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 .
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 control system of claim 6 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, the word “an” should be placed between “with” and “aspirating”
Claim 2, line 4, the word “an” should be placed between “with” and “aspirating”
Claim 2, line 5, standpipe should be plural.
Claim 3, line 4, the word monitor should be plural
Claim 3, line 6, the word monitor should be plural
Claim 3, line 7, standpipe should be plural
Claim 7, line 2, the word monitor should be plural
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the aspirating foam nozzle and an water monitor assemblies" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mardikan (6,168,481).
Regarding claim 1 Mardikan shows a spraying assembly comprising: at least one standpipe (the vertical pipe in figure 11 connected to pipe 136) extending from a fluid trunk line (136), a water monitor 70 with aspirating foam (foam is sucked in through pipe 78) nozzle assembly fluidly connected to each of the at least one standpipe.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenci (3,339,516) in view of Mardikan (6,168,481).
Regarding claims 1-3, Lenci shows a spraying assembly comprising: two standpipes (43 and 15) extending from a fluid trunk line (12, 11): at least one branching pipe extending from each of the two standpipes (17 and 18 extend from 15 and 48 and 47 extend from 43),
But fails to disclose two water monitors with aspirating foam nozzle assemblies each of which is fluidly connected to each of the two standpipes;
and two water monitors with aspirating foam nozzle assemblies each of which fluidly connected to each of the at least one branching pipe.
Mardikan shows a two water monitors (70) with aspirating foam nozzle assemblies (foam is sucked in through pipe 78), each monitor located on a separate standpipe.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to add a water monitor with an aspirating foam nozzle assembly to each of the standpipes and each of the branching pipes, in order to be able to direct a spray of foam form each outlet.
Regarding claim 4, including a water hose (54) fluidly connected to the fluid trunk line.
Regarding claim 5, including a foam delivery tube (78 of Mardikan) fluidly connected to each of the aspirating foam nozzle and the water monitor assemblies.
Claim(s) 1-4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenci (3,339,516) as modified by Mardikan (6,168,481) above, further in view of Steingass et al. (6,102,308).
Regarding claim 7, Lenci as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 3, but fails to disclose that each of the water monitors with aspirating foam nozzle assemblies comprises a quick release mechanism.
Steingass et al. shows an aspirating foam nozzle that has a quick release mechanism (threads 42 are a quick release compared to a solid connection)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use the aspirating foam nozzles of Steingass on the monitors of Lenci as modified above, in order to have them easily removable from the monitors.
In the alternative, regarding claims 1-4 and 5, using the nozzle of Steingass will also provide the monitors with an aspirating foam nozzle if the applicant disagrees that Mardikan teaches an actual aspirating foam nozzle.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenci (3,339,516) as modified by Mardikan (6,168,481) above, further in view of Haviland (2011/0186657)
Regarding claim 6, Lenci as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 3, but fails to disclose a control system in communication with each of the water monitors with aspirating foam nozzles assemblies.
Haviland teaches a control system that controls the monitor (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use a control system to control each monitor in order to automatically control the position of the nozzles.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenci (3,339,516) as modified by Mardikan (6,168,481) and Steingass et al. (6,102,308) above, further in view of Haviland (2011/0186657)
Regarding claim 6, Lenci as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 3, but fails to disclose a control system in communication with each of the water monitors with aspirating foam nozzles assemblies.
Haviland teaches a control system that controls the monitor (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to use a control system to control each monitor in order to automatically control the position of the nozzles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 2/10/2026