DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “denotation” is believed to be in error for --detonation--. 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: detonation mechanism in claims 1, 10, 12 and 13.
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 § 103
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Colin WO 2021/174291 A1 in view of Kozen JP 3224081 U, Bonet WO 2007/110457 A1, and Dreisilker 2024/0149090 A1.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Colin teaches a forest fire suppression system (best shown in figure 4), comprising: a satellite (308) comprising a thermal imaging sensor (paragraph [00418]) that is configured to detect a hot spot having an average temperature within a predetermined area greater than a threshold average temperature that is indicative of a forest fire (paragraph [00418]), the satellite further configured to transmit an alert signal to an emergency authority via a wireless network when a hot spot is detected (wireless transmission from satellite, paragraph [00236]); a UAV (315) configured to be remotely controlled by an individual at the emergency authority (control of 315 from server 100 through cloud 305 as shown in figure 3), a crate (1201) filled with a plurality of fire suppression foam bombs (1101, can be a foam bomb, paragraph [00202]), and further configured to drop each of the plurality of fire suppression foam bombs individually (paragraph [00204]). However, Colin does not teach that the UAV carries the cate of fire suppression foam bombs, or that each individual fire suppression foam bomb of the plurality of fire suppression foam bombs comprises a housing configured to be filled with a pressurized foam material, a denotation mechanism, a microcontroller, and an outlet nozzle on the housing; wherein each individual fire suppression foam bomb is adapted to disperse a volume of the pressurized foam material via the outlet nozzle when the detonation mechanism is activated by the microcontroller after the fire suppression foam bomb is dropped by the UAV. Kozen teaches attaching a plurality of fire extinguishing bombs (3) to a drone (1). Bonet teaches an individual fire suppression foam bomb (1, Page A, ll. 23-26) comprises a housing configured to be filled with a pressurized foam material (housing of 1 as shown in figure 1, filled with foam, Page A, ll. 23-26), a denotation mechanism (actuation means 3, where an actuation means to open a valve to release a mixture of foam and pressurized gas acts as the detonation mechanism that mixes foam with a gas, Page 6, ll. 3-14), and an outlet nozzle on the housing (nozzle 2 on housing of 1 shown in figure 1); wherein the individual fire suppression foam bomb is adapted to disperse a volume of the pressurized foam material via the outlet nozzle when the detonation mechanism is activated after the fire suppression foam bomb is dropped (Page 6, ll. 20-24, valve opens when temperature increases to extinguish fire after travelling to the area that a fire is present). Dreisilker teaches a fire extinguisher nozzle (outlet 6) for foam (paragraph [0066]) that includes a detonation mechanism (valve 5) activated by a microcontroller (34, opens valve in response to fire detection, paragraph [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the drone of Colin to carry the plurality of foam bombs of Colin, as taught by Kozen, to replace the foam bombs of Colin with the foam bombs of Bonet, and to use a microcontroller to control release of foam from the bombs of Colin, as taught by Dreisilker, in order to allow the foam bomb directly onto a fire site (abstract of Kozen), to release the foam from the bomb in a sudden and controlled manner (abstract of Bonet), and to release the foam from the foam bomb only when a fire is detected (paragraph [0068] of Dreisilker).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erickson 10,429,160.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker does not teach a reseeding mechanism in the foam bomb for dispersing plant seeds when activated by the microcontroller. Erickson teaches including seeds (Col. 9, ll. 40-44) in a foam bomb (100) to disperse seeds and fertilizer with the fire-retarding material (Col. 9, ll. 40-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to include seeds within the foam bomb for spreading seeds with the fire-retarding material of Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker, as taught by Erickson, in order to regrow plants after the fire is extinguished (Col. 9, ll. 40-44).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demmit 2012/0138319.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker does not teach a parachute controlled by the microcontroller for each foam bomb. Demmit teaches using a parachute (70) controlled by a microcontroller (64) for a fire extinguishing bomb (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the microcontroller controlled parachute of Demmit with each foam bomb of Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker, in order to allow the bomb to fall softly to the ground (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker does not teach a GPS unit in each foam bomb. Demmit teaches using a GPS locator in a fire extinguishing bomb (paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the GPS locator of Demmit in each foam bomb of Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker, in order to allow for recovery of the bombs for reuse (paragraph [0017]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MacNeal 2022/0143442.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker does not teach a power supply for the fire suppression system with a battery and solar panel. MacNeal teaches a fire suppression system (100) that uses a solar panel and battery to supply power (paragraph [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to supply power to the foam bombs of Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker with a solar panel and battery, as taught by MacNeal, in order to power the system with a self-contained power source (paragraph [0051]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hakos 2025/0205528.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker does not teach that each foam bomb comprises an inlet for refilling the pressurized foam. Hakos teaches a fire suppression system (100) with a refill inlet (180) for refilling a tank with a fire suppressant (paragraph [0087], which can comprise foam, paragraph [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the refill inlet of Hako with each foam bomb of Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker, in order to allow the vessel to be refilled with fire suppression agent as required (paragraph [0067]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zakhmatov WO 2010083890 A1.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker does not teach cables attaching the crate with foam bombs to the UAV. Zakhmatov teach using a cable (30) to suspend a crate (3) of bombs (20) below an aerial vehicle (as shown in figure 6A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a cable to suspend the crate of foam bombs below the UAV of Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker in the manner taught by Zakhmatov, in order to allow a new crate of bombs to be quickly attached when necessary (paragraph [0035]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang CN 106669072 A.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker does not teach handles for the foam bombs. Wang teaches using handles (15-2, two shown in figure 1) for a fire suppression foam bomb (figure 1, described in abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to place the handles of Wang on each foam bomb of Colin in view of Kozen, Bonet, and Dreisilker, in order to allow picking and placing of the foam bombs (paragraph [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 3, that each fire suppression foam bomb comprises a plurality of ground spikes extending downwardly from the housing; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 10, a first interior volume is configured to be filled with the pressurized foam material; a second interior volume is configured to be filled with a reactant; wherein activation of the detonation mechanism is configured to cause intermixing of the pressurized foam material and the reactant to form a mixed foam solution, causing an increase in pressure which causes the mixed foam solution to be ejected from the housing via the outlet nozzle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752