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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-13, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eckholm et al. (US Pub No 2013/0025888 A1).
Re claim 1, Eckholm et al. show an electronic cabinet (Fig. 4, 402) comprising:
mounting rails (paragraph 0016) for supporting electronic equipment (304);
at least one fire sensor (306/316); and
at least one fire extinguisher (402),
wherein the at least one fire sensor (316) is configured to detect a direction of a fire external to the cabinet (402).
Re claim 2, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire sensor (306) is configured to detect fire within (306) the cabinet and outside (316) the cabinet (paragraph 0021).
Re claim 3, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire sensor (306) comprises an internal fire sensor configured to detect fire within the cabinet (402) and an external sensor (316) configured to detect fire outside the cabinet (402).
Re claim 4, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire sensor (306) comprises a plurality of temperature sensors (paragraph 0021) located within the cabinet (402) and configured to detect a fire within the cabinet (402) and a location (paragraph 0037) of the fire within the cabinet (402).
Re claim 5, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire extinguisher (402) is configured to direct fire extinguishing material toward (404) the location of the fire within the cabinet (402).
Re claim 6, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire extinguisher (402) comprises a plurality of nozzles (406), with each nozzle configured to direct fire extinguishing material toward a different location within the cabinet (402).
Re claims 7 & 11, Eckholm et al. show a controller (202) configured to monitor the temperature sensors (306) and open one of the nozzles (406) configured to direct (paragraph 0037) fire extinguishing material toward the location of the fire within the cabinet (402).
Re claim 8, Eckholm et al. disclose the fire extinguishing material is a dry powder (paragraph 0031).
Re claim 9, Eckholm et al. disclose the fire extinguishing material is a non-conductive liquid (paragraph 0031).
Re claim 10, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire extinguisher (402) comprises at least one nozzle (406) configured to direct fire extinguishing material toward different locations within the cabinet (402).
Re claim 12, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire extinguisher (402) is configured to direct fire extinguishing material throughout the cabinet (402).
Re claim 13, Eckholm et al. disclose the at least one fire sensor comprises a temperature sensor configured to detect an air temperature of the air entering the cabinet (paragraph 0022).
Re claim 15, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire extinguisher comprises at least one nozzle (416) configured to direct fire extinguishing material away from the cabinet (402).
Re claim 16, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire extinguisher comprises at least one nozzle (406) configured to direct fire extinguishing material encircling (Fig. 3) the cabinet (402).
Re claim 17, Eckholm et al. show the at least one fire extinguisher comprises a plurality of nozzles (406/416), with each nozzle configured to direct fire extinguishing material in a different direction.
Re claim 18, Eckholm et al. show a controller (202) configured to monitor the at least one fire sensor and open one of the nozzles configured to direct fire extinguishing material in the direction of the fire external to the cabinet (paragraph 0037).
Re claim 21, Eckholm et al. Show the at least one fire extinguisher is configured to direct fire extinguishing material downwardly and away from an exterior surface of the cabinet (the air handling unit is moving air throughout the entire system, including downwardly, which will also direct fire extinguishing material coming from the fire extinguisher in a downward direction and away from an exterior surface of the cabinet).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckholm et al. (US Pub No 2013/0025888 A1) in view of Nazhand (US Pub No 2020/0406077 A1).
Re claim 19, Eckholm et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach the at least one fire extinguisher comprises a dispenser configured to eject fire extinguishing pods outward from the cabinet.
However, Nazhand shows the at least one fire extinguisher comprises a dispenser (Fig: 600) configured to eject fire extinguishing pods (601) outward.
The substitution of one known element (dispenser in Eckholm) for another (dispenser as shown in Nazhand) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the dispenser shown in Nazhand would have yielded predictable results, namely, a dispenser in Eckholm et al. to extinguish a fire (Eckholm – abstract; Nazhand – paragraph 0010).
Re claim 20, Eckholm et al. as modified by Nazhand show the dispenser (Nazhand – 600) is configured to eject the fire extinguishing pods (Nazhand – 601) encircling the cabinet (Eckholm – 402).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments directed toward newly amended claim 1, at the outset it should be noted that applicant appears to be focused on the embodiments of figures 1 and 3 while the embodiment relied upon is and has been figure 4. Further, applicant’s claims provide no details regarding the claimed “cabinet” and as such, the cabinet relied upon in the art is that of zone 402, to which the sensor 316, which is located outside of zone/cabinet 402, will is in fact configured to detect a direction of a fire external to the cabinet as now required by claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Eckholm and Nazhand would “require a complete redesign,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant also contends the combination of Eckholm and Nazhand would “change the principle of operation of Eckholm” however as both systems are specifically for extinguishing fires, it would seem both systems have the exact same principle of operation. A mere allegation that this would render Eckholm insufficient to complete this task is insufficient and applicant has provided no factual basis for this beyond describing the teachings of Nazhand. Furthermore, substituting one type of dispersal device with another is hardly going to change the principle of operation if the dispersal device is still activated and controlled in the same manner that it was before. Nazhand describes the disclosed balls as light and portable and the weight can be increased or decreased depending on functionality. Lastly, Eckholm makes reference to being compatible with various types of dispersant equipment and fire suppression materials and states that the disclosed invention may operate with any suitable fire suppression material or agent and that the material can be liquid, gas or solid material.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights