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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claim 1 is pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “and the hallogenic acid effact absorber chemical tube” in line 7 should read “the halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube.” 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: automatic discharge unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Applicants’ specification never discloses what the automatic discharge unit is. It is noted that an aluminum disc opens the automatic discharge unit, but it is unclear what it is. Best understood from applicants figures and specification is that its merely a passageway that opens up via the aluminum disc, but is unclear if that is the case or not.
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 1 is 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 recites the limitation "halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “show effect” in line 4, it is unclear what is being claimed, the limitation “halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube show effect by combining with the chemicals in the tube,” show effect how? It is unclear what the “show effect” is or is intending to mean. The claims will be examined such that there is some effect between the material in the tube and that of the halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "automatic discharge unit” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gas" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the contents" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "aluminum disc" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “vacuum venturi” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “an outlet, or possibly a restricted outlet,” while the accepted meaning is “A Venturi vacuum uses the Venturi effect, where high-pressure fluid (like compressed air or water) speeds up as it's forced through a narrow constriction in a pipe, creating a low-pressure (vacuum) zone that sucks in and mixes with other fluids or gases.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It would be understood that 3 could be where a vacuum venturi is located, but due to both fluids combining in 3 and later having 5 be the vacuum venturi it is unclear how 5 is the vacuum venturi, as there would be no venturi effect on a secondary fluid at a narrow constriction being sucked into the main flow in a vacuum zone of the conduit.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (U.S. 8,003,001) in view of Nerat (U.S. 6,527,058).
1. An automatic discharge system that absorbs the halogenic acid effect in case of fire, characterized in that, it comprises the following;
at least one tube (figure 1, #1, being taken as a tank that’s a large tube) containing chemicals for fire extinguishing (column 9 rows 1-15, and abstract, where the fluid in 1 is a base solution for fire fighting),
halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube (figure 1, #7) show effect by combining with the chemicals in the tube (at 3, where the two combine, note the specific chemicals in the chemical tube are not claimed, within tank 7 is the activator, see column 8 rows 20-33, which combines with the chemicals of 1 within 3),
automatic discharge unit (the nozzle at the end of 3 producing the spray), in order to ensure that the chemicals in the tube (tank 1) and the hallogenic acid effact absorber chemical tube (tank 7) are combined and the gas is discharged (where gas is further included in the mixture, column 10 rows 44-48),
a transmission line (figure 1, #9) positioned between the halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube (tank 7) and the automatic discharge unit (the nozzle of 3) so that the contents of the halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube (tank 7) are combined with the tube (tank 1) content,
at least one vacuum venturi (venturi in nozzle 3 being an educator, column 8 row 62 through column 9 row 5) to act as a distributor in the automatic discharge unit (as it acts as the distributor within the nozzle, distributing the fluid from 7 into the fluid from 1).
Kaiser fails to disclose aluminum disc (6) that opens the automatic discharge unit (3), allowing the gas to be discharged.
Nerat, column 3 rows 28-43, discloses the use of an aluminum foil disc which fits over a nozzle of the discharge orifice to keep material from flowing into the nozzle. Understood that such aluminum foil disc breaks upon the application of fluid against it so the nozzle can spray.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the aluminum foil disc of Nerat into the system of Kaiser, to prevent unwanted materials from going into the nozzle prior to use of the nozzle. Its further understood such disc breaks/ruptures when the fluid from the nozzle is sprayed, as the aluminum foil disc of Nerat covers the nozzle opening and would break for use, allowing the fluid within the system to be discharged.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbraith (U.S. 5,449,041) in view of Rilett (U.S. 4,854,343).
With respect to claim 1, Galbraith discloses an automatic discharge system that absorbs the halogenic acid effect in case of fire (abstract, column 7 rows 25-35 dislcoses the use of sodium bicarbonate, and HFC is disclosed used in column 7 rows 15-17, from applicants own disclosure sodium bicarbonate absorbs halogenic acid), characterized in that, it comprises the following;
at least one tube (figure 3, #12) containing chemicals for fire extinguishing (chemicals within 12, see figure 4, at 72, being C)2 and MgO),
halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube (20) show effect by combining with the chemicals in the tube (sodium bicarbonate),
automatic discharge unit (28 and the structure about 42), in order to ensure that the chemicals in the tube (12) and the hallogenic acid effact absorber chemical tube (20) are combined and the gas is discharged (as Halon is discharged, see table 1 in column 6, being the various Halons discharged),
a transmission line (figure 2, the line between 20 and 28) positioned between the halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube (20) and the automatic discharge unit (28) so that the contents of the halogenic acid effect absorber chemical tube (20) are combined with the tube (12, as they are combined as the material flows from 12 into 20 and into 28) content, disc (42) that opens the automatic discharge unit (28, as it opens the opening into 28), allowing the gas to be discharged (as 42 ruptures allowing the gas to be applied to the room, column 5 rows 40-47),
at least one vacuum venturi (the venturi being the flow path within 28 and about 42, which includes a constriction into a narrow portion before in diverges, see above 112(b) on the understanding that applicant has a venturi and not a vacuum venturi discloses in their figures and specification) to act as a distributor in the automatic discharge unit (as it acts as the flow path to further distribute the fluid out of the system). Galbraith fails to disclose the disc that opens the automatic discharge unit is made of aluminum.
Rilett, column 26 rows 1-8, discloses their bursting disc is made of aluminum and is provided to burst at a desired internal pressure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a known material such as disclosed being aluminum by Rilett as a burst disc in the system of Galbraith, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Where Rilett discloses such material being used for such burst discs in fire suppression systems where an internal pressure breaks the disc and the fluid flows out of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752