 degrees” and the phrases “preferably, "such as", and “preferred” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required by the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, it is not clear if “degrees” mean degrees Farenheit or degrees Celsius. For the purpose of examination, Claim 7 Lines 2-4 will be interpreted to state “wherein said fire extinguishing medium has a temperature of below 0 degrees Celsius”.
Claim 9 is also indefinite because Line 2 states “wherein said brine has a concentration of above 20%” and it is not clear if “a concentration of above 20%” means a salt concentration of above 20%, a water concentration of above 20%, or if it means something else. For the purpose of examination, Claim 9 Line 2 will be interpreted to state “wherein said brine has a salt concentration of above 20%”.
Claim 10 is also indefinite because Lines 2-4 state “wherein said storage medium, having a storing capacity being substantially equal to or higher than a predetermined volume corresponding to an estimated internal volume of said vehicle” and the term “substantially equal to” is a relative term. It is not clear if “substantially equal to” means within 1% of, within .1% of, or within some other percentage. For the purpose of examination, Claim 10 Lines 2-4 will be interpreted to state “wherein said storage medium has a storing capacity being equal to or higher than a predetermined volume corresponding to an estimated internal volume of said vehicle”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2021-146763-A1 to Ronacher et al. (“Ronacher”) in view of US PGPUB 2015/0258358 A1 to Popp et al. (“Popp”).
As to Claim 1, Ronacher discloses a fire extinguishing system (See Fig. 7) for extinguishing a fire in a vehicle, such as an electric car (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0038 disclosing a vehicle with a battery as an energy source), said system comprising:
a storage medium (#8), such as a tank, being external to said vehicle , and containing a fire extinguishing medium (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0052 disclosing water from a tank fire engine); and
a delivery system (#7) for delivering said fire extinguishing medium from said storage medium to the inside of said vehicle (See Fig. 7 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0084-0086),
said delivery system comprising an injection system having mechanically operated and combined piercing and injection means , for piercing and injecting said fire extinguishing medium into said car (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0087-0090).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher as applied to Claim 1 above, Ronacher does not specifically disclose the fire extinguishing system comprising a cooling system for cooling said fire extinguishing medium to a sub-zero temperature (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0019 disclosing a freezing process, but a cooling system equivalent to a refrigerator is not specifically disclosed).
However, Popp discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002), a fire extinguishing system (See Fig. 5) comprising a cooling system for cooling said fire extinguishing medium to a sub-zero temperature (#72, which per Paragraph 0051 is a heat sink that is in storage medium #30, thus #72 is equivalent to a refrigerator to reduce temperature of fluid. The heat sink #72 is capable of cooling fire suppressant agent #32 to some temperature that is below 0 degrees Celsius in various conditions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher as applied to Claim 1 above to include the cooling system #72 of Popp in the storage medium #8 of Ronacher since doing so would yield the predictable result of helping cool fire suppressant agent (See Popp Paragraph 0051) to assist in a freezing process (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0019 disclosing a freezing process).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 1 above, Ronacher further discloses wherein said combined piercing and injection means, being arranged as a mechanically moving element, moveable between two positions, a first stored position in which said piercing and injection means are disengaged from said vehicle , and a second deployed position, where said piercing and injection means have pierced said vehicle such that said fire extinguishing medium may be delivered into said vehicle through said combined piercing and injection means (See Figs. 1-2 and See Fig. 7 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0090).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 2 above, Ronacher further discloses wherein said delivery system comprising a guide system, such as a number of steel beams onto which said combined piercing and injection means, are moveable connected, such that said combined piercing and injection means are displaceable in a longitudinal direction of said guide system (See the guide means in Annotated Fig. 7, which acts as a guide that can be moved and #7 moves along an arc such that the combined piercing and injection means change a longitudinal location when pivoted relative to #40 to move partially in a longitudinal direction L).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 2 above, Ronacher further discloses wherein said delivery system comprising support means (#37), supporting said combined piercing and injection means, said support means comprising a release mechanism, for releasing said combined piercing and injection means from said first position into said second position (See Annotated Fig. 7. #37 supports #7 and uses a release mechanism actuated by fluid in #18 per Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0088).
Regarding Claim 7, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 1 above, Ronacher does not specifically disclose wherein said fire extinguishing medium having a temperature of below 0 degrees, preferably a temperature below -20 degrees, such as between -20 and -50 degrees, most preferred between -20 and -30 degrees.
