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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on August 24th, 2026 is acknowledged. Three pages of amended claims were received on 8/24/2026. Claims 2-7, 14, and 18 have been amended and Claims 8-13, 15-17, and 20 have been cancelled. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections in the non-final rejection mailed 6/8/2026, however Claims 1-7, 14, and 18-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Outer Container Species A in the reply filed on 4/22/2026 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 2/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-13, 15-17, and 20, which are now cancelled, were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/22/2026. The examiner responded to the traversal in the office action mailed 6/8/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the based on the “configured to” claim language used, the “fire suppressant container” in Claims 1-7 and the “suppression container” in Claims 14 and 18-19 do not appear to be positively recited as part of the claimed outer container. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the “fire suppressant container” in Claims 1-7 and the “suppression container” in Claims 14 and 18-19 are being interpreted as components that are not part of the claimed invention and are merely configured to be utilized with the claimed outer container.
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.
Claims 1-7, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB 2016/0288991 A1 to Richardson (“Richardson”).
As to Claim 1, Richardson discloses an outer container (See #5 in Fig. 7) for cooling a fire suppressant container (See Paragraph 0038. The container #5 can store some fire suppressant container and can cool some fire suppressant container when it is placed in #5 by moving air through an interior of #5), comprising:
a housing (#5) configured to at least partially enclose the fire suppressant container that stores a fire suppressant agent (See Fig. 7 and See Paragraphs 0051-0052 disclosing racks #165. The racks can store some fire suppressant container and enclose it within #5) the housing comprising:
sidewalls (#10) defining an inner volume configured to surround the fire suppressant container (See Annotated Fig. 7. Some fire suppressant container can be stored in the inner volume);
an inlet (See Annotated Fig. 7, one inlet can be considered a single entry opening #105 that air can flow through) configured to be positioned at an elevated position relative to a ground surface (See Annotated Fig. 7) to receive air from an environment outside of the housing (See Paragraph 0035); and
an outlet (See an exit opening #110 in Annotated Fig. 7), wherein:
the inner volume, the inlet, and the outlet define a flow path for air (#140) such that the air flows through the outer container and proximate the fire suppressant container to induce passive, forced convective cooling of the fire suppressant container (See Fig. 7 and Paragraph 0037. Some fire suppressant container can be placed in #5 such that some amount of external air can passively flow through #5 across some fire suppressant container to induce a level of passive forced convective cooling of some fire suppressant container, even when the fans are turned off).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the outer container of Richardson as applied to Claim 1 above, Richardson further discloses wherein:
the fire suppressant container further comprises a tubular member (See Fig. 7. The outer container #5 can store some fire suppressant container that comprises some tubular member. The fire suppressant container is not positively recited as part of the claimed outer container);
the sidewalls comprise an opening configured to receive the tubular member such that the tubular member extends into the housing from outside (See Annotated Fig. 7. An opening #105 is capable of receiving some tubular member that can extend into #5 from outside of #5. Fig. 10 also shows a pipe #155 that can receive some tubular member that can attach to some fire suppressant container); and
the tubular member fluidly coupled with the fire suppressant container for discharge of the fire suppressant agent through the tubular member to a zone located outside of the outer container for fire suppression (See Annotated Fig. 7. Some tubular member can be coupled to some fire suppressant container that can be stored in #5, such that some tubular member can discharge some fire suppressant agent to some fire zone in the outside environment).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the outer container of Richardson as applied to Claim 2 above, Richardson further discloses wherein the fire suppressant container is configured to provide the fire suppressant agent through the tubular member to at least one of a discharge device or an induction system (See Annotated Fig. 7. The outer container #5 is capable of storing some fire suppressant container that can provide some fire suppressant agent through some tubular member to some discharge device or some induction system in the outside environment).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the outer container of Richardson as applied to Claim 1 above, Richardson further discloses wherein the housing comprises multiple inlets (See multiple inlets #105 in Fig. 7) and multiple outlets (See multiple outlets #110 in Fig. 7), the multiple inlets configured to catch the air to direct air flow into the inner volume and out through the outlet in different directions (See Paragraph 0037 and See Fig. 7 showing multiple flow paths #135 and #140 for air flow via fans #145, which travel upwardly in different directions away from #5. Even if the fans are off, air can travel upwardly from the inlet to the outlet.).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the outer container of Richardson as applied to Claim 1 above, Richardson further discloses wherein the housing further comprises a baffle configured to direct the air from the inlet towards the fire suppressant container (See Annotated Fig. 7. A centrifugal fan #145 is structure that has blades that is equivalent to a baffle structure that deflects and regulates air flow to assist in directing air from #105 towards some fire suppressant container that can be stored on #165. Even if the fan is off, it acts as a baffle structure.).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the outer container of Richardson as applied to Claim 1 above, Richardson further discloses wherein:
the outer container is configured to elevate the fire suppressant container relative to the ground surface such that a space is defined between a bottom of the fire suppressant container and the ground surface (See Annotated Fig. 7. The outer container #5 can store some fire suppressant container on rack #165); and
the space is configured to receive air underneath the fire suppressant container to cool at least the fire suppressant container (See Annotated Fig. 7. The space beneath #165 can have air flow under a fire suppressant container such that the fire suppressant container is cooled by the air to some extent).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the outer container of Richardson as applied to Claim 1 above, Richardson further discloses wherein the housing is configured to facilitate access to the fire suppressant container (See door #30 in Fig. 2 and See Paragraph 0052. The housing #5 can allow access to some fire suppressant container stored in #5 when the door is opened).
As to Claim 14, Richardson discloses an outer container (See #5 in Fig. 7) for cooling a suppression container (See Paragraph 0038. The container #5 can store some suppression container and can cool the suppression container when it is placed in #5 by moving air through an interior of #5), the outer container comprising:
a plurality of sidewalls (#10) configured to surround the suppression container and encasing an inner volume (See Annotated Fig. 7);
an upper portion above and abutting the plurality of sidewalls (See #40 in Annotated Fig. 7);
an inlet (See an inlet #105 in Annotated Fig. 7) being elevated relative to a ground surface upon which the plurality of sidewalls stand (See Annotated Fig. 7. The inlet is above the ground surface. The sidewalls #10 stand on the ground surface via pedestals #95); and
an outlet (See an outlet #110 in Annotated Fig. 7) being elevated relative to the ground surface upon which the plurality of sidewalls stand (See Annotated Fig. 7, the outlet is above the ground surface), wherein the inner volume, the inlet, and the outlet define a flow path for the air to flow therethrough (See #140 in Fig. 7 and See Paragraph 0037), such that the air flows to induce passive, forced convective cooling of the fire suppression container (See Fig. 7 and Paragraph 0037. Some fire suppression container can be placed in #5 such that some amount of external air can passively flow through #5 across some fire suppression container to induce a level of passive forced convective cooling of some fire suppression container, even when the fans are turned off.).
As to Claim 18, Richardson discloses an outer container (See #5 in Fig. 7) for cooling a suppression container (See Paragraph 0038. The container #5 can store some suppression container and can cool the suppression container when it is placed in #5 by moving air through an interior of #5), the outer container comprising:
a housing (#5) configured to at least partially enclose the suppression container that stores a fire suppressant agent (See Fig. 7 and See Paragraphs 0051-0052 disclosing racks #165. The racks can store some suppression container and enclose it within #5), the housing comprising:
an inlet (See an inlet #105 in Annotated Fig. 7) configured to be positioned at an elevated position relative to a ground surface (See Annotated Fig. 7. The inlet is above the ground surface. The sidewalls #10 stand on the ground surface via pedestals #95) to receive air from an environment outside of the housing (See Annotated Fig. 7 and Paragraphs 0037-0038); and
an outlet (See an outlet #110 in Annotated Fig. 7), wherein an inner volume (See Annotated Fig. 7), the inlet, and the outlet define a flow path for the air (#140) such that the air flows through the outer container and proximate the suppression container to induce passive, forced convective cooling of the suppression container (See Fig. 7 and Paragraph 0037. Some suppression container can be placed in #5 such that some amount of external air can passively flow through #5 across some suppression container to induce a level of passive forced convective cooling of some suppression container, even when the fans are turned off).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 14, and 18 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richardson, applicant argues that the claimed invention uses passive cooling rather than active cooling with fans. Applicant argues that Richardson does not disclose every feature of the claimed invention because Richardson relies on powered fans to move air through the container. Applicant further argues that Richardson is in a different field for a different purpose from the claimed invention since the cargo container of Richardson is for housing heat generating contents and does not make any mention of fire suppression.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). The law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the appellant is claiming but only that the claims on appeal read on something disclosed in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Where functional limitations are recited for the structure set forth in the claim, the reference must also include structure which is capable of performing the recited function in order for the reference to be properly anticipatory. See In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 194 USPQ 305 (CCPA 1977). When the prior art fails to disclose a functional limitation, the examiner may be able to rely on the theory of inherency. In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See: MPEP §2112 IV; Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
The outer container of Richardson reads on all of the structural limitations of Claims 1, 14, and 18 as shown in Annotated Fig. 7 above. Though Richardson discloses using fans to move air, the structure of Richardson is still capable of allowing passive cooling whether the fans are on or off when air from a surrounding environment flows into the inlet and out of the outlet. Some fire suppressant container can be placed in #5 such that some amount of flowing external air, such as constant wind or an intermittent gust, can passively flow through #5 across some fire suppressant container to induce a level of passive forced convective cooling of some fire suppressant container, even when the fans are turned off. Even though fans are included in the outer container of Richardson, the other structure of Richardson is similar to that of the claimed invention and thus has similar passive cooling capabilities when the fans are not in use. Therefore, despite not specifically disclosing any fire suppression, the disclosure of Richardson reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of both the structural and functional limitations of independent Claims 1, 14, and 18 such that the claims are anticipated by Richardson, and Claims 1-7, 14, and 18-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as noted above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights