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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “communicating heat between the expanded fire suppressant flow to additional pressurized fire suppressant provided to the flow control device” in lines 11-12. The term “to” implies that heat flows from the expanded fire suppressant flow to the additional pressurized fire suppressant. Yet, an expanded fire suppressant flow possesses less heat than the additional pressurized fire suppressant. How does a flow with less heat transfer heat to a suppressant with higher heat? In fact, figure 1 appears to show that heat H flows from the source conduit 104 to the supply conduit 108 by way of the arrow. In applying the Wands factor, anyone and everyone of ordinary skill in the art knows that an expanded fluid possesses less heat than the compressed state of the same fluid. Even the rejected heat from the expanded fluid cannot be transferred to the compressed fluid without inputting additional energy.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "flow" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pressurized fire suppressant flow” in line 6. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “flow of a fire suppressant agent” recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "additional pressurized fire suppressant" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fire suppressant agent” recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “heat” in line 14. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “heat” recited in line 11.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “additional pressurized fire suppressant” in lines 14-15. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “additional pressurized fire suppressant” recited in lines 11-12.
The term “low” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “rate discharge” limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a protected space” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “protected space” recited in claim 1.
The term “high” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “rate discharge” limited by the claim is uncertain.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a high rate discharge (HRD) fire suppressant agent” in line 5. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fire suppressant agent” recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an LRD fire suppressant agent” in line 7. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fire suppressant agent” recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wall thickness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the other" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the other" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a pressurized fire suppressant agent.” It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fire suppressant agent” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a pressurized fire suppressant agent.” It appears to be a double inclusion of the “fire suppressant agent” recited in claim 1.
In claim 13, the recitation “an actuator operatively connected to the retainer and arrange switch the retainer” is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "fire" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a protected space” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “protected space” recited in claim 1.
The claims are replete with indefiniteness. Limited time for search and examination precludes a complete editorial review of the claims. Applicant is required to review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant should not misconstrue any lack of art rejection as an indication of allowable subject matter.
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, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hingst (2008/0184711; cited in the IDS filed on September 10, 2024).
Hingst discloses a method of controlling flow of a fire suppressant agent (argon or nitrogen; paragraph 0012) comprising:
at a fire extinguisher including a source conduit (conduit having valve 6), a flow control device 7, 10, 13 connected to the source conduit, and a supply conduit (conduit of path 14) connected to the flow control device and fluidly coupled therethrough to the source conduit, the supply conduit thermally coupled (by physical contact) to the source conduit;
receiving a pressurized fire suppressant flow at the source conduit;
communicating the pressurized fire suppressant flow to the flow control device through the source conduit;
expanding the pressurized fire suppressant flow with the flow control device (expansion occurs in expansion area 13) to generate an expanded fire suppressant flow;
communicating heat between the expanded fire suppressant flow to additional pressurized fire suppressant provided to the flow control device (heat exchange occurs in cooler 10); and
issuing the expanded fire suppressant flow (via outlet 18) to a protected space (environment; paragraph 0058) subsequent to communicating heat between the expanded fire suppressant flow to additional pressurized fire suppressant provided to the flow control device;
wherein the expanded fire suppressant flow in the supply conduit flows in a direction opposite the pressurized fire suppressant flow in the source conduit (see figure 1);
wherein the flow control device includes a nozzle or valve 6, 11 separating the source conduit from the supply conduit;
wherein the flow control device includes an orifice plate (the opening in valve 6 or 11) separating the source conduit from the supply conduit;
further comprising a pressure vessel 4 connected to the source conduit and fluidly coupled therethrough to the flow control device;
further comprising a pressurized fire suppressant agent contained with the pressure vessel;
further comprising a retainer 6 arranged along the source conduit having an active state (open state) and an inactive state (closed state), the retainer fluidly coupling a pressure vessel to the flow control device in the active state, the retainer fluidly separating the pressure vessel from the flow control device in the inactive state;
further comprising an actuator (actuator for valve 6) operatively connected to the retainer and arranged switch the retainer between the active state and the inactive state.
Conclusion
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