However, Ronacher discloses using a freezing process (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0019 disclosing a cooling and/or freezing of a battery with additive added to fire extinguishing fluid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 1 above such that said fire extinguishing medium has a temperature of below 0 degrees Celsius, since doing so would yield the predictable result of helping cool a battery of the vehicle (See Ronacher Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0019).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 1 above, Ronacher further discloses wherein said storage medium , having a storing capacity being substantially equal to or higher than a predetermined volume corresponding to an estimated internal volume of said vehicle (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0052 disclosing #8 being a tank fire engine. A tank fire engine can contain an amount of fire extinguishing fluid that is equal to or higher than some predetermined volume that corresponds to some estimated internal volume of some vehicle).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 1 above, Popp further discloses wherein said cooling system is arranged for circulating said fire extinguishing medium (See Fig. 5 and Paragraph 0051. The cooling system is a heat sink #72 that can be an array of fins, which at least partially causes circulation of fire extinguishing medium. #72 is stored with #30).
Regarding Claim 12, Popp does not specifically disclose said storage medium and said cooling system being arranged modularly, such that said storage medium can be disconnected from said cooling system (See Paragraph 0051 that #72 is within #30, but #72 being modular is not specifically disclosed).
However, it has been held that when desirable to obtain access to an area, it would be obvious to make a component separable from another for such a purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied above such that the storage medium can be disconnected from said cooling system since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing access to areas in the storage medium and in the cooling system for servicing the cooling system and the storage medium.
As to Claim 13, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 1 above, Ronacher further discloses wherein a vehicle parking environment comprising a vehicle parking area and the fire extinguishing system (See Fig. 7. The area shown in Fig. 7 is a vehicle where some vehicle can be parked where the fire extinguish system is used).
Claims 5-6, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronacher in view of Popp and US PGPUB 2020/0384299 A1 to Hulbert et al. (“Hulbert”).
Regarding Claim 5, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claims 1-4 above, Ronacher does not specifically disclose wherein said fire extinguishing medium being a brine.
However, Hulbert discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002) a fire extinguishing system comprising a fire extinguishing medium that is a brine (See Paragraph 0006 disclosing a solution that is water and salt from 2% to 70% concentration. Salt mixed with water is a brine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to any one of Claims 1-4 above such that the fire extinguishing system comprises the fire extinguishing medium that is a brine of Hulbert since doing so would yield the predictable result of helping decrease fire intensity (See Hulbert Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 6, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to claim 1 above, Ronacher does not specifically disclose wherein said fire extinguishing medium comprising an antifreeze liquid coolant (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0019 disclosing an additive to aid in freezing process, but an antifreeze liquid coolant is not specifically disclosed).
However, Hulbert discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002) a fire extinguishing system comprising a fire extinguishing medium that comprises an antifreeze liquid coolant (See Paragraph 0053 disclosing a freezing temperature of below 0 degrees Celsius and See Paragraph 0021 disclosing magnesium chloride, which is an antifreeze).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 1 above such that the fire extinguishing medium comprises the antifreeze liquid coolant of Hulbert since doing so would yield the predictable result of lowering a freezing temperature of the fire extinguishing medium to prevent freezing (See Hulbert Paragraph 0053).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp and Hulbert as applied to Claim 5 above, Hulbert further discloses wherein the viscosity of the fire extinguishing medium is increased compared to the viscosity of water at 0 degrees Celsius (See Paragraphs 0034 and 0053).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp and Hulbert as applied to Claim 5 above, Hulbert further discloses wherein said brine has a concentration of above 20% (See Paragraph 0063 disclosing a salt concentration as high as 70%).
Regarding Claim 11, in reference to the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 1 above, Ronacher does not disclose wherein said system comprises a salt concentration regulating mechanism.
However, Hulbert discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002) a fire extinguishing system that comprises a salt concentration regulating mechanism (See Paragraph 0112 disclosing a refractometer to measure salt content, and a source of salt that can be added to a fire extinguishing medium along with a dilutant to reduce salt content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fire extinguishing system of Ronacher in view of Popp as applied to Claim 1 above to include the salt concentration regulating mechanism of Hulbert since doing so would yield the predictable result of helping ensure the fire extinguishing medium has a desired salt content (See Hulbert Paragraph 0112) to yield a desired fire extinguishing performance.
PNG
media_image1.png
908
1191
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 O 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights