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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on June 12, 2024 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “base attaching means” in claim 3.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
It should first be noted that the pending claims of the instant application include a great number of indefiniteness issues which render the scope of the claims difficult to understand. As set forth below, this Office has made an attempt to identify as many of such indefiniteness issues as possible, as well as an attempt to properly apply prior art, based on what appears to be the intended scope of the claims. Applicant is hereby strongly encouraged to review the claims for compliance with the applicable paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112.
Regarding claim 1, on lines 7-9, the metes and bounds of the recitation, “...directed to a location, zones or said one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment locations installed within a mobile trailer, machine or implement” are not understood. In addition to this recitation being stated in a manner which is generally unclear, the use of the word “or” in this recitation can only be read so as to set forth two different and distinct options (i.e. basically any “location” or “zones”, or “within a mobile trailer, machine or implement”). However, the remaining body of claim 1, as well as the claims depending therefrom, seem to suggest that the limitations associated with the “mobile trailer, machine or implement” are positively required.
Further, regarding claim 1, on line 10, the recitation, “at a potentially potential heat or fire source locations” is unclear. First, it should be noted that this statement is grammatically incorrect. Also, what are the metes and bounds of “potentially potential”?
Further, regarding claim 1, on lines 10-12, the syntax of the recitation, “wherein said at least one temperature sensor detects a fire or elevated heat event sends a wireless communication signal to said central wireless transmitter module” renders the recitation unclear.
Further, regarding claim 1, on lines 13-14, the recitation, “said at least one set of remote fire suppression equipment” is somewhat unclear. Antecedent basis for the “...remote fire suppression equipment” is for “one or more sets” (see line 5 of claim 1), and not for “at least one set”.
Further, regarding claim 1, on each of lines 17 and 19, the word “machinery” is somewhat unclear. What is the relationship between this “machinery” and the “machine” introduced on line 8 of claim 1?
Regarding claim 2, on lines 1-2, the preamble recitation, “using a wireless communication system fire suppression system using a wireless communication system” is unclear. What does this mean?
Further, regarding claim 2, on lines 6-7, the recitation, “at least one corresponding remote temperature sensor” is unclear. What is the relationship between this newly introduced “at least one corresponding remote temperature sensor” and the “at least one temperature sensor” introduced on line 9 of claim 1?
Further, regarding claim 2, on lines 7-8, the recitation, “each set of said fire suppression equipment defining at least one pressurized tank or pressurized foam cartridge bundle” is unclear, particularly in light of the recitations of claim 1. More specifically, lines 5-6 of claim 1 essentially requires that each set of “fire suppression equipment” includes “at least one tank containing a pressurized fire suppression foam content”. Thus, it cannot be discerned as to how the recitation on lines 7-8 further limits the requirements of claim 1.
Further, regarding claim 2, on lines 8-11, the recitation, “connecting delivery tubing or directional hose to and leading from said tank or cartridge bundles to one or more dispersal spray nozzles directly connecting to said pressurized tank or tank bundle through at least one remote check valve” is thoroughly indefinite for a number of reasons. First, this entire recitation reads as if it is a process step, yet the claim is clearly drawn to an apparatus. Also, this recitation refers to “said tank” and “said pressurized tank”, which creates further confusion with respect to the previously discussed issue on lines 7-8 of claim 2. Further, this recitation refers to “said...cartridge bundles” and “said...tank bundle”, which also creates further confusion with respect to the previously discussed issue on lines 7-8 of claim 2. Also, the reference to “one or more dispersal spray nozzles” is unclear. What is the relationship between this newly introduced “one or more dispersal spray nozzles” and the “one or more dispersal spray nozzles” introduced on lines 6-7 of claim 1?
Further, regarding claim 2, on lines 11-12, the use of the term, “remote check valve” is unclear. A “check valve” by definition is inherently a passive, self-actuating device which allows flow in only one direction, and automatically closes to prevent backflow. In the instant application (including the specification), the disclosed and claimed “check valve” is essentially “activated” by the elements of the control system. Thus, it is noted, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Further, regarding claim 2, on line 11, the recitation, “said dispersal spray nozzle” is unclear. Is this a particular “dispersal spray nozzle” of the “one or more dispersal spray nozzles” introduced in claim 1, and (indefinitely) re-introduced in claim 2?
Further, regarding claim 2, on lines 12-14, the recitation, “...to said location, zones or said one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment locations installed within a mobile trailer, machine or implement” is unclear. In addition to this recitation being stated in a manner which is generally unclear, this recitation is also indefinite for essentially the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., the first specifically-noted issue regarding claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 3, on lines 1-2, the preamble recitation, “using a wireless communication system fire suppression system using a wireless communication system” is unclear. What does this mean?
Further, regarding claim 3, on lines 2 and 12, the references to “said remote temperature sensor” lack clear antecedent basis. Claim 1 introduces, “at least one temperature sensor”. Thus, not only is it unclear whether or not claim 3 is referring to each of the “at least one temperature sensor”, but it is also unclear what the term “remote” brings to this recitation in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, on lines 1-2, the preamble recitation, “using a wireless communication system fire suppression system using a wireless communication system” is unclear. What does this mean?
Further, regarding claim 4, on lines 2-3, the reference to “...said remote temperature sensor” lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 1 introduces, “at least one temperature sensor”. Thus, not only is it unclear whether or not claim 4 is referring to each of the “at least one temperature sensor”, but it is also unclear what the term “remote” brings to this recitation in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, on lines 1-2, the preamble recitation, “using a wireless communication system fire suppression system using a wireless communication system” is unclear. What does this mean?
Further, regarding claim 5, on lines 2-4, the recitation, “wherein said base attaching means of said remote temperature sensor is magnetic or establish by an adhesive attaching said remote temperature sensor” is unclear. First, “said base attaching means...” lacks antecedent basis. Also, the references to “...said remote temperature sensor” lack clear antecedent basis. As previously discussed, claim 1 introduces, “at least one temperature sensor”. Thus, not only is it unclear whether or not claim 5 is referring to each of the “at least one temperature sensor”, but it is also unclear what the term “remote” brings to this recitation in claim 5. It is also noted that “said remote temperature sensor” additionally appears on line 5 of claim5. Further, the syntax of the aforementioned recitation renders the recitation generally unclear.
Further, regarding claim 5, on line 4, the recitation, “said interior or exterior of said mobile trailer, machine or implement” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected, as well as the claims can be understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0001185, in view of Sandahl et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0401770 and Sjӧdin et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0016457.
As to claim 1, Anderson (see Figs. 1-8) shows a fire suppression system (100) comprising: a central transmitter module (102) which is disclosed as having wireless communication capabilities (see paragraphs [0018], [0029], [0031], [0034] and [0036]); a wireless display module (see paragraph [0043]); one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment (104; see paragraph [0019]) including at least one tank (220) containing a pressurized fire suppression agent (see Fig. 8, and paragraph[0083]), one or more dispersal spray nozzles (228) directed to one or more locations (e.g., P1 and/or P2) or zones (e.g., Zone 1 and/or Zone 2; see paragraph [0026]) installed within one of a mobile trailer, machine or implement (see paragraphs [0021], [0023] and [0025]); at least one remote temperature sensor (“one or more monitoring devices” referred to in at least paragraph [0038]) installed at one or more locations upon said trailer, machine or implement at a potential heat or fire source location, wherein said at least one remote temperature sensor can detect a fire or elevated heat event, and send a communication signal to said central transmitter module, which further can send a communication signal to said one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment to disperse said pressurized fire suppression agent to said fire or elevated heat event location (see paragraph [0040]), while contemporaneously and in real time send a wireless communication signal to said wireless display module (see paragraph [0043]) to alert an operator of said trailer, machine or implement as to a real time fire event and real time status of the fire suppression system in order to mitigate damage to said trailer, machine or implement. However, while Anderson expressly states that the pressurized fire suppression agent can be a “non-water” fire extinguishing agent (see again, paragraph [0083]), which broadly encompasses “foam content” fire suppression agents, Anderson does not expressly state an exemplary inclusion of “foam”. Also, as noted above, although the central transmitter module of Anderson is expressly disclosed as having “wireless” capabilities, Anderson does not expressly state that the communication signals between the at least one remote temperature sensor, the central transmitter module, and the one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment are transmitted wirelessly. Further, Anderson does not expressly disclose inclusion of a remote fire suppression module in signal communication between the central transmitter module and the one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment.
As to the recitation regarding “fire suppression foam content”, Sandahl broadly discloses a sensor-controlled fire suppression system which includes a central wireless transmitter module (12) designed to receive wireless signals (see paragraph [0074]) from at least one remote temperature sensor (36), wherein the central wireless transmitter module processes such signals and wirelessly communicates signals to one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment (20) to disperse a fire suppression agent from at least one pressurized tank (78) of the one or more sets of equipment (see paragraph [0067]). Sandahl also teaches incorporating the system into a wide variety of applications, including “vehicles” (see paragraph [0070]), which may include “agricultural vehicles” (see paragraph [0101]), and that the type of fire suppression agent should essentially be tailored to the pre-determined application of the system, with at least one exemplary agent expressly being “foam” (see again, paragraph [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, for example, a foam fire suppression agent, as taught by Sandahl, for the “non-water” fire suppression agent disclosed by Anderson, when the particular potential heat or fire source location is determined to be best protected by such a foam agent.
As to the recitations regarding the transmission of “wireless” communication signals between the at least one remote temperature sensor, the central transmitter module, and the one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment, as discussed above, Sandahl teaches this concept. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wireless communication, as taught by Sandahl, between the at least one remote temperature sensor, the central transmitter module, and the one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment of the Anderson system, thus eliminating the need for wires therebetween, which would reduce the number of required parts of the system and simplify implementation thereof.
As to the inclusion of a remote fire suppression module in signal communication between the central transmitter module and the one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment,
Sjӧdin broadly discloses a vehicle-mounted sensor-controlled fire suppression system (10) which includes a central wireless transmitter module (300) designed to receive signals (see paragraph [0040], [0063] and [0064]) from at least one remote temperature sensor (80; see paragraph [0046]), wherein the central wireless transmitter module processes such signals and wirelessly communicates signals to one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment (including 74; see paragraph [0048]) through a remote fire suppression module (200; see paragraph [0040]) to disperse a fire suppression agent from at least one pressurized tank (e.g., 430, 431, 432; see paragraph [0056]) of the one or more sets of equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a remote fire suppression module, as taught by Sjӧdin, for communication between the central wireless transmitter module and the one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment of the (modified) Anderson system, thus allowing thorough processing of the wireless signals for accurately addressing a detected heat of fire source location.
As to claim 2, modified Anderson shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, and further, (modified) Anderson shows the one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment as including delivery tubing or directional hose (230) connected to and leading from the at least one pressurized suppression agent tank (220) to the one or more dispersal spray nozzles (228), through at least one remote valve (226; see paragraphs [0087]-[0088]). As to the remaining recitations in the claim, as well as understood, such are merely functions that follow with the use of the prior art applied above.
As to claim 4, modified Anderson shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1, and further, (modified) Anderson shows at least one of the one or more sets of remote fire suppression equipment as being installed and directed to one or more of the recited options located on the mobile trailer, machine or implement (see Fig. 3; and see paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). As to the remaining recitations in the claim, as well as understood, such are merely functions that follow with the use of the prior art applied above.
As to claim 6, since the claim has been identified and rejected as an “omnibus” type claim, the claim cannot be said to have any definitive limiting meaning in a patentable sense. Thus, the claim is also rejected under the prior art applied above.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected, as well as the claims can be understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, as modified and applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL Document “U” to “Alta...”, as cited in the PTO-892, included herewith.
As to claim 3, modified Anderson shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1. However, modified Anderson is silent as to the particular features of the at least one remote temperature sensor, whereby the or each sensor comprises an encasement comprising a base attaching means, an internal power supply, a temperature probe pivotally attached to the encasement, a transmission antenna pivotally attached to the encasement, an internal probe module attached to the temperature probe, and a wireless signal antenna module attached to the transmission antenna, with the internal probe module and the wireless signal antenna module attached, respectively, to a sensor control module which is programmable as to a selected temperature range.
One having ordinary skill in the art, when considering the prior art to modified Anderson, would be motivated to find a known construction of a remote wireless temperature sensor which would be suitable for use with the fire suppression system of modified Anderson. Alta shows examples of a known wireless remote temperature sensor which would clearly be suitable for use with the modified Anderson system, wherein the wireless remote temperature of Alta includes an encasement (see, for example, that shown on page 6, as well as discussion of “enclosures” on page 7) comprising a base attaching means (at least the example shown on page 6 clearly includes a base having features which clearly are intended to attach the base to a desired surface), an internal power supply (“pre-installed battery”; see, for example, that disclosed on page 6), a temperature probe (for example, that shown at the top of page 3, which is shown as optionally being connected to the sensor encasement on page 6) pivotally attached (the temperature probe shown on page 6 includes a flexible leader element which can be pivoted in virtually any direction) to the encasement, a transmission antenna (clearly shown on at least page 6) pivotally attached (exemplary pivoting of the antenna is clearly shown proximate the center of page 6; and under the “Technical Specification” on page 6, the antenna is described as including a “swivel neck”) to the encasement, an internal probe module (implicitly included, based on the connection of the temperature probe to the encasement, as shown, because the probe would not function without such a module being included) attached to the temperature probe, and a wireless signal antenna module (implicitly included, based on the connection of the transmission antenna to the encasement, as shown, because the antenna would not function without such a module being included) attached to the transmission antenna, with the internal probe module and the wireless signal antenna module attached to a sensor control module (implicitly included in order to function as described throughout the NPL document, such as with the features and functions discussed under “General Description”, “Key Features” and “Features of Monnit ALTA Sensors” on page 1) which is programmable as to a selected temperature range (under the “Key Features” section, the temperature threshold range is stated to be “Configurable...for critical condition monitoring”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more known remote wireless temperature sensors, such as that taught by Alta, for the generically-disclosed one or more remote wireless temperature sensors of modified Anderson, since the modified Anderson system requires remote wireless temperature sensors, and Alta shows an exemplary construction of a remote wireless temperature sensor which would provide the necessary sensing and communication functions for the modified Anderson system. As to the remaining recitations in the claim, as well as understood, such are merely functions that follow with the use of the prior art applied above.
As to claim 5, modified Anderson shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claim 1 (as well as claim 3, which provides antecedent basis for the indefinitely-recited “base attaching means” of claim 5). However, the base attaching means of modified Anderson is not shown or described whereby it is magnetic or comprises an adhesive.
One having ordinary skill in the art, knowing that the at least one remote wireless temperature sensor of modified Anderson needs to be mounted in a particular location within the mobile trailer, machine or implement with which the fire suppression system is employed, would logically contemplate any number of possible, functionally-equivalent means for attaching the sensor base in the desired location(s); and magnets, as well as numerous known adhesives, which would be capable of performing such attaching functions, would be considered through normal experimentation and engineering expedience for reliably making such attachments, as magnets and adhesives were readily available before the instant application, and were well known for reliably attaching an element to a particular surface. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively employ one of either a magnetic or adhesive attaching means, as would be well within the ordinary skill of one in the art, for the base attaching means shown by modified Anderson (to include the sensor construction shown by Alta), thus reliably attaching the at least one sensor encasement to a particular surface in a manner which is functionally equivalent to the base attaching means implied by what is shown by Alta. As to the remaining recitations in the claim, as well as understood, such are merely functions that follow with the use of the prior art applied above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to McClellan, Lee et al., Duncan et al., Koga et al., Gulliksson, Koutsos, Gagnon and Davis et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752