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 .
Claim Status
Pending claims 1-19 are addressed below.
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 1-19 is/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.
In claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 18, the term “tangential” in limitations reciting “tangential flow cross-sectional surface area” renders to the claim unclear and indefinite. It is not clear how “tangential” structurally defines the flow cross-sectional surface area, since there is no reference point to distinguish the tangent/tangential feature of the claimed surface area. There is no specific description or clarification provided in the written disclosure. As best understood by the examiner, these limitations are addressed to encompass any cross-sectional surface area associated with the flow, until further clarification.
Claims 3-7 defines the suppressant agent, the flow rate, combine flow cross-sectional areas, flow rates are selected based on the fire hazard type. Claim 4 defines how the flow rate is selected based on the selected agent type, charge density, and fire hazard type.
Given that the suppressant agent, propellant, and fire hazard are not part of the claimed device (not positively recited) and the claims are not method claims, it is unclear if the languages of claims 3-7 intends to differentiate the structure of the claimed apparatus or only clarify the functional capability of the device. The claims are addressed as best understood, until further clarification.
Claim 1 defines functional capability of a container via claim language “configured to store a liquid fire suppressant agent having a predetermined gravity, and a propellant having a predetermined charge density” without positively reciting the agent and propellant as part of the device. However, claims 14 and 15 appears to positively define the specific agents and propellant (Claim 14 recites “wherein the liquid fire suppressant agent comprises an alkaline aqueous solution of a potassium salt selected from potassium acetate, or potassium bicarbonate”. Claim 15 recites “wherein the propellant is an inert gas having the predetermined charge density ranging from 0.006 oz/fl. oz (0.006 g/mL) to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL)”.). It is unclear if the claims 14-15 imply that the specific agent and propellant are required in the claim and positively recited, or just further clarifying the container of claim 1 being able to store the listed agent and propellant. Appropriate correction is required.
Other claim(s) listed in the rejection title is/are indefinite due to their dependency upon the rejected base claim.
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 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) 1-8, 12, 13, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheindel (US20080041888).
Regarding claim 1, Scheindel discloses a fire suppressant device comprising:
a container (12) configured to store a liquid fire suppressant agent (14; par. 26: “product or liquid”; container 12 can store liquid and therefore can store a liquid suppressant; see Note 1 below) having a predetermined gravity (gravity of the stored liquid), and a propellant (16) having a predetermined charge density (density of the chosen propellant; par. 26, 33);
a valve assembly (22) configured with the container (see figs. 2-3), the valve assembly comprises a stem valve (22 is a stem valve; see fig. 4) comprising one or more first orifices (36, two are shown in fig. 2) having a combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area (combined area of orifices 36) of a first predetermined value (value of the combined area of orifices 36); and
a spray nozzle (flow opening in item 18) fluidically configured with the valve assembly (see figs. 2-3), the nozzle comprises one or more second orifices (flow opening in item 18) having a combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of a second predetermined value (value of the combined area of orifice in item 18).
(Note 1: The examiner is considering “adapted to/configured to” as a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.)
Regarding claim 2, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the valve assembly, upon actuation of the nozzle, enables discharge of the fire suppressant agent at a predetermined flow rate and up to a predetermined discharge range through the one or more second orifices of the nozzle (fig. 3; discharge rate when valve is partially open or fully open given the specific dimension disclosed in par. 49-58; see also par. 17-18; no specific value is claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the fire suppressant agent is selected based on a type of fire hazard to be suppressed by the device (since the claim is drawn to a device, recitation drawn to the suppressant agent type is intended use via the “configured to” claim language and not positively recited; additionally, since this is a not a method claim, the step of selecting the agent type associated with certain fire hazard does not distinguish the claimed device from the device of Scheindel; see MPEP 2115 and MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 4, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the predetermined flow rate and the predetermined discharge range are selected based on the selected fire suppressant agent and/or a type of fire hazard to be suppressed (since the claim is drawn to a device, recitation drawn to the suppressant agent type is intended use via the “configured to” claim language and not positively recited, see Note 1 above; more importantly, since this is a not a method claim, the step of selecting the agent type associated with certain fire hazard does not distinguish the claimed device from the device of Scheindel; see MPEP 2115 and MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 5, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the first orifices and the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the second orifices are selected based on one or more of the selected fire suppressant agent, and the predetermined flow rate and the predetermined discharge range to be achieved (since this is a not a method claim, the step of selecting the combined surface areas based on the selected suppressant agent does not distinguish the claimed device from the device of Scheindel; see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 6, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the selected predetermined discharge flow rate and the selected predetermined discharge range are determined based on one or more of gravity of the fire suppressant agent, a charge density of the propellant, a charge ratio of the fire suppressant agent and the propellant within the container, the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the first orifices, and the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the second orifices (since this is a not a method claim, the step of selecting the combined surface areas based on the selected suppressant agent does not distinguish the claimed device from the device of Scheindel; see MPEP 2113),
wherein the charge ratio is a ratio of a mass of the propellant and a mass of the fire suppressant agent stored in the container (fig.1 of Scheindel shows part vapor and part product, which constitutes sufficient disclosure of a “charge ratio” since no specific ratio value is required in the claim).
Regarding claim 7, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the fire hazard is a UL711A or class A type fire hazard (fire hazard is not part of the device; since limitations of the device are met in claims 1 and 3, the device can be used on the claimed fire hazard).
Regarding claim 8, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the device comprises a dip tube (8) having a first end (adjacent 24; figs. 2-3) fluidically connected to the stem valve and a second end (bottom end) at least partially disposed in the liquid fire suppressant agent stored within the container (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the predetermined discharge range is between 4 feet to 7 feet (this claim limitation does not further define the structure of the device but its manner of operating, which does not differentiating the apparatus claim from the prior art; see MPEP 2114; the reference device include all of the claimed structural components and therefore has the physical capability to provide this discharge range given the appropriate pressure from the propellant, since neither flow passage dimension values, the chemical contents or the gas pressure is positively recited; see alternative rejection below).
Regarding claim 13, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the predetermined flow rate is an effective discharge flow rate ranging between 0.53 oz/s (15 g/s) to 0.71 oz/s (20 g/s) or a volumetric discharge flow rate ranging between 0.42 fl. oz/s (18.1 mL/s) to 0.56 fl. oz/s (24.2 mL/s) (this claim limitation does not further define the structure of the device but its manner of operating, which does not differentiating the apparatus claim from the prior art; see MPEP 2114; the reference device include all of the claimed structural components and therefore has the physical capability to provide this discharge flow rate given the appropriate pressure from the propellant and liquid content, since neither flow passage dimension values, the chemical contents or the gas pressure is positively recited; see alternative rejection below).
Regarding claim 15, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the propellant is an inert gas having the predetermined charge density ranging from 0.006 oz/fl. oz (0.006 g/mL) to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL) (par. 36: “nitrogen”; since the propellant is not positively recited, and nitrogen gas is compressible, the container as taught by Scheindel is capable of storing the density of nitrogen as claimed, given that all the recited device components are taught; see alternative rejection below).
Regarding claim 16, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the propellant is an inert gas selected from nitrogen (par. 36: “nitrogen”), or carbon dioxide.
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 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.
Claims 9, 13, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheindel (US20080041888).
Regarding claim 9, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 8, but is silent regarding a tangential flow cross-sectional area of the dip tube is greater than the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the one or more first orifices.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a tangential flow cross-sectional area of the dip tube is greater than the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the one or more first orifices since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 13, in the alternative, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, is silent regarding the predetermined flow rate is an effective discharge flow rate ranging between 0.53 oz/s (15 g/s) to 0.71 oz/s (20 g/s) or a volumetric discharge flow rate ranging between 0.42 fl. oz/s (18.1 mL/s) to 0.56 fl. oz/s (24.2 mL/s).
However, given that the reference device includes all of the claimed structural components and therefore has the physical capability to provide this discharge flow rate given the appropriate pressure from the propellant and liquid content. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to utilize the appropriate dimension and contents to produce the desired flow rate. No
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to produce the predetermined flow rate is an effective discharge flow rate ranging between 0.53 oz/s (15 g/s) to 0.71 oz/s (20 g/s) or a volumetric discharge flow rate ranging between 0.42 fl. oz/s (18.1 mL/s) to 0.56 fl. oz/s (24.2 mL/s), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameters are flow dimension, gas pressure and liquid content which achieves the recognized result of desired flow rate, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, but is silent regarding the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the one or more first orifices is greater than the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the one or more second orifices.
Regarding claim 19, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, but is silent regarding the combined cross-sectional surface area of the one or more first orifices is 0.00450 in2 to 0.00486 in2, and the combined cross-sectional surface area of the one or more second orifices is 0.0012 in2 to 0.0025 in2.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the one or more first orifices is greater than the combined tangential flow cross-sectional surface area of the one or more second orifices (claim 18); or the combined cross-sectional surface area of the one or more first orifices is 0.00450 in2 to 0.00486 in2, and the combined cross-sectional surface area of the one or more second orifices is 0.0012 in2 to 0.0025 in2 (claim 19), since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheindel (US20080041888) in view of Chen (US20220371815).
Regarding claim 10, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 8, but is silent regarding the second end of the dip tube has a non-linear profile to prevent blockage of the second end by an inner wall of the container.
Chen discloses a comparable device having a second end of the dip tube at 322 with a non-linear profile (curved) suction port. Shown in figure 2, the non-linear profile against the inner wall of the container would prevent blockage by the inner wall.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheindel to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide the second end of the dip tube has a non-linear profile to prevent blockage of the second end by an inner wall of the container. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating flow of liquid without obstruction by the inner wall.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheindel (US20080041888) in view of Tsutsui (US 20020158087).
Regarding claim 11, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the valve assembly comprises a valve body (24), the stem valve (22) is accommodated and movably biased within the valve body (24; see movements shown in figs. 2-3) using a spring (50), the valve assembly comprises a tangential flow cross-sectional area (44, 40). Scheindel shows in figures 2-3 the tangential flow cross-sectional area (44, 40) of the valve body is greater than the combined cross-sectional surface area of the one or more first orifices (36; areas of 40, 44 shown in figs. 2-3 extend across the entire lower region of valve stem 22 while the combined areas of 36 are not).
Scheindel does not teach the valve body hermetically sealed over an opening provided on the container.
Tsutsui discloses a comparable device having a valve body 10 hermetically sealed over an opening provided on the container 11 (par. 22, 41).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheindel to incorporate the teachings of Tsutsui to provide the valve body hermetically sealed over an opening provided on the container. Doing so would provide for a device that is free from leakage of gas over time (par. 2), and consequently prevent undesired increase in concentration of contents ejected from the gas container and decrease in the longevity of the ejection apparatus (par. 12).
Alternatively, if applicant disagrees on teaching of Scheindel regarding the relative dimensions of the flow cross-sectional area of the valve body and combine area of the first orifices, however paragraph 59 of Scheindel further indicates “it should be understood that those skilled in the art will be able to make changes and modifications to those embodiments without departing from the teachings of the invention and the scope of the claims”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a tangential flow cross-sectional area of the valve body is greater than the combined cross-sectional surface area of the one or more first orifices given the similar proportions shown in figs. 2-3, since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheindel (US20080041888) in view of Mori (US20090277653).
Regarding claim 12, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 2, but is silent regarding the predetermined discharge range is between 4 feet to 7 feet.
Mori discloses an aerosol device producing a liquid wet chemical fire extinguishing spray (abstract) having a discharge range of 48 inch (4 feet; par. 36: “When the fire extinguisher 10 is positioned a distance Td of about 48 in. from a target area, the elongated output orifice 58 expels the contents 44 is a substantially planar pattern 60 at the target area”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheindel to incorporate the teachings of Mori to provide the predetermined discharge range is between 4 feet to 7 feet. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating agent spray from a safe distance from the fire, as can be seen in figure 6.
Regarding claim 14, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, but is silent regarding the liquid fire suppressant agent comprises an alkaline aqueous solution of a potassium salt selected from potassium acetate, or potassium bicarbonate.
Mori discloses a similar device discharging a liquid fire suppressant agent (abstract) wherein the solution include potassium bicarbonate (par. 39-42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheindel to incorporate the teachings of Mori to provide the liquid fire suppressant agent comprises an alkaline aqueous solution of a potassium salt, such as potassium bicarbonate. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating fire suppressant that is rated for various fires including class A, B, C, and K fires (Abstract).
Claims 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheindel (US20080041888) in view of Shaw (US20180221695).
Regarding claim 15, in the alternative, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, but is silent regarding the propellant is an inert gas having the predetermined charge density ranging from 0.006 oz/fl. oz (0.006 g/mL) to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL).
Regarding claim 17, Scheindel discloses the device of claim 1, but is silent regarding the propellant is a liquid propellant having the predetermined charge density less than the liquid density of the fire suppressant, wherein the predetermined charge density is greater than or equal to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL).
Shaw discloses a fire suppression system utilizing a propellant such as air, nitrogen or carbon dioxide to discharge fire suppressing agent (par. 28). Shaw further indicates: “It is understood that a balance should be struck to ensure adequate propellant volume to completely empty compartment 20 of fire suppressing agent. In addition, in certain embodiments, the final propellant pressure within compartment 22 should be approximately 35 psig in order to ensure vaporization of the fire suppressing agent as it is introduced into protected space 18 via nozzles 16. The gas side accumulator compartment 22 is sized so that complete discharge of fire suppressing agent is not dependent upon the continued supply of propellant from source 34. This particular design element provides a fail-safe against insufficient mass flow from the source of propellant.” This disclosure implies that a balance of certain gas and agent density is required to facilitate the desired discharge via the nozzles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to assess the targeted fire size, container size and associated propellant to agent ratio to produce the desired/effective agent discharge. No inventive effort would have been required.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheindel to incorporate the teachings of Shaw to provide an inert gas having the predetermined charge density ranging from 0.006 oz/fl. oz (0.006 g/mL) to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL) (claim 15), or the propellant is a liquid propellant having the predetermined charge density less than the liquid density of the fire suppressant, wherein the predetermined charge density is greater than or equal to 0.016 oz/fl. oz (0.015 g/mL) (claim 17), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. Applicant appears to have not placed any criticality in utilizing the claimed range, in light of applicant’s paragraph 54: “the selected suppressant agent and propellant and these numbers are exemplary and may be changed without any limitation”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752