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 June 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 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 “configuring an even number of orifices in the housing to emit a fire suppression agent in a rotational vortex and configuring the even number of orifices to emit the fire suppression agent, wherein each of the even number of orifices emits the fire suppression agent in the rotational vortex” in lines 4-7. The specification appears to disclose each orifice emitting a fire suppression agent in a rotational vortex, i.e., there is a rotational vortex for each orifice. Yet, claim 1 recites the even number of orifices (all the orifices) emitting the fire suppression agent in the rotational vortex (one rotational vortex).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein each of the even number of orifices emits the fire suppression agent in the rotational vortex” in lines 6-7. The specification discloses, in paragraph 0032, “The internal geometry of the nozzle is designed to output a rotational vortex from each orifice of the nozzle. Creating the vortex does not rely on the arrangement of the multiple nozzles, as in the prior approach. In addition, the geometry may be designed such that each pair of orifices creates counter-rotating rotational vertexes.” The specification discloses that “the arrangement of the multiple nozzles” does not constitute the “internal geometry of the nozzle.” Yet, the claim fails to disclose any specifics of the “geometry.”
Claims 1-7 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 “wherein each of the even number of orifices emits the fire suppression agent in the rotational vortex” in lines 6-7. The claim fails to recite structure to accomplish the function of emitting the fire suppression agent in the rotational vortex. The structure recited by the claim is not commensurate in scope with the function required by the claim. The specification discloses, in paragraph 0032, “The internal geometry of the nozzle is designed to output a rotational vortex from each orifice of the nozzle. Creating the vortex does not rely on the arrangement of the multiple nozzles, as in the prior approach. In addition, the geometry may be designed such that each pair of orifices creates counter-rotating rotational vertexes.” The claim fails to recite any “geometry.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “affixing one or more obstacles of to an inner surface…” in line 8. The recitation is grammatically incorrect and nonsensical.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “affixing one or more obstacles of to an inner surface of the housing each obstacle…” in lines 8-9. The recitation is grammatically incorrect. The recitation “…housing each obstacle…” appears to be a run on phrase.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least two orifices” in line 9. It appears to be a double inclusion of at least two of the “even number of orifices” recited in line 4.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the orifices” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The number of orifices limited by the claim is uncertain. Is it all of the even number of orifices? Claim 3 suggests otherwise where the reference is to the even number of orifices. Claim 5 also suggest otherwise where the reference is “a total number of orifices in the even number of orifices.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “affixing one or more obstacles” appears to be a double inclusion of the “affixing one or more obstacles” recited in claim 1. See claim 6 where the reference is to “the affixing the one or more obstacles.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “obstacles” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “one or more obstacles” recited in lines 1-2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “one pair of orifices” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “at least two orifices” recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the two or more orifices" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument to double patenting is premature. No double patenting rejection is of record.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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