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 claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-11 objected to because of the following informalities: “A mechanical fire extinguishing system” should read “The Mechanical fire extinguishing system” in 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.
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:
Starting element in claim 1.
Drive element in claim 1.
Trigger element in claim 1.
Transfer element in claim 1.
Transmission element in claim 6.
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
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 1-11 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 recites the limitation "the generation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extinguishing material" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flames" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the detection" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "electrical installation./line" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “dangerous” in claim 1is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dangerous” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “electrical installation/line is dangerous” it is unclear what makes an electrical installation/line in the context of the claims “dangerous.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "maintenance/control" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “1” in claim difficult is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “difficult” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “difficult to perform” have been rendered indefinite due to the word “difficult” as the specification notes there being a button that allows access to the extinguisher so how would maintenance to such an operating area for maintenance and control be difficult.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to increase physical strength” in line 8. It is unclear what this is referring to, increasing the physical strength of “what.” What aspect of the claim or invention is allowing for an increase in physical strength? This appears to possibly be a translation error.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the need" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "electrical connection" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fire environment" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “it” in line 10, it is unclear what “it” is referring back to in the claim and thus fails to have antecedent basis or clarity of what is further being defined.
The term “close proximity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “at least one drive element located in close proximity to said starting element” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “close proximity” as it is unclear how close/far the two elements have to be with respect to each other to be considered to be in “close proximity.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the application" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the effect" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fire and/or explosion environment" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the side" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “said starting element that is close or far from said driving element” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “close” as it is unclear the distance between the two elements has to be to be “close.”
The term “far” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “far” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “said starting element that is close or far from said driving element” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “far” as it is unclear the distance between the two elements has to be to be “far.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the initial energy" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spraying process" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "battery structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "pin structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said transmission element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant has listed it as (5) where (5) is the transfer element in line 20 of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “enables to control the spraying process” in lines 3-4, it is unclear what enables to control the spraying process.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the energy transmission state" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “to transmit an audible and/or visual fire and/or explosion warning to the user,” and the claim also recites “is preferably suitable for remote data transfer” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “is suitable for the transmission of electrical energy and/or signal on it and provides the transmission of the energy and/or electrical signal received from said starting element”, and the claim also recites “is preferably in wire or cable structure” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation which enables the operation of the system to be controlled manually”, and the claim also recites “preferably in the form of a button” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “enables the force of said drive element (3) to be generated and directed in said first direction” and the claim also recites “preferably with or without pre- tensioned structure” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation and further recites “preferably with spring or solenoid mechanism” which is an even more narrow statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “enables the detection of the occupancy status of said extinguishing element (2) and transmitting the status information to said control unit (6),” and the claim also recites “preferably in the form of sensor” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 fails to specify what claim it depends upon. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 102213267B1).
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses a mechanical fire extinguishing system (figures 1-2), which comprises at least one starting element (battery 420) that provides the generation of starting energy to start the operation of the system (as the battery 420 provides electricity to the ignition, paragraphs 0065 and 0071), at least one extinguishing element (being the body and outlet of extinguisher 1), which ensures that the extinguishing material that extinguishes the flames is kept in a pressurized manner (as it stores the material until dispensing), which provides the detection of fire and/or explosion (via sensing unit 100) and extinguishing flames in environments where there is a risk of fire and/or explosion (area where the system is placed, paragraph 0002), electrical installation/line is dangerous and maintenance/control operations are difficult to perform (being placed in ships, factories, military equipment, and oil facilities, not where electrical fires occur, paragraph 0002), which allows to increase physical strength (see above 112, it is unclear how anything is “increasing physical strength”), to work without the need for electrical connection and/or with intervention from outside the fire environment (system works via an internal battery and sensors), characterized in that, it comprises the following;
at least one drive element (ignition tube 210) located in close proximity to said starting element (see figure 1), enabling the application of a force in a first direction and initiation of operation of the system by exploding or breaking under the effect of fire and/or explosion rising heat (as the ignition tube is (as the material within the tube breaks under the fire (ignites), paragraph 0043);
at least one trigger element (440 being acted on by 471 and hitting 430) in connection with said drive element (being in a wired connected), which enables said drive element (210) to explode or break when the user intervenes from outside the fire and/or explosion environment and helps to start the operation of the system (as the pressing piece 471 forcible presses 440 which acts as the switch to create the electrical connection to begin the ignition, paragraphs 0093-0096);
at least one transfer element (wires from the battery to the ignition), which is located on the side of said starting element (see figure 1) that is close or far from said drive element (see figure 1, being close/far from the drive element), ensures that the initial energy required for the operation of the system is taken by contacting said starting element (the battery) by applying force (electrical) in said first direction (direction towards the ignition) and that said extinguishing material is transmitted to said extinguishing element (the outlet of the extinguishers lower bottom) to initiate the spraying process (spray out the extinguishing agent).
With respect to claim 2, Kim discloses said starting element (the battery 420) is in battery structure (being a battery).
With respect to claim 3, Kim discloses said extinguishing element is a fire extinguisher (being an extinguisher).
With respect to claim 4, Kim discloses said drive element comprises an aerosol tube (being a tube that generates an aerosol).
With respect to claim 5, Kim discloses said trigger element is in pin structure (see figure1, being two pins that come into contact with each other).
With respect to claim 6, Kim discloses said transmission element is in a conductive and flexible structure (being wires).
With respect to claim 10, Kim discloses at least one activation unit (100) which is associated with said drive element (as it generates the initial activation for the system that then leads to the ignition) and enables the force of said drive element (210) to be generated and directed in said first direction (as the aerosol from the ignition is directed downwards, being the first direction), preferably with or without pre- tensioned structure, preferably with spring or solenoid mechanism (including a spring, see figure 1).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Eckholm (U.S. 2011/0061878).
With respect to claim 7, Kim discloses at least one control unit (controller 470), which is associated with said extinguishing element (see figure 1) and said transfer element (see figure 1), enables to control the spraying process of the extinguishing material inside said extinguishing element (as it controls the system, by generating the control signal, paragraphs 0092-0096 ), to detect the energy transmission state of the said transfer element (as it generates the transmission, and has the communication device, paragraph 0089), but fails to disclose to transmit an audible and/or visual fire and/or explosion warning to the user, is preferably suitable for remote data transfer.
Eckholm, paragraphs 0031-0032, discloses generating an alarm (audible) and notifying emergency services to a fire (activation of the system) by sending a signal to a monitored control panel.
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 transmission of an audible alarm and signal sent to a monitored control panel as disclosed by Eckholm into the system of Kim, allowing the system of Kim to notify a user and emergency services of a fire.
With respect to claim 8, Kim discloses at least one transmission element (cables going from the battery to 470, to power 470 and 471) which is associated with said transfer element (440), said extinguishing element (see figure 1) and/or said control unit (470), is suitable for the transmission of electrical energy and/or signal on it and provides the transmission of the energy and/or electrical signal received from said starting element (420), is preferably in wire or cable structure (being the wires that power the controller from the battery).
With respect to claim 9, Kim discloses at least one operating element (paragraph 0087, button) located on said control unit (470), which enables the operation of the system to be controlled manually, preferably in the form of a button (paragraph 0087).
With respect to claim 11, Kim discloses at least one sensing element (parargraph0097, temperature sensor) which is associated with said extinguishing element (see figure 1) and said control unit (see figure 1), enables the detection of the occupancy status of said extinguishing element (where the extinguisher is located) and transmitting the status information to said control unit (470), preferably in the form of sensor (being a temperature sensor).
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
Prosecution Insights