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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on July 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “nozzle assembly is disposed without a trench in an interior portion of the impervious deck area” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 223. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-16, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the nozzle assembly is disposed without a trench in an interior portion of the impervious deck area” in lines 8-9. Although the specification alleges, in paragraph 0077, “while nozzle frame 205 can be installed in decks that may or may not have trenches, other embodiments of the nozzle frame such as, for example, nozzle frame 22 (in combination with nozzle grate 24 and/or grating 20 are configured to facilitate installation in decks that have trenches.” Yet, even nozzle frame 205 is shown in figure 2B within an enclosure 220 (recited in claim 10) which includes a top portion 227 and bottom portion 228 that provides an enclosure for collecting the fluids drained from the deck area 120. It is reasonable that the enclosure 220 can be considered a circular trench. Therefore, even nozzle frame 205 is disclosed with a trench. The specification, as originally filed, does not disclose a prohibitory inclusion of a trench. The presence of a trench is not critical because the specification explicitly discloses that the nozzle assembly can be installed in decks that may or may not have trenches. Applicant is attempting to claim what his invention is NOT rather than what his invention is. Claim 16 recites a similar limitation.
Claim 1, 3-6, 8-16, 18, 19, 21 and 22 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 “a trench” in line 8. It appears to be double inclusion of the “helipad” and/or the “impervious deck area” because the trench or lack thereof is an element of the helipad or the impervious deck. Claim 16 recites a similar limitation.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a trench” in line 3. It appears to be double inclusion of the “helipad” and/or the “impervious deck area” because the trench or lack thereof is an element of the helipad or the impervious deck. Claim 16 recites a similar limitation.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the radial pattern" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “radial spray pattern” recited in claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 22 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen (2,097,908).
Allen discloses a helipad (defines intended use and not a positively recited limitation; Allen’s floor 15 is capable of housing a helicopter) fire suppression system, comprising:
a helipad (floor 15 of hangar 10) having an outer boundary that defines an impervious deck area 15 for (indicates intended use; not a positively recited limitation) at least one of landing or storing one or more helicopters, at least a portion of the impervious deck area designated a fire suppression target area (floor area of floor 15); and
a nozzle assembly 23, 19 including a fixed spray nozzle 25 (ports 25 are fixed in the horizontal plane) for spraying a fire suppression agent in a radial pattern (page 2, column 1, lines 1-5) relative to a longitudinal axis (vertical axis) through the fixed spray nozzle,
wherein the nozzle assembly is disposed without a trench in an interior portion of the impervious deck area so as to provide the fire suppression agent to the fire suppression target area;
further comprising:
at least one second nozzle assembly 23, 19 disposed without a trench within the interior portion.
The limitations of method claims 16, 19, 21 and 22 are met in using the device of Jackson.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-14 and 18 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (2,097,908).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Allen discloses the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a foam concentrate range of 1% to 6%. Allen discloses, on page 1, column 1, lines 45-46, carbon dioxide or other highly compressed extinguishing fluid. Foam concentrate (including foam concentrate that concludes carbon dioxide) is well knonw. Providing a foam concentrate range of 1% to 6% is a mere optimization of ranges. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a foam concentrate range of 1% to 6% to improve oxygen depletion and cooling in the device of Allen, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Allen further discloses wherein the radial pattern is a 360-degree radial pattern (page 2, col. 1, ll. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Allen further discloses wherein the radial pattern is less than a 360-degree radial pattern (radial pattern produced by one outlet port 25).
Regarding claim 6, Allen further discloses wherein the spray nozzle includes,
a body portion 23, 19 defining a passage (passage of stem 23) extending longitudinally through the body portion for conveying the fire suppression agent, and
a deflector portion 22 coupled to the body portion and configured to spray the fire suppression agent in the radial pattern onto the fire suppression target area.
Regarding claim 8, Allen further discloses wherein the nozzle assembly further includes a nozzle frame 16, 19 having a through-passage (passage of cylinder 19) for receiving the nozzle.
Regarding claim 9, Allen further discloses wherein the nozzle frame includes at least one drainage hole (inherent pores in outlets 16) for draining the agent from the impervious deck area.
Regarding claim 10, Allen further discloses wherein a nozzle enclosure 16 further collects the fire suppressant agent drained from the impervious deck area.
Regarding claim 11, Allen further discloses wherein the at least one drainage hole comprises a plurality of drainage holes (pores in outlets 16) that circumscribe the through-passage of the nozzle frames.
Regarding claim 12, Allen further discloses wherein the nozzle assembly is disposed such that a top surface of the nozzle assembly is flush with the impervious deck area (see figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, Allen further discloses wherein the nozzle assembly is disposed in a geometric center (middle of floor 15 in figure 1) of the impervious deck area.
Regarding claim 14, Allen further discloses wherein the nozzle assembly is disposed in the interior portion such that a coverage area of the fire suppression agent covers an entirety of the impervious deck area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-16, 18, 19, 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights