DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang CN 115475345 A.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Zhang teaches a fire-extinguishing agent spray device (figure 1) comprising: a spray container (14) for storing a fire-extinguishing agent (16), and comprising an inwardly convex container bottom surface (inwardly convex bottom surface of 14 shown in figure 1); and a siphon tube (13) in the spray container (13 shown within 14 in figure 1), and comprising a lower end adjacent to the container bottom surface and having an inclination angle with respect to a reference line based on a center of an inner surface of the container bottom surface (lower end of 13 shown in figure 1 below with an inclination angle of 0 degrees relative to reference line passing through center of the container bottom); and teaches a discharge valve (12) coupled to an upper end of the spray container (12 coupled to upper end of 14 in figure 1); wherein a distance (h) from the lower end of the siphon tube to the inner top point of the container bottom surface is calculated as follows: h = pi*r2/2pi*r + p, wherein rt represents an inner radius of the siphon tube, and wherein p represents a pitch of a thread for assembling the siphon tube to the discharge valve (position of siphon tube 13 relative to bottom of container in figure 1 can follow this formula, where no values are given within the formula to limit the distance the siphon tube is from the bottom).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Zhang
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Zhang teaches the siphon tube comprises an upper end connected to the discharge valve (upper end of 13 connected to 12 in figure 1).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Zhang teaches the siphon tube comprises a hollow tube (tube 13 shown as hollow in figure 1 for passing agent 16 through tube to valve 12).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Zhang teaches the reference line is based on an inner top point of the container bottom surface (reference line as shown in figure 1 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Zhang teaches the reference line is a horizontal line passing through the inner top point of the container bottom surface (horizontal reference line as shown in figure 1 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Zhang teaches the inclination angle of the lower end of the siphon tube (lower end of 13) is about 0 degrees or more (lower end of 13 shown as parallel to reference line in figure 1 above, such that the angle is 0 degrees).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Zhang teaches the inclination angle of the lower end of the siphon tube is equal to or less than an inclination angle of the container bottom surface (lower end of 13 shown at zero degrees, and the bottom surface is convex, such that the lower end of 13 will be less than an inclination angle of the bottom).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Zhang teaches the inclination angle of the lower end of the siphon tube is about 10 degrees or less (lower end of 13 shown as parallel to reference line in figure 1 above, such that the angle is 0 degrees).
In regards to Independent Claim 11, Zhang teaches a fire-extinguishing agent spray device (figure 1) comprising: a spray container (14) for storing a fire-extinguishing agent (16), and comprising an inwardly convex container bottom surface (inwardly convex bottom surface of 14 shown in figure 1); and a siphon tube (13) in the spray container (13 shown within 14 in figure 1), and comprising a lower end adjacent to the container bottom surface and having an inclination angle with respect to a reference line based on a center of an inner surface of the container bottom surface (lower end of 13 shown in figure 1 below with an inclination angle of 0 degrees relative to reference line passing through center of the container bottom); and teaches a discharge valve (12) coupled to an upper end of the spray container (12 coupled to upper end of 14 in figure 1); wherein a distance (h) from the lower end of the siphon tube to an inner top point of the container bottom surface is calculated as follows: h = (pi*rt2 - (2pi*rt2 x tan theta)) / 2pi*rt + p, wherein rt represents an inner radius of the siphon tube, wherein p represents a pitch of a thread for assembling the siphon tube to the discharge valve, and wherein θ represents the inclination angle of the lower end of the siphon tube with respect to the reference line based on the center of the inner surface of the container bottom surface (position of siphon tube 13 relative to bottom of container in figure 1 can follow this formula, where no values are given within the formula to limit the distance the siphon tube is from the bottom).
Claims 12, 14-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi KR 20030024769 A.
In regards to Independent Claim 12, Choi teaches a fire-extinguishing agent spray device (figure 2) comprising: a spray container (103) for storing a fire-extinguishing agent (112 and abstract) and comprising an outwardly convex container bottom surface (103 has outwardly convex bottom as shown in figure 2); and a siphon tube (113) in the spray container (as shown in figure 2), and comprising a lower end (bottom of 113 in figure 2) adjacent to the container bottom surface and having an inclination angle with respect to a reference line based on a center of an inner surface of the container bottom surface (lower end is at 0 degrees relative to reference line through center of bottom surface of 103 in figure 2); and a discharge valve (105) coupled to an upper end of the spray container (105 coupled to upper end of 103 in figure 2), a distance (h) from the lower end of the siphon tube to the inner bottom point of the container bottom surface is calculated as follows: h = pi*r2/2pi*r + p, wherein rt represents an inner radius of the siphon tube, and wherein p represents a pitch of a thread for assembling the siphon tube to the discharge valve (position of siphon tube 113 relative to bottom of container in figure 2 can follow this formula, where no values are given within the formula to limit the distance the siphon tube is from the bottom).
PNG
media_image2.png
558
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Choi
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Choi teaches the siphon tube comprises an upper end connected to the discharge valve (upper end of 113 attached to 105 in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Choi teaches the siphon tube comprises a hollow tube (113 shown as a hollow tube in figure 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Choi teaches the reference line is based on an inner bottom point of the container bottom surface (reference line is at inner bottom point of 103 in figure 2 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Choi teaches the reference line is a horizontal line passing through the inner bottom point of the container bottom surface (horizontal reference line as shown in figure 2 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 18, Choi teaches the inclination angle of the lower end of the siphon tube is about 0 degrees or more (lower end of 113 shown as parallel to reference line in figure 2 above, such that the angle is 0 degrees).
Regarding Dependent Claim 21, Choi teaches a support part (support in figure 2 below) for supporting a lower end of the spray container (103).
PNG
media_image3.png
608
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Choi
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) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Meng CN 116603191 A.
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Choi teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Choi does not teach that the distance from the lower end of the siphon tube to the inner bottom point of the container bottom surface is about three times the pitch of the thread between the siphon tube and discharge valve. Meng teaches that the closer the siphon is to the bottom of a container, the more extinguishing agent can be released to the maximum extent during the releasing process, so that the extinguishing agent can be used more efficiently (paragraph [0039]). Therefore, the distance from the bottom of the siphon tube to the container bottom surface, as well as the ratio of the distance to the pitch of the threads between the siphon tube and valve, are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. variables which achieve a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that decreasing the distance between the siphon tube and the bottom of the container releases more extinguishing agent and more efficiently uses the extinguishing agent in the container. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the distance between the siphon tube and bottom surface can be reduced, was disclosed in the prior art by Meng, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a distance between the siphon tube and the bottom of the container that is about 3 times the pitch of the thread, in order to use the extinguishing agent in the device more efficiently (paragraph [0039]). It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., values for the inner radius of the siphon tube and pitch of a thread for assembling the siphon tube to the discharge valve) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights