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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15 and 20, drawn to a device for the production of firefighting foam, classified in A62C31/02.
II. Claims 16-19, drawn to a method of producing firefighting foam, classified in A62C5/02.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the apparatus does not require the step of producing foam while the method claims require the production of foam.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; --the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or --the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Kenneth Smith on 7/15/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15 and 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 8-15 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 8 recites the limitation "the receiver" in lines 8 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remainder of the claims are rejected due to dependency.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knapp (3,672,574)
Regarding claim 1, Knapp shows 1. A device for the production of firefighting foam (the device of Knapp is fully capable of producing a foam that fights fires) the device comprising: an attachment portion (threads on 2) in fluid communication with an inlet tube (2); a plurality of outlet orifices (5) located in a spray flange (3) and in fluid communication with the inlet tube; the plurality of outlet orifices being located adjacent to an outlet recess (fig 1); a wand portion (1) having a first end and a second end, the wand portion comprising air inlets (9) adjacent to the first end and a foam outlet (11) at the second end, when the wand portion is affixed to the spray flange (fig 1), the plurality of outlet orifices are located adjacent to the air inlets (fig 1); and the plurality of outlet orifices aligned such that their alignments converge at a point located outside of a spatial area formed by the outlet recess (fig 1, P).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the outlet recess is a concave recess (fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the number of outlet orifices is greater than 2 (fig 2).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp (3,672,574)
Regarding claim 4, Knapp shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the outlet orifices have a diameter between .085 and .1 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Knapp as modified above to so that the outlet orifices have a diameter between .085 and .1 inches, since it has been 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., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Knapp as modified above would not operate differently with then outlet orifices having a diameter between as it would still have air sucked into the flow of fluid passing through the outlets. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed range.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp (3,672,574) in view of Timpson (2,388,508).
Regarding claim 7, Knapp shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to show a shield portion surrounding the air inlets.
Timpson teaches a nozzle that includes a shield (15) that surrounds air inlets (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add a shield, similar to that of Timpson, to the device of Knapp, in order to prevent the air inlet holed from being blocked by the user as taught by Timpson (col 2, lines 40-45)
Regarding claim 20, Knapp shows a device for the production of firefighting foam (Knapp is capable of producing foam), the device comprising: an attachment portion (threads on 2) in fluid communication with an inlet tube (2); at least 2 outlet orifices (5) located in a spray flange (3), the spray flange in fluid communication with the inlet tube (fig 1); the at least 2 outlet orifices being located adjacent to a concave outlet recess (fig 1); a tubular wand portion (1) having a first end and a second end (fig 1), the wand portion comprising air inlets (9) adjacent to the first end and a foam outlet (11) at the second end, when the wand portion is affixed to the spray flange (fig 1), the plurality of outlet orifices being located adjacent to the air inlets (fig 1) with the air inlets located closer to the first end of the tubular wand portion than the outlet orifices (fig 1); and the plurality of outlet orifices aligned such that their alignments converge at a point (P) located outside of a spatial area formed by the outlet recess (fig 1).
But fails to disclose a shield portion surrounding the air inlets;
And each outlet orifice having a diameter ranging from .085 to .1 inches
Timpson teaches a nozzle that includes a shield (15) that surrounds air inlets (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add a shield, similar to that of Timpson, to the device of Knapp, in order to prevent the air inlet holed from being blocked by the user as taught by Timpson (col 2, lines 40-45)
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Knapp as modified above to so that the outlet orifices have a diameter between .085 and .1 inches, since it has been 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., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Knapp as modified above would not operate differently with then outlet orifices having a diameter between as it would still have air sucked into the flow of fluid passing through the outlets. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed range.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp (3,672,574) in view of Eriksson (2,826,399).
Regarding claim 8, Knapp shows a fire extinguisher foam generating device (the device of Knapp is fully capable of generation foam), the device comprising: a spray flange (3) comprising an input (upstream end), a plurality of outlet orifices (5) in fluid communication with the input, the plurality of outlet orifices arranged about a central axis (fig 1), each orifice arranged such that a stream passing through the orifice converges at a point on a line extending along the central axis of the spray flange (P); a tubular wand (1) comprising a flange mating surface at a first end of the wand (fig 1, element 1 touches flange 3), the mating surface adapted to receive the spray flange (fig 1), the wand comprising a plurality of air inputs (9) located adjacent to the receiver, and an outlet (11) at a second end of the wand;
But fails to disclose a shield portion having an open first end and an opening formed in a second end, the spray flange passing through the opening formed in the second end and affixed to the first end of the wand using the receiver, the shield portion captured between the spray flange and the receiver portion of the wand.
Eriksson teaches a sprinkler nozzle where a shield portion (34) having an open first end and an opening formed in a second end (fig 1), the spray flange (24) passing through the opening formed in the second end and affixed to the first end of the wand using the receiver (32), the shield portion captured between the spray flange and the receiver portion of the wand (fig 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add a shield, similar to that of Eriksson, to the device of Knapp, in the same way it is connected in Eriksson (the shield portion being captured between the spray flange and the receiver portion of the wand) in order to shield the wind as taught by Eriksson (vol 4, lien 28)
Regarding claim 9, the spray flange comprises an outlet recess (fig 1) in which an exit end of the outlet orifices is located, the outlet recess being symmetrically arranged about the central axis of the spray flange (fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the outlet recess is concave in shape (fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, the above combination fails to disclose wherein the outlet orifices have a diameter between .085 and .1 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Knapp as modified above to so that the outlet orifices have a diameter between .085 and .1 inches, since it has been 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., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Knapp as modified above would not operate differently with then outlet orifices having a diameter between as it would still have air sucked into the flow of fluid passing through the outlets. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, there are at least 2 outlet orifices (fig 1, 2).
Claim(s) 7-12, 13, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henshaw (3,561,536) in view of Knapp (3,672,572) and Eriksson (2,826,399).
Regarding claim 8, Henshaw shows a fire extinguisher foam generating device (the device of Henshaw is fully capable of generation foam), the device comprising: a spray flange (1) comprising an input (upstream end), an outlet orifice (13) in fluid communication with the input, a tubular wand (5) comprising a flange mating surface at a first end of the wand (4), the mating surface adapted to receive the spray flange (fig 1), the wand comprising a plurality of air inputs (6) located adjacent to the receiver, and an outlet (8) at a second end of the wand;
But fails to disclose a plurality of outlet orifices, the plurality of outlet orifices arranged about a central axis, each orifice arranged such that a stream passing through the orifice converges at a point on a line extending along the central axis of the spray flange.
Knapp teaches a similar device that includes a plurality of outlet orifices (5), the plurality of outlet orifices arranged about a central axis (fig 2), each orifice arranged such that a stream passing through the orifice converges at a point (P) on a line extending along the central axis of the spray flange (fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the multiple outlet orifices of Knapp instead of the dingle orifice of Henshaw , in order to cause mutual atomization of the fluid streams as thought by Knapp (col 2, lines 22-25)
The above combination still fails to disclose
a shield portion having an open first end and an opening formed in a second end, the spray flange passing through the opening formed in the second end and affixed to the first end of the wand using the receiver, the shield portion captured between the spray flange and the receiver portion of the wand.
Eriksson teaches a sprinkler nozzle where a shield portion (34) having an open first end and an opening formed in a second end (fig 1), the spray flange (24) passing through the opening formed in the second end and affixed to the first end of the wand using the receiver (32), the shield portion captured between the spray flange and the receiver portion of the wand (fig 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add a shield, similar to that of Eriksson, to the device of Henshaw as modified above, in the same way it is connected in Eriksson (the shield portion being captured between the spray flange and the receiver portion of the wand) in order to shield the wind as taught by Eriksson (vol 4, lien 28)
Regarding claim 9, the spray flange comprises an outlet recess (fig 1, Knapp) in which an exit end of the outlet orifices is located, the outlet recess being symmetrically arranged about the central axis of the spray flange (fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the outlet recess is concave in shape (fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, the above combination fails to disclose wherein the outlet orifices have a diameter between .085 and .1 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Henshaw as modified above to so that the outlet orifices have a diameter between .085 and .1 inches, since it has been 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., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Henshaw as modified above would not operate differently with then outlet orifices having a diameter between as it would still have air sucked into the flow of fluid passing through the outlets. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, there are at least 2 outlet orifices (fig 1, 2).
Regarding claim 15, in the above combination the outlet orifices are positioned in an inner diameter of the wand portion at a point farther from the first end of the wand than the air inputs (see fig below).
PNG
media_image1.png
627
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the above combination fails to disclose a centerline of each outlet orifice intersects a centerline extending through the central axis of the spray flange at an angle greater than 30 degrees and less than 40 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the above combination so that a centerline of each outlet orifice intersects a centerline extending through the central axis of the spray flange at an angle greater than 38 degrees , since it has been 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., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Henshaw as modified above would not operate differently with then outlet orifices having a centerline of each outlet orifice intersects a centerline extending through the central axis of the spray flange at an angle of than 38 degrees since it looks the b very close to 38 degrees as it is. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed range.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, since all limitations of these tow claims are in the above rejected claims, claims 7 and 20 are also included in this rejection.
Claim(s) 1-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henshaw (3,561,536) in view of Knapp (3,672,574)
Regarding claim 1, Henshaw shows 1. A device for the production of firefighting foam (the device of Henshaw is fully capable of producing a foam that fights fires) the device comprising: an attachment portion ( 2) in fluid communication with an inlet tube (the hose that connect to the fluid source); an outlet orifices (13) located in a spray flange (1) and in fluid communication with the inlet tube; a wand portion (5) having a first end and a second end, the wand portion comprising air inlets (6) adjacent to the first end and a foam outlet (8) at the second end, when the wand portion is affixed to the spray flange (fig 1), the outlet orifice located adjacent to the air inlets (fig 1)
But fails to show that the outlet orifice is a plurality of outlet orifices being located adjacent to an outlet recess; and the plurality of outlet orifices aligned such that their alignments converge at a point located outside of a spatial area formed by the outlet recess.
Knapp teaches a device where the outlet orifice is a plurality of outlet orifices (5) being located adjacent to an outlet recess (fig 1); and the plurality of outlet orifices aligned such that their alignments converge at a point (P) located outside of a spatial area formed by the outlet recess.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the multiple outlet orifices of Knapp instead of the dingle orifice of Henshaw, in order to cause mutual atomization of the fluid streams as thought by Knapp (col 2, lines 22-25)
Regarding claim 2, wherein the outlet recess is a concave recess (fig 1, Knapp).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the number of outlet orifices is greater than 2 (fig 2 Knapp).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the outlet orifices have a diameter between .085 and .1 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Henshaw as modified above to so that the outlet orifices have a diameter between .085 and .1 inches, since it has been 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., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Henshaw as modified above as modified above would not operate differently with then outlet orifices having a diameter between as it would still have air sucked into the flow of fluid passing through the outlets. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the wand portion is a tubular shape (fig 1) and the outlet orifices are positioned in an inner diameter of the wand portion at a point farther from the first end of the wand portion than the air inlets (see above fig)
Regarding claim 6, the above combination fails to disclose a centerline of each outlet orifice intersects a centerline extending through the central axis of the spray flange at an angle greater than 35 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the above combination so that a centerline of each outlet orifice intersects a centerline extending through the central axis of the spray flange at an angle greater than 38 degrees , since it has been 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., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 77 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In this case, the device of Henshaw as modified above would not operate differently with then outlet orifices having a centerline of each outlet orifice intersects a centerline extending through the central axis of the spray flange at an angle of than 38 degrees since it looks the b very close to 38 degrees as it is. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality in the claimed range.
.Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 is allowable due to the limitation “each air input is chamfered such that an opening at an inner surface of the wand has a greater surface area than a corresponding opening at an outer surface of the wand.”
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 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